Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Sunday, 15 Nov 1992 10:23:58 EST
From: Solipsist at Large <IK20001@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign

<<This is a second attempt to post.  If any of you *happen* to get
this article twice, I apologise.>>

Cbnorman says:
>I believe that a newsgroup devoted to campaigns will not only contain
>those messages which already exist in other newsgroups that are related to
>the subject.  The Campaign newsgroup will foster new discussions, promote
>new interest in campaigning, and serve as the starting ground for many
>(I hope) fine net-based story-campaigns that will be enjoyable reading
>for all.

The practical way to interpret this is:  I believe that there will be
lots of crossposting from other groups to this one, and people will
then be more likely to respond.  Further, since there is a group
devoted to it, people will write.

Very logical, I'll admit, but it doesn't bear up to experience.  First
off, lots of people resent crossposting.  Campaign ideas and methods
are integral to .misc -- the existance of the .campaign group would
lead to lots and lots of "this crap belongs on the .campaign group
so move it" messages.  A vital aspect of .misc would therefore be
lost.  Don't post a reply saying that isn't what you *mean* .campaign
to be -- that's what it *will* be, if it is unmoderated.

If, on the other hand, it is moderated, then you will have a place
where messages of lasting content dealing with the subject matter
will appear.  In other words, stuff that belongs on the low traffic
.archives group.  If it neither repairs a problem or improves a condition,
it is a worthless `innovation.'  The other possibility is a discussion
group based around `debate' filtered by a moderator.

Go take a look at rec.games.cyber before the auto-posting software.
Bear in mind that r.g.c was done pretty well.  I have no such faith
for .campaign.

>You have your beliefs, and I have mine, but in the end it is the net
>that will decide.  I'm sure that either of us will accept the results
>from a formal CFV.

Agreed.  Partially because no one will have any choice.  However,
whenever *anyone* retreats to the position "we have differences
of opinion, but the consensus will decide," he has stopped defending
his beliefs.  He is throwing himself on the mercy of the court.
This is a call for discussion -- that the net will decide is implicit.
We will then (hopefully) abide by that decision and not have lasting
personality conflicts (like the nasty buisness that propegated for
a month after the rec.games.frp split -- a split I was against.  However,
when the majority has ruled *by* the rules, you move on).

It is my position that a .campaign group is unnecessary from a traffic
stadpoint, and would hurt the overall cross-fertilization of ideas
throughout the rest of the r.g.f.* hierarchy.  If it is unmoderated,
expensive crossposting and needless flames will result.  If it is
moderated, it will either result in needless duplication of services
already more than adaquetely covered, or else will become an unpopular
forum of the moderater's point of view.  I base this position on past
experience with the net and with the population of these groups.

As a postscript, if you look at all the other r.g.f.* subgroups,
they almost all deal with subjects a significant percentage of the readers
*don't* want to discuss.  Lots of people don't want to read postive/
negative debates on the merits of different games.  Thus, they
voted for .advocacy, which they then didn't subscribe to.  Lots of
people didn't want to read AD&D specific stuff -- thus .dnd.  The
same can be said for .marketplace, .archives, and so forth.  Even
.announce might be avoided by people who aren't interested.  You won't
get a single person voting for .campaign because "I don't want to
read any more of that damn campaign stuff."  That's like creating a
group for dice, or rules in general.  Campaigning is a common element
to all role-play (excepting those rare groups that make new characters
for every game they play, or other minority exceptions).  It is arguably
of interest to *every* reader of a r.g.f.* group.  Without people trying
to get rid of such posts, I don't see that the group even has a chance
of achieving 2/3rds of the vote (the necessary fraction to pass).
--
Eric Alfred Burns                        "Life is full of decisions
Solipsist at Large                        but you never get to make any."
"It's all in your mind"
IK20001@maine.maine.edu                           --Linus Van Pelt