From: eychaner@suncub.bbso.caltech.edu (Another casualty of applied metaphysics)
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Reply-To: eychaner@suncub.bbso.caltech.edu
Organization: Big Bear Solar Observatory, Caltech
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 06:40:44 GMT

os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group) writes:
>>I wrote:
>>
>>This, I really don't like.  It seems that what you're REALLY trying to do
>>is *discriminate* against the serious game-players ("gamers").
>
>"serious game-player" != "gamer"
>
>I spend about an hour a day studying, and about 6 hours a week playing
>a board game (Go), and I am most definately NOT a "gamer". 

Point taken.  By "serious game-player" I meant more someone who plays a
wide variety in games, and takes them semi-seriously.

>"Gamer" is a term which identifies the whole set of people who play
>the sorts of games mostly discussed in this group.

Huh.  I play many of the games discussed in this group, off and on, but I
don't consider myself a "gamer".  (At least not recently; I don't take my
gaming seriously enough to be a gamer.)  :-)

>>>rec.games.simulation       another good suggestion someone made.
>>
>>This is a more reasonable suggestion, but not all "gamer" games are purely
>>simulations; this hardly seems the place to discuss games like Civilization
>>or 1830 either.  Now, if we wanted to kick out all the WiF people...  :-)
>
>What exactly is 1830 if it isn't a simulation?  My understanding was
>that it simulated a stock market.  Or have I got the wrong game?

Well, now, Monopoly is a "simulation" in the same sense as 1830, but I
certainly wouldn't consider it a "gamer" game.  (Why is 1830 a "gamer"
game and Monopoly not?  They're about the same complexity.)  You see?

>Either "simulation" or "gamer" would seem to hit the mark about 95% of
>the time.  If the name conveys the spirit of what is to be discussed,
>and accurately hits most of the material -- what else do you need?

The problem is, I don't think that either hits the mark well enough.

>>Taking someone else's suggestion and modifying it, why not create the group:
>>
>>rec.games.family (or rec.games.traditional)
>
>rec.games.family and rec.games.traditional probably wouldn't generate
>enough news independently.  My view is that they are viable as a 
>combined group (ie: as rec.games.board, if a rec.games.board.<whatever>
>group was created to handle the simulation type games).

Not BOTH; either.  I simply offered two alternate names for the same group;
a group for the discussion of lighter, less serious, "non-gamer" games.  And
if you don't think they would have enough traffic to justify a split, then
WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING SPLITTING REC.GAMES.BOARD?  Creating rec.games.gamer
and moving 90% of the rec.games.board traffic there has the same effect as
creating rec.games.family and moving 10% of the traffic.  (In fact, I think
rec.games.family is BETTER, as it is certainly covers wider subject area,
encompassing not only board games but cards, dice, etc.)

>Maybe the best approach would be to start a mailing list, and see how
>busy it is for about a year.  If it gets good traffic, turn it into
>a newsgroup.

Uh, some of us don't like mailing lists.  Why not just create a "trial"
group, say, alt.games.family?  (I know, I know, alt... groups aren't made
available everywhere.  Well, neither are mailing lists.)

-G.
******************************************************************************
Glenn Eychaner, Big Bear Solar Observatory, California Institute of Technology
NSI/DECnet: SUNCUB::EYCHANER        Internet: eychaner@suncub.bbso.caltech.edu
USmail: 40386 North Shore Lane                eychaner_g@caltech.edu
        Big Bear City, CA  92314    Phone: (714) 866-5791 or (818) 356-4014
                                           (909) after November 14, 1992