Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 01:28:07 EDT
From: Wendell G. Wren <WENDELL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud
Subject: Re: If a Mu* is down, Dont panic so quickly
 <fortony.712124914@murphy> <1992Jul27.070230.25731@leela.cs.orst.edu>
 <fortony.712256036@murphy>

>>would YOU rather get 1,000 stupid letters or see it 1 time on usenet?
>
>Or, phrased with reality in mind, "would you rather get 50 stupid letters
>or see it 50 times on usenet?"
   While I'd hope those who saw one posting asking about their favorite
   but downed Mud would refrain from posting again, it is a vain hope...
   probably because they whine first, and *then* go see if anyone knows
   what happened...
>
>>I am well aware what a posting goes through seeing as i am/have set up
>>our news server. My point is sorta that i get useful mail that i WANT
>>to see but cluttered with tons of stupid mail repeatedly is a major
>>pain. Also a mass delete will not work since its possible I could delete
>>something important.
>
>Look, fella.  It's not what *you* would rather have, but what the net
>would rather have.  USENET is read by hundreds of thousands of people
>daily.  You're not allowed to inconvenience them just because you can't
>deal with the stress of getting a few pieces of mail.
   It's not at all inconvenient to skip over queries of why xxxMUD is
   down...   much easier for me/us to ignore queries about Muds we don't
   play than for that administrator to sort through multiple mail files.
>
>If you can't handle the cluelessness of your players, then I suggest that
>you do something better with your time than administrate a MUD.  Or maybe,
>just maybe, you should put a note in your MUD news system to the effect
>that nobody should ask dumb questions until at least ten days have gone by,
   Do you *really* expect people not to ask no matter what might be
   requested?   C'mon Felix...  you're far more cynical than that...
   Just think of the inane postings to =paperdnd...
>and then only to you rather than the net.  Remember, your laziness is not
>a valid reason to waste my time and disk space.
   Look at it from this end...   said administrator need only reply
   ONCE to these postings, but he would have to reply to ALL mailfiles
   (assuming he'd waste time doing that instead of fixing the problem),
   so bandwidth wasted would be "50 stupid letters" plus 50 responses
   to stupid lettersY versus "50 times on usenet" versus one responseY.
   From a systems point of view, I prefer this alternative...  course,
   I'm not Adminstration, so it's not my decision, even if given a choice.
>
>If you can't handle the relatively simple task of weeding mail, then get
>a new mailreader.  Should be easy for someone who can set up a news server.
>
>You know, I'm guessing -- and this is just speculation, you understand --
>that you're running an LP.
>
>--
>a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
>Felix Sebastian Ortony  fortony@murphy.gis.uiuc.edu

                                       Wendell G. Wren
                                       Wendell@Maine.Maine.Edu
                                       01:58:58 Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.lp,rec.games.mud.misc