From: towel@elcsci.com (Big Wilber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: Re: MISC: After the Survey on splitting...
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:30:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: elcsci.1993Jan21.123047.1865
Organization: Electro Scientific Industries, Portland OR

In article <1993Jan20.135545.25505@athena.mit.edu>, dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.003806.1861@elcsci.com>, towel@elcsci.com (Big Wilber) writes:
> |> In article <1993Jan18.115443.15114@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
> |> > In article <1993Jan17.125822.25193@athena.mit.edu> dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:
> |> > 
> |> > ) .misc
> |> > ) .adventure   <==These two could be
> |> > ) .rpg         <==merged if desired.
> |> > ) .flight
> |> > ) .simulation
> |> > ) .strategic
> |> > ) .action
> |> > ) .advocacy
> |> > ) .announce
> |> > )
> |> > )This is 9 subgroups. Still a little large. If more cutting-down is desired,
> |> > )move advocacy into misc, merge adventure with rpg, and merge simulation
> |> > )with flight, for a total of 6 subgroups.
> |> > )
> |> > )Daniel Silevitch                                 dmsilev@athena.mit.edu
> |> > )Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> |> > 
> |> > Anyone out there strongly in favor of .simulation?  If there is someone
> |> > out there really attached to it it should probably go to the vote.
> |> > 
> |> > I however, am *against* putting .simulation on the list unless there is
> |> > someone who feels that it is very important, as I feel it will only confuse
> |> > the issue and lead to xposting.
> |> > 
> |> > Other than that, I could go with this list.  [I will vote against .action
> |> > personally, but I don't feel as strongly about it's confusion potential
> |> > as I do about the problems with .simulation.]
> |> > 
> |> > Actually, is there anyone out there strongly for .action? :-)
> |> > 
> |> 
> |> is there anyone out there that feels that chess should go in the same group with
> |> harpoon.  that's what the group ".strategic" implies
> |> 
> |> personally, i'm much more comfortable with .simulation, than with .strategic
> |> 
> 
> When I play Harpoon, I think of it as a giant chess game :)  I don't see what
> your objection is to having harpoon and chess in the same group. If you look
> at the proposed RFD, the description of strategic would clearly encompass both
> harpoon and chess (probably two of the best examples of the strategic gametype)
> 
> Daniel Silevitch                          dmsilev@athena.mit.edu
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I don't object to chess going into the same group specifically.  I'm really
thinking along the lines of clear organizational seperation.  ask yourself
this, "if I want to read messages about chess, go, mah jong, etc., do I want
to have to plow through 200 messages concerning harpoon, V4V, etc. to get to
them"

in my opinion, which I'm afraid is not very humble, there should be a
.wargames group and a .strategy group

and all of my previous messages about the need for clear organizational
seperation still apply.
 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Lee Towe                                       Towel@elcsci.com |
| MIS computer operations                        ^(@,@)^ Who..Who |
| Electro Scientific Industries                                   |
| Portland, Oregon, USA                    compuserve: 70614,1721 |
|     Caution: if you use UNIX, you just might turn into one      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games