From: elandal@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.cyber
Organization: Chambers of the Archmage
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:34:32 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Laura Mollett (lmollett@lunatix.uucp) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec9.032848.7974@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi> elandal@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
: >This group is for discussing various aspects of cyberpunk genre
: >roleplaying and the rules of different cyberpunk roleplaying games.
: >All general roleplaying discussion belongs to rec.games.frp.misc, and
: >flames to rec.games.frp.misc.
: 
: Do you mean flames to .advocacy?  Tho it's not really for flames, it's for
: advocating for specific systems, but that does often include flames.

  Yes, I did mean .advocacy even though my fingers thought it easier to
repeat the previous pattern. And yes, I know .advocacy isn't exactly a
flames-group, but flames make a substantial part of the feed in it and
are the worst thing a serious discussion group could face.

: My problem is that I feel the proposal of rec.games.frp.cyber is a little
: premature.  I have been getting the impression that the most successful votes
: for new groups come from a within group discussion of exactly what is needed
: before an official RFD goes to news.groups and a pretty clear idea of the
: charter goes with it.  I think a lot of the .frp group is opposed to splitting
: along genre lines, which is what this is proposing.  There is also a straw
: poll discussion still on-going (I think) in .advocacy for a group called
: rec.games.frp.shadowrun and I'm wondering why we're getting two at the same
: time for the same thing.  Does .cyber supercede the .shadowrun group.  Are
: those people as happy with this group? etc.  Also changing the charter of a
: group a whole lot between the RFD and the CFV is very confusing (as witnessed
: by the continuing changing charter of the .campaign group which never came to
: a vote).

  I think there was discussion about moving r.g.c to .frp hierarchy in
r.g.c, and that was well towards RFD. I posted the RFD because to me it
seemed that the discussion in r.g.c was coming to end and it was time
for the RFD.
  I hadn't written the charter beforehand because I thought it would be
best to hammer that out of r.g.c charter in the discussion following the
RFD since otherwise many people wouldn't just notice the discussion.
Also I don't believe it's much work after I get the charter of r.g.c
(should get it soon).

: Not all the people who have been asking for a cyber group recently are happy
: with this, and the shadowrun people have been considering starting their
: own group.  There seem to be two current proposals (only yours official) for
: the same thing.  That's what I was worrying about.

  And that's one thing we should seriously discuss now. I hadn't noticed
shadowrun discussion being THAT far, although I knew there was
discussion (but thinking about how long there was discussion about
splitting r.g.frp in the first place...)

: >The vote will be in two parts:
: >1) unmoderating rec.games.cyber
: >2) moving rec.games.cyber to rec.games.frp.cyber
: >
: >OK, I heard that moving has to be worded differently ("Create
: >rec.games.frp.cyber unmoderated and remove rec.games.cyber if this vote
: >passes."), but it's essentially the same.
: >
: No it isn't really the same thing.  In my opinion rec.games.frp.cyber doesn't 
: fit the basic idea of splits that have been maintained in the heirarchy and
: you are proposing changing the charter of the .cyber group as you "move" it.
: That's actually creating something new, not just moving it.

  Hmm.. I see the difference now. Would it then be better to keep the
charter unchanged and just vote for the move? Unmoderation vote would
still be there, since moving would mean r.g.f.cyber would still be
moderated, wouldn't it?

: Ok.  Let me make it a little clearer.  I'm in favor of remove grouping the
: .cyber group.  As I understand it remove grouping and creating a whole new
: group is about the only way to truly unmoderate a group.  Otherwise some sites
: continue the group as moderated and the previous moderator gets mail forever.
: So I'd like to see the group removed (it seems to me basically dead now 
: anyway) and the traffic directed to .misc where all the people who are in
: favor of some form of .cyber split of the .frp heirarchy could get together
: and come up with _one_ proposal that seems like it might work, or it could
: be determined that even with everyone in the same place, there isn't enough
: traffic or game specific discussions to warrent a split.  Then (if it's still
: wanted) a RFD and a CFV on the new group.  I've seen 3 or 4 various and
: sundry ideas for a .cyber group in the last say, 3 or 4 months or so, so
: several people must want one, but no real consensus on what it should be...
: rec.games.frp.cyber, or .shadowrun, or .fasa, or .darkfutures or whatever.
: I'd like to see all the people discussing it all in one place.

  As far as I know, .fasa was discarded fast. .darkfuture didn't get
much support either. .cyber I knew better than .shadowrun since I did
follow r.g.c more than Shadowrun discussion, and now I'm no more sure
which one has more support.
  One reason for the lack of traffic in r.g.c might be moderation. Delay
from posting a message to it's appearance in r.g.c is two days here (I'm
UUCP) and even longer in some hosts I know, and I'm quite sure they
aren't the only UUCP sites polling once a day. And the delay was longer
when it wasn't auto-moderated.. Traffic dropped quite a lot from the
creation to what it's now.

  I'm not sure what should be done now.. I've got supporting comments,
but as well I've got quite discouraging comments. One of the things that
has been noted several times was that perhaps we should have a vote to
remove r.g.c and another to create r.g.f.c. Perhaps that would be better
than trying to move it with one vote. More comments on this one?
-- 
Elandal		(aka Ismo Peltonen)			| Hanuripolku 5B15
home (UUCP)	elandal@archtwr.tower.NullNet.FI	| 00420 Helsinki
Univ (internet)	ipeltone@cc.Helsinki.FI			| FINLAND
data		+358-0-5072005			voice	+358-0-537515