From: fein@acsu.buffalo.edu (L. Fein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.empire
Subject: Re: UManitoba game applicants: READ!!!
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:10:03 GMT
Organization: Land Of Faa Deity Bureau

In article <BvIAEo.J2n@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) writes:
>The following article, while intended partially as a rebuttal, has been
>posted to the network because I felt that future potential deities could
>stand to learn something from this.  Also, past deities that have had
>site problems may also learn something from this, though if they haven't
>learned it already, well I don't think this will do it :-)
>
>Again, I stress that I am not intending on starting a flame war here.

	Yes you are Geoff :-)

>Far from it, the ONLY reason I allowed myself to post this article
>was because of the perceived value to deities.  Yes, part of it is rebuttal,
>but that is by no means sufficient reason to waste your time and mine.
>
>In article <1992Oct2.062136.4935@ccu.umanitoba.ca> roholdr@ccu.umanitoba.ca 
>(R Ross Holder Jr) writes:
>>In <BvDLKx.18I@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu 
>>(Geoff Cashman) writes:
>>>
>>>As of this writing, the people at UManitoba intending on running this
>>>  game have yet to advise their site administrators that a long term game
>>>  will be running on their system.  I have strongly advised them to nofity
>>>  the administration, but do not think that they will be informed. 
>>>  (This also was an untenable situation, and I don't think I could have
>>>  deitied under these circumstances).  As a result, the game could 
>>>  have problems with the site admin. 
>>
>>I am a PLAYER in this upcoming game - I just wanted to clarify the situation
>>here at ccu.umanitoba.ca.  Site administrators here are, to be perfectly
>>frank, inconsistent, discriminatory, and incredibly bureucratic.  
>
>There are many people who are relatively new to site administrations
>that feel as you do.  I don't know if you are "new" to site administrations
>("new" being less than ~3 years), but this sounds like it.  I, too, had 
>many many gripes with my former site's administrations policies
>(*wave* Hi University at Buffalo!) until I learned more about the how's
>and why's.  I was a royal pain to them until I learned their side of the
>problem. 

	Oh, c'mon Geoff.. you *are* a pain in the arse :-) But this guy...
It's trouble.. Never do something like this without telling the boss...


>
>>I don't
>>feel advertising the fact we're running a game would make it at all likely
>>a game would begin and 53 interested parties would be S.O.L. so far as this
>>is concerned.  Here's the facts:
>
>This may be true, but *not* telling them could result in the game 
>going down prematurely.  Many many players would be furious to know
>they put that much effort into their countries to have it go for naught.
>I have seen deities do this before, and it is fatally flawed reasoning.

	I would sure be pissed. Getting to that point in Bloodbath
and I still didn't get an update yet:)

>
>[various apparent "proofs" of UManitoba's inadequacies in site management
> deleted for brievety]
>
>All the examples you cited may in fact be valid from your point of view.
>They are also easy to support here in r.g.e when the opposing side has
>very little chance of rebuttal.  We're hearing one side of the coin, and
>as such this isn't telling me much about your site administration.
>I'm not saying they are right, I am saying that there are certainly many
>more factors involved in their actions. 
>

	*thud* Geoff CASHMAN? Taking the system adminstrators side? 
*thud*


>>I've concluded that provided the game doesn't interfere with system operation
>
>Occupying 5-10% of a CPU for months can be construed as interfering with
>system operation.  


	Actually, from experience, more like .1% of a cpu, except at updates
and THEN make it .5% It's really not CPU intensive. really.


>
>>and uses the resources we've already secured 
>
>"secured" as in how?  What if a person is logged into the console of 
>picard (the machine proposed for the game) and starts work on some
>research that requires a great deal of the attention of  the CPU?
>That person could possibly start tossing processes that were 
>chewing up 1/20th of the CPU into the can.  What exactly do you
>mean by "secured"?  Is this *your* machine?  Do you have any particular
>rights to it?  Is it a general user workstation, or does it sit in
>an office? 
>

	Threaten to turn off the chilled water :-) That should get
their attention. Or, nerve gas the guy at the console, and get the password
for root :)


>I'm sorry, but until the site administration knows that the machine
>will have processes running on it chewing up 5-10% of the cpu for
>months, you haven't "secured" anything.
>

	Except a big pain in the arse..

>>- there won't be a problem.
>
>Hmm...
>
>>It's good to hear this!  Although we do have, in fact, one other experienced
>>diety by my understanding.
>
>Any "experienced" deity willing to be an offsite deity for this game
>would be foolish given the constraints I would have had to have faced.
>Having access to the code is paramount for a deity.  Without it, you can
>not deity.
>

	I sure as sht wouldn't do it.... Not without an account on the machine



>			 - Geoff Cashman
>			   aka Mithrilien


	LOF, aka LOF