From: tom@soda.berkeley.edu (Tom Holub)
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Subject: Re: INCL Discussions
Date: 28 Jan 1993 04:16:09 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <YfNhWeC00VB4Ioy7Uj@andrew.cmu.edu> Greg K Chung <gc2n+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
)osyjm@cs.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen) writes:
)> The following items are up to be discussed very shortly in INLC.  Please
)> send either me (osyjm@cs.montana.edu, and I will forward them) or the
)> INLC (inlcouncil@cs.montana.edu) your thoughts/opinions.  Please try
)> to put the string 'INLC' in your subject, we all get a lot of mail, it helps
)> to be able to sort it a bit.
)> 
)
)I am posting my thoughts to rgn, for I feel no need for the secrecy
)that the INLC keeps.  In turn, maybe I can get some useful responses
)and maybe things can get going.

I guess the INL Council posts have just been drowned out by the
posts from the Scheduling IRG, eh? 

We are not secretive.  If you ask us what's going on, we'll tell you.
Every time we post something it starts a flame war, though, so it's
easier to keep quiet sometimes.

)Last summer, an @L team automatically won tie-breakers by merit of its
)@L status.  Last fall, an @L team had no special advantages due to its
)@L status.  There were only two distinction that an @L team had last
)fall.  First, an @L team was restricted to no more than 4 (half) its
)team playing from the same locale at any time.  Second, an @L team was
)empowered to specify its "home base" which allowed it to place itself
)in the division of its choosing.  Thus, we have a class of team with a
)major restriction (1) and a small advantage (2).  

You're missing a point here; the reason at-large teams are not allowed
to have more than 4 players from the same locale at any time is that
if you have more than that, you're not really an at-large team.  It's
not a restriction on the team, it's the definition of what 'at-large'
is.

)is unreasonable.  On the other hand, merely being able to specify your
)location is too little.  I suggest that @L teams have the special
)power to pick race FIRST or SECOND (3) the decision resting with the
)captain.  The order of picking between two @L teams can determined
)through the agreement of both captains, or by random choice (4).

In the next release of the INL server, the away team will get the
opportunity to PASS the first race choice.

)As a side note, if none of these ideas are adopted, I motion for the
)@L class to be eliminated.  Make all teams equal to all other teams
)categorically.

For all intents and purposes, the at-large class was already eliminated.
Their only privilege in the fall was the opportunity to choose their
home base, and this was only because it's difficult to tell where
the home base of an at-large team lies.

)Note 5:  Of course, Mojo Riser will vote this down.  It is apparent
)that he enjoys being in a weaker West with the intent that his mighty
)Golden Bears crush the other teams.  

Not only is this offensive, it shows no knowledge of the facts.  I
voted against geographical divisions, and if they are suggested again
I will vote against them again.  My scheduling proposal doesn't have
geographical divisions.

So fuck you.

)> 4)  Shorter games/vs 2 games ala Red Shirt's proposal and others like it.
)
)I find the two hour games fine.  It is possible to maintain a high
)intensity game for that long.  You can sit down and watch television
)for two hours straight, in general.  Sure, in an INL game you might
)have more of an adrenaline rush, but that's what Gatorade is for.  

I can't believe that someone who graduated high school is comparing
a high-intensity computer game to watching television.  Your metabolism
slows when you watch TV; do you think that's true in an INL game?
Watching TV is a sedentary, brainless activity, whereas in an INL
game you are active and focused.  Plus, when you're watching TV,
you get a break every 10 minutes.  Get a clue.
 -Tom