Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH - no new group?
From: phygod72@nic.gac.edu (Phil )
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:22:05 -0600

In article <1992Oct7.091331.21425@netcom.com>  writes:
} In article <16050@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)  
writes:
} >I don't know whether a separate group for BattleTech would encourage  
postings
} >on other games, but I suppose it couldn't hurt.  There's a clear need for
} >such a group and no one objected, as far as I saw.  What happened to that
} >idea?  I hope someone is pursuing it!
} 
}     ___
}      |he person who initiated discussion of a rec.games.rpg[frp].board
}  group hasn't sent in a CFV on any groupname, yet.  I'm waiting to see
}  what they do, if anything, and whether it passes or not.  Depending
}  on what happens with that, I may submit an RFD on rec.games.mecha,
}  myself.
}      _
}     (_
}     __)o yes, at least two people (the poster of the rec.games.rpg[frp].
}  board RFD, and myself) are persuing it.  Others may be persuing it, as
}  well, but it's not a good idea to have multiple RFDs/CFVs current for
}  similar groups.  The confusion generated is likely to result in none
}  of them geting passed.
} 


There is a CFV for rec.games.abstract out there right now.  BattleTech does  
fall within the group's charter, which means that you should vote for the  
group!!!  Here is a copy of the post, but note that you should direct replies  
to the name in the article (neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk), and ***NOT*** to me, as it  
will disqualify your vote!!!

Begin copied message:

This is the SECOND Call For Votes (CFV) on the creation of usenet newsgroup
rec.games.abstract.  During the 30 day discussion period there were
no serious objections to the group, or the proposed name.  I have
appended the charter.

To cast your vote, send email to neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (you can reply
to this message ***NOT THIS ONE - MAIL DIRECT!!!***).

To vote against the group, send a message containing the line:

        I vote NO for rec.games.abstract as proposed

To vote for the group, send a message containing the line:

        I vote YES for rec.games.abstract as proposed

The voting will close at midnight, 27th October.

Follow-ups directed to news.groups

Neil Bowers
neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk

				---===---

Group Name
----------

	rec.games.abstract

Status
------

	Unmoderated

Rationale
---------

	Abstract Strategic and Tactical games are an acknowledged genre,
	but there is no obvious group for discussion of this topic.
	The more popular games (eg chess and go) have their own group,
	but these are not the correct place to discuss games such as
	reversi.  As rec.games.board has been accepted as a forum for
	war- and other commercial board games, discussion of the
	topics listed below would interrupt the flow of that group.

	rec.games.abstract would provide a focus for discussion which
	currently appears in a number of groups, often to the annoyance
	of readers.  It is not intended to replace or detract from any
	existing groups, but to complement them.

	The design and implementation of programs to play such games is
	another topic with no group.  rec.games.programmer is too general.
	The creation of rec.games.abstract  was partly prompted by the
	proposal for comp.games.research.

Charter
-------

	The newsgroup would be for discussion of abstract games where
	strategy, tactics and player skill are paramount.  This includes
	the major category of perfect information, pure-strategy
	(deterministic) games, i.e. those with no element of chance (e.g.
	no dice), and where all information is available (unlike card games
	and Scrabble, for example, where players' hands are hidden).  The
	games under consideration are characterised by a simple board and
	pieces, with a small number of rules.  The cliche `a minute to
	learn, a lifetime to master' is often applied.

	o	discussion of less mainstream abstract games,
		which do not warrant a group of their own.

	o	design and implementation issues for computer players.

	o	develop generic code for computer programs,
		such as board widgets, alpha-beta and other algorithms.

	o	introduce each other to new games, thus finding new
		opponents.

	o	discuss strategy & tactics for human players.

	o	what makes a {good,fun,hard,popular} abstract game?
		Will playing X be detrimental/beneficial to my Y playing? etc.

	o	ask `experts' for rule clarification.

	o	catalogue known abstract games, variations, genealogy,
		sources of equipment, literature, clubs.

	o	maintain a list of email opponents for various games.

	o	catalogue available computer programs for these games.

	o	maintain a FAQ, outriggers could be posted to other groups,
		get a mention in appropriate FAQs.

	o	propose and discuss new games or mechanisms

	o	puzzles for games other than chess et al.

	o	organise tournaments for various (obscure) games.

	o	organise an ftp archive, where useful information and games
		programs can be held.

	o	vote for the best and the worst abstract game of the year
		(or month or ever!)

	o	generally have fun in a decent way

end copied message.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board