From: bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:32:52 +1100
Organization: Werple, Public Access *NIX, Oz
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval

In article <1993Jan25.143358.7329@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>In article <1jqvs9INNj8d@werple.apana.org.au> bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan22.165456.24088@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:

>are interested in miniatures as an art form will find all those rules'
>discussion to be undesirable....
>
>I just think that it is too broad a scope for a good newsgroup - trying to
>group together FRP tabletop games with historical games with miniatures
>as hobby/art just seems too contrived.

rec.games.miniatures is a "games" group, so theoretically the art/hobby
crowd, who don't game should be looking at one of the *.models groups like 
alt.models. 

A couple of people seem seriously opposed to the creation of the group as
proposed and would like to see a hierarchy to separate the FRP/Sci -fi from 
the historical. A heirarchy is an alternative.

As the RFD is due for a re-issue anyway. I will amend it detailing this
topic as a priority point of discussion.

WHAT DOES EVERYBODY THINK? let's hear from everyone.

I am against a split or a heirarchy, at least until we see if this is going
to be a real problem or just something that cheeses you off. If the
FRP/fantasy traffic does get too heavy then perhaps a split can be justified

Rec.games.board readers have the same (percieved) problems as Gary and Pete
have mentioned and there have been no serious whinges about splits there, 
The historical boardgamer and the SF/Fantasy boardgamer seem to coexist
nicely. traffic is moderate and killfiles solve the "noise" problem

I think that there is enough of a crossover to maintain a single group
Many players cross-over and play different periods.

I think we should keep the same group to minimize crossposting for the
problem with creating heirarchies is that is dissipates the audience for any
topic, the audience for your post is reduced.

Either way, we have to have a firm proposal to vote on and thrashing it out
in discussion is what the RFD is for. I'm sure everybody would rather a
group or a heirarchy proposal was passed than the vote was defeated because 
we couldn't decide what we wanted.

rec.games.board have a method of posting that works against noise. 
simply put the name of your period or rules in the subject of the note and
just kill the ones you don't want.
A FAQ list could standardize this so there would be no ambiguities.

Should the proposal be changed? Based on the postings to news.groups and
the direct mail I've had, only a handful have raised a F&SF/historical
split as an issue, but If anyone wants to propose a heirarcy before we 
go to the vote, great. But I don't think that anyone can say there is a
concensus for a split.

A miniatures group or groups should get up as a result of the RFD/CFV
process. I think a single group should be created initially and if after
starting the group a split is found to be necessary, then that can be 
done.  Can we get concensus on that at least?

Bob.
From: chris@tisdec.tis.tandy.com
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:24 CST
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: News groups
Message-ID: <89600001@tisdec.tis.tandy.com>