From: randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua E. Randall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: Re: Proposed RFD: c.s.i.p.g reorg...  LONG!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 05:45:33 -0500
Organization: Yale University, Science & Engineering Unix, New Haven, CT
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu
Keywords: RFD split group

This is a long post, if you are not interested in this
subject then you can skip the rest of this article.

in article <11535@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> (dick sidbury) writes:
>we definitely need one group c.s.i.p.forsaleortradeorsomethinglikethat
> which is not in any other list.
>i don't believe people are going to create 5 mail messages to sell five games.

The "for sale" issue is a bit confusing.  First of all,
there already is a group appropriate for selling computer
games, namely 'misc.forsale.computer.other'.  Second, there
really aren't all that many posts about selling games, so a
group under c.s.i.p.g would be a bit of a waste.  Third,
alas, people will continue to post their for sale messages
to *any* group they think is relevant, so that they can get
the widest distribution.

The solution?  Don't create a c.s.i.p.g.forsale group.  Just
live with the few postings, and maybe gently suggest (via
E-mail, of course) that people post to m.f.c.o.

>but tell me, where do the following games fit:
>wc or wc2  action or sim

By our definition, WC is in '.action'.  Maybe this should go
in the charter?

>falcon 3.0  sim or action
>f15ii sim or action
>my point here is that some flight like games are not simulations and some are
>but i believe that they belong together

Good point.  The '.simulation' group should actually be
called '.flight-sim', to make it clear that it is only for
flight simulators.  Now the question -- what is a flight
simulator?  Well, let's say any game which attempts to
simulate the flight dynamics of a *real* plane (i.e. not WC)
and is not purely an action game (again, not wc).  So Falcon
3.0, F15 Strike Eagle, Microsoft Flight Simulator, and even
the old game Retaliator would go in '.flight-sim', as will
Strike Commander when it comes out.  But Wing Commander,
Mantis, and X-wing when it comes out do not go there but in
'.action' or perhaps '.misc'.

>what about civ or rr tycoon or simcity -- sim or strategy the distinction
>here is very difficult to see.

Well, if '.simulation' becomes '.flight-sim' as I suggest,
then this will not be a problem; Civilization, Railroad
Tycoon, SimCity and so forth are all strategy games.
*However*, the name of the group should be '.strategic' and
not '.strategy' in order to prevent confusion -- if it is
called the latter people might think it is for strategies on
how to win computer games in general.

BTW, wargames would also go in '.strategic' -- things like
The Lost Admiral, Harpoon, Empire.

>in conclusion, the groups need working on.

Well that is what we are doing now!  The more "work" we do
among ourselves, so to speak, the more smoothly the actual
RFD/CFV process will go.  I know from past experience that
the self-proclaimed "net.police" who frequent 'news.groups'
are extremely critical and insist that the rules, such as
they are, be followed to the letter.  Also keep in mind that
anyone who has a valid E-mail account can vote on group
creation, whether or not he intends to ever read those
groups.  So when this RFD gets posted, it better be tight as
a drum, or it'll fail.

======================

Someone else was saying that we could divide c.s.i.p.g up
the way Computer Gaming World divides their games.  This is
actually not a bad idea either.  Looking at my latest issue
of CGW I see that they have the following groups:

ADventure - Indy, Monkey Island, Quest for Glory
Role Playing - Ultima Underworld, Eye of the Beholder, Might & Magic
SImulation - Red Baron, Aces of the Pacific, Falcon 3.0
STrategy - Civilization, Solitaire's Journey, Tetris
WarGames - Perfect General, Warlords, Second Front
ACtion - Wing Commander, Castle Wolfenstein 3-D, Lemmings
SPorts - Hardball, Links, Jack Nicklaus Signature Golf

As you can see, they define their categories a little bit
differently.  They do, however, allow for overlap in some
areas, most notably ST-SI, AC-SI, and AD-RP.

Look, as long as the charters are clear and the
disitinctions among groups are just that -- distinct -- then
I, and probably most others, will vote for a reorganization.

-- 
Joshua E. Randall                       randall-joshua@yale.edu