RFD: rec.gambling.small-stakes
Marc Wortman
unmoderated group rec.gambling.small-stakes
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.gambling.small-stakes.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this
time. Procedural details are below.
Newsgroup line:
rec.gambling.small-stakes Small stakes home gambling.
RATIONALE: rec.gambling.small-stakes
Small stakes gambling is a topic currently discussed in many gambling
newsgroups, for the most part, in rec.gambling groups. However, these
groups are divided between subscribers of two different interests,
casino-and tournament-playing, and small stakes home gambling.
Further evidence of this division in interest is present in the
division in Internet representation between casino-oriented websites
and home-gambling-oriented websites. The suggested group would offer
a medium for those interested in small stakes home gambling discussion
as opposed to casino and tournament gambling discussion. These two
themes are related in that they concern gambling, yet discussion of
home gambling and that of casino gambling are entirely separate
themes. As well, due to limited accessibility for people worldwide to
casinos and tournaments, the suggested group would offer a medium for
those involved in home and small stakes gambling.
CHARTER: rec.gambling.small-stakes
For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
theme is predominantly small stakes poker, but open to the discussion
of such other small stakes gambling as other card games and dice
games. This medium is offered for those with more interest in the
smaller profit gambling between friends than the higher profit
gambling practiced in casinos and other commercial gambling
institutions. Welcome discussions include those of specific small
stakes games, small stakes gambling strategies, good small stakes
gambling etiquette, and stories of interest as they pertain to small
stakes gambling.
Commercial advertisements are not acceptable. Binary postings are not
acceptable.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
The RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
rec.gambling.poker
rec.gambling.misc
uk.rec.gambling.misc
rec.gambling.craps
rec.games.playing-cards
Proponent: Marc Wortman <ma...@execulink.com>
Bob Dainauski
(Liberal snipping of original.)
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:33:36 GMT, Marc Wortman <ma...@execulink.com>
wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
>CHARTER: rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
>For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
>theme is predominantly small stakes poker
My opinion: I am interested in casino and home games. I see no need
to discuss them in separate forums, as much of the discussion will
apply to either. With the simple use of good subject lines, you can
make it quite clear who might be interested in your post.
Another thing: I don't expect this to happen, and I really hope it
doesn't, but there is a lingering possibility that Ougday Antgray
(this name has been altered to disguise the true identity of the
person in question ;-) could precipitate the need to consider a
different splitting of RGP if people decide it is a good idea to try
to reason with him. My unsolicited advice: Do try to learn from
the history of neighboring newgroups.
Bob Dainauski
Allentown, PA
rob...@fast.net
Abdul Jalib
>
>
> (Liberal snipping of original.)
>
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:33:36 GMT, Marc Wortman <ma...@execulink.com>
> wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group rec.gambling.small-stakes
> >
> >CHARTER: rec.gambling.small-stakes
> >
> >For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
> >theme is predominantly small stakes poker
>
> My opinion: I am interested in casino and home games. I see no need
> to discuss them in separate forums, as much of the discussion will
> apply to either. With the simple use of good subject lines, you can
> make it quite clear who might be interested in your post.
The current split is along the axis of different games, like
rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated, rec.gambling.poker, rec.gambling.craps,
etc. I don't see any reason for an orthogonal dimension of splits. People
can discuss home or other small stakes craps games in rec.gambling.craps,
for example. Also, not all home gambling is for small stakes, and not
all small stakes gambling is outside the casinos, confusing the scope
of the proposed newsgroup.
Where is this proposal coming from, anyway? I haven't seen any discontent
along these lines on the poker or blackjack newsgroups. Is there some
population of posters on one of the other gambling newsgroups that feels
it can't discuss home games effectively there? Why can't the topic
live on the existing gambling newsgroups, broken down by game?
--
Abdul Jalib
A Moderator of rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated
squee...@my-dejanews.com
rob...@fast.net wrote:
>
> (Liberal snipping of original.)
>
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:33:36 GMT, Marc Wortman <ma...@execulink.com>
> wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group rec.gambling.small-stakes
> >
> >CHARTER: rec.gambling.small-stakes
> >
> >For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
> >theme is predominantly small stakes poker
>
> My opinion: I am interested in casino and home games. I see no need
> to discuss them in separate forums, as much of the discussion will
> apply to either. With the simple use of good subject lines, you can
> make it quite clear who might be interested in your post.
I'm not sure I agree. Casino poker consists of no more than a handfull of
games played by individuals against an establishment. Home poker consists of
a near-endless number of games played primarily among friends for fun and low
profit. It seems to me they both involve gambling, but aside from this,
comprise two different themes.
> Another thing: I don't expect this to happen, and I really hope it
> doesn't, but there is a lingering possibility that Ougday Antgray
> (this name has been altered to disguise the true identity of the
> person in question ;-) could precipitate the need to consider a
> different splitting of RGP if people decide it is a good idea to try
> to reason with him. My unsolicited advice: Do try to learn from
> the history of neighboring newgroups.
I don't understand what this means.
> Bob Dainauski
> Allentown, PA
> rob...@fast.net
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
squee...@my-dejanews.com
Abdul Jalib <AbdulJ_...@PosEV.com> wrote:
> rob...@fast.net (Bob Dainauski) writes:
>
> >
> >
> > (Liberal snipping of original.)
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:33:36 GMT, Marc Wortman <ma...@execulink.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > > unmoderated group rec.gambling.small-stakes
> > >
> > >CHARTER: rec.gambling.small-stakes
> > >
> > >For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
> > >theme is predominantly small stakes poker
> >
> > My opinion: I am interested in casino and home games. I see no need
> > to discuss them in separate forums, as much of the discussion will
> > apply to either. With the simple use of good subject lines, you can
> > make it quite clear who might be interested in your post.
>
> rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated, rec.gambling.poker, rec.gambling.craps,
> etc. I don't see any reason for an orthogonal dimension of splits. People
> can discuss home or other small stakes craps games in rec.gambling.craps,
> for example. Also, not all home gambling is for small stakes, and not
> all small stakes gambling is outside the casinos, confusing the scope
> of the proposed newsgroup.
>
> Where is this proposal coming from, anyway? I haven't seen any discontent
> along these lines on the poker or blackjack newsgroups. Is there some
> population of posters on one of the other gambling newsgroups that feels
> it can't discuss home games effectively there? Why can't the topic
> live on the existing gambling newsgroups, broken down by game?
Considering the popularity of home gambling, I am surprised by its lack of
discussion in such groups as rec.gambling.poker. I've always assumed it's
because these groups are dominated by casino-related discussion. Wouldn't a
small stakes group provide such a forum? I do agree with you about confusing
small stakes and home gambling (not always the same thing).
> --
> Abdul Jalib
> A Moderator of rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Stacy Friedman
>
> For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
> of such other small stakes gambling as other card games and dice
> games. This medium is offered for those with more interest in the
> smaller profit gambling between friends than the higher profit
> gambling practiced in casinos and other commercial gambling
> institutions. Welcome discussions include those of specific small
> stakes games, small stakes gambling strategies, good small stakes
> gambling etiquette, and stories of interest as they pertain to small
> stakes gambling.
It seems to me that your target audience (i.e. the majority of home
gamblers) is primarily located in the poker newsgroup, where home-game
discussions already happen. It also seems that you missed out on the
distribution of this RFD to rec.gambling.other-games, which would seem
to be the most appropriate place for discussing the home dice games,
non-poker card games, etc. I doubt there is enough volume on non-poker
small-stakes home gambling to justify a separate newsgroup, however.
Also, the name is somewhat misleading. You can find $2-$4 poker in
casinos, and this certainly qualifies as small stakes. If you're
interested in a "home" gambling ng, why not choose the name
"rec.gambling.home-games"?
-Stacy
--------------------------------------------------
stacy *underscore* friedman *at* yahoo *dot* com
(or replace yahoo.dot.com with yahoo.com)
D E Siegel
>> Another thing: I don't expect this to happen, and I really hope it
>> doesn't, but there is a lingering possibility that <snip>
>> (this name has been altered to disguise the true identity of the
>> person in question ;-) could precipitate the need to consider a
>> different splitting of RGP if people decide it is a good idea to try
>> to reason with him. My unsolicited advice: Do try to learn from
>> the history of neighboring newgroups.
>
>I don't understand what this means.
>
>
The person referred to is a well known troll/kook who has infested the
rec.gambling.* groups, or some of them, and was one of the motivating forces (I
think) behind the creation of rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated. I presume from
the above that he has been visible on RGP recently. I suggest that you check
some of the debate here in news.groups on the creation of rgbm in Deja News to
understand the effects that such people can have on NGs and the NG creation
process.
[posted & emailed]
-David E. Siegel
Sie...@ACM.ORG
Alan Bostick
is the constituency for this proposed newsgroup? Is there a reason why
existing forums don't meet the needs of this
In rec.gambling.poker, for example, there are occasional discussions of
playing situations that occur in home games, and there are *very* occasional
discussions what goes into maintaining a home game. These discussions
fit right into the overall r.g.p. community's ongoing discourse.
I am a serious player of casino and public cardroom poker -- and I run
one and started another ongoing regular home poker game, and have been
playing home poker since I was a child. If there were any such "division"
between home players and cardroom players, I think I would have noticed it.
I don't see any need for separate discussion of home games, and I frankly
doubt that there is enough traffic on the subject to justify creation of
a Big-8 newsgroup, taking up inodes on thousands of machines around the
world, costing the net thousands of dollars.
In article <9034472...@isc.org>, Marc Wortman <ma...@execulink.com> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
> world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.gambling.small-stakes.
> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this
> time. Procedural details are below.
>
> Newsgroup line:
> rec.gambling.small-stakes Small stakes home gambling.
>
> RATIONALE: rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
> Small stakes gambling is a topic currently discussed in many gambling
> newsgroups, for the most part, in rec.gambling groups. However, these
> groups are divided between subscribers of two different interests,
> casino-and tournament-playing, and small stakes home gambling.
> Further evidence of this division in interest is present in the
> division in Internet representation between casino-oriented websites
> and home-gambling-oriented websites. The suggested group would offer
> a medium for those interested in small stakes home gambling discussion
> as opposed to casino and tournament gambling discussion. These two
> themes are related in that they concern gambling, yet discussion of
> home gambling and that of casino gambling are entirely separate
> themes. As well, due to limited accessibility for people worldwide to
> casinos and tournaments, the suggested group would offer a medium for
> those involved in home and small stakes gambling.
How is it that the existing newsgroups fail to meet the needs of the
home-playing constituency? What is the volume of home-game traffic on
existing newsgroups? Is there a listserve on the subject? If so, what
sort of traffic does it carry?
>
> CHARTER: rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
> For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
> theme is predominantly small stakes poker, but open to the discussion
> of such other small stakes gambling as other card games and dice
> games. This medium is offered for those with more interest in the
> smaller profit gambling between friends than the higher profit
> gambling practiced in casinos and other commercial gambling
> institutions. Welcome discussions include those of specific small
> stakes games, small stakes gambling strategies, good small stakes
> gambling etiquette, and stories of interest as they pertain to small
> stakes gambling.
Important issues that you leave out of the charter that perhaps should
be mentioned: discussion on how to organize home games; how to manage
disputes at home games; what goes into making a regular home game a
long-term success; how to find home games; etc.
Also legal issues: what games are legal where? Do I need to worry about
my game being raided by the police? Do I need to worry about my game
being hijacked by robbers?
Then there is the questions related to finding home games, and to making
sure the right people find home games and the wrong people don't.
There is a wealth of possible discussion material on home gambling that
your charter doesn't touch upon. The question is, is there sufficient
interest in discussing it? And if so, why is it necessary to create
a new Big-8 newsgroup when existing newsgroups are ready, willing, and
able to accomodate whatever traffic gets generated?
--
Alan Bostick | LIVE ONE: Is this a game of chance?
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | W.C. FIELDS: Not the way I play it, no....
news:alt.grelb | (from MY LITTLE CHICKADEE)
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
Edmund C. Hack
Um. I don't see any huge need for this. I don't see such discussions
being drowned out or lost in the noise.
--
Edmund Hack \ "If I had a time machine,
ech...@crll.com\ I know just where I'd go." - Al Stewart
N.B. remove second l in email address above.
Steven Markowitz
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.gambling.small-stakes
[ snip ]
>CHARTER: rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
>For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
>theme is predominantly small stakes poker, but open to the discussion
>of such other small stakes gambling as other card games and dice games.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>DISTRIBUTION:
>
>The RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
>news.announce.newgroups
>rec.gambling.poker
>rec.gambling.misc
>uk.rec.gambling.misc
>rec.gambling.craps
>rec.games.playing-cards
I think that this RFD should have been posted to rec.gambling.blackjack
and rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated; I have just posted a pointer to the
RFD in the moderated group. Please make sure that the CFV is posted in
these two groups, if this ever comes to a vote.
I am quite surprised to see this RFD at this time. When rec.gambling was
reorganized in the past, it was after much discussion in the existing group,
when many people felt that the split had become absolutely necessary.
---- Steve Markowitz
Steven Markowitz
it the first time.
In article <9034472...@isc.org> Marc Wortman <ma...@execulink.com> writes:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
>For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
>theme is predominantly small stakes poker, but open to the discussion
>of such other small stakes gambling as other card games and dice games.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>DISTRIBUTION:
>
>The RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
>news.announce.newgroups
>rec.gambling.poker
>rec.gambling.misc
>uk.rec.gambling.misc
>rec.gambling.craps
>rec.games.playing-cards
I think that this RFD should have been posted to rec.gambling.blackjack and
rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated; I have posted a pointer to the RFD in the
moderated group. Please make sure that the Call For Votes is posted to
these two groups, if this ever comes to a vote.
---- Steve Markowitz
Marc Wortman
Alan Bostick <abos...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<iXw218m9...@netcom.com>...
> My big objection to this RFD is the perennial "No Perceived Need". Where
> is the constituency for this proposed newsgroup? Is there a reason why
> existing forums don't meet the needs of this
>
> In rec.gambling.poker, for example, there are occasional discussions of
> playing situations that occur in home games, and there are *very*
occasional
> discussions what goes into maintaining a home game. These discussions
> fit right into the overall r.g.p. community's ongoing discourse.
>
> I am a serious player of casino and public cardroom poker -- and I run
> one and started another ongoing regular home poker game, and have been
> playing home poker since I was a child. If there were any such
"division"
> between home players and cardroom players, I think I would have noticed
it.
>
> I don't see any need for separate discussion of home games, and I frankly
> doubt that there is enough traffic on the subject to justify creation of
> a Big-8 newsgroup, taking up inodes on thousands of machines around the
> world, costing the net thousands of dollars.
Costing the net thousands of dollars? I don't follow.
The purpose of the proposed newsgroup is not to compete with other
newsgroups. I simply feel that the playing of casino poker (which
dominates conversation and has basically established itself as the
predominant theme in the the rec.gambling* groups) and the playing of home
gambling are two separate entities.
A discussion of games is not applicable to both, as there are only a set
number of different casino poker games, and a near-infinite number of home
gambling games. A discussion of strategy differs between the two themes.
A discussion of stakes differs between the two themes. You could not hold
a discussion about Seven Card Stud, for example, and have it go the same
way if discussed in the contexts of these two separate themes. One thrives
on excitement and profit. The other thrives on excitement and comaderie.
I hold that casino gambling and home gambling are not the same thing, they
are two separate themes discussed in two separate contexts.
Marc Wortman
> to discuss them in separate forums, as much of the discussion will
> apply to either. With the simple use of good subject lines, you can
> make it quite clear who might be interested in your post.
>
> (this name has been altered to disguise the true identity of the
> person in question ;-) could precipitate the need to consider a
> different splitting of RGP if people decide it is a good idea to try
> to reason with him. My unsolicited advice: Do try to learn from
> the history of neighboring newgroups.
>
As an example, if I were to post a message entitled "Pai Gow Poker", both
casino goers and home gamblers might read this message, both assuming they
would find interest in the subject. One group would inevitably be
disappointed to learn they were wrong. I say this because Pai Gow Poker in
a casino and Pai Gow Poker at home are two separate games played with
different stakes, different strategies, and most importantly, different
rules. My argument is that gambling of the two sorts are different games
in different contexts. The proposed theme offers a forum for those who
know that what they will find is discussion of home gambling, played with
different strategies, rules, etiquette, and comaderie than casino gambling.
squee...@my-dejanews.com
Stacy Friedman <stacy_f...@yahoo.dot.com> wrote:
> Marc Wortman wrote:
> >
> > For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
> > theme is predominantly small stakes poker, but open to the discussion
> > of such other small stakes gambling as other card games and dice
> > smaller profit gambling between friends than the higher profit
> > gambling practiced in casinos and other commercial gambling
> > institutions. Welcome discussions include those of specific small
> > stakes games, small stakes gambling strategies, good small stakes
> > gambling etiquette, and stories of interest as they pertain to small
> > stakes gambling.
>
> gamblers) is primarily located in the poker newsgroup, where home-game
> discussions already happen. It also seems that you missed out on the
> distribution of this RFD to rec.gambling.other-games, which would seem
> to be the most appropriate place for discussing the home dice games,
> non-poker card games, etc. I doubt there is enough volume on non-poker
> small-stakes home gambling to justify a separate newsgroup, however.
>
> Also, the name is somewhat misleading. You can find $2-$4 poker in
> casinos, and this certainly qualifies as small stakes. If you're
> interested in a "home" gambling ng, why not choose the name
> "rec.gambling.home-games"?
>
> -Stacy
>
What comes to mind when I think of small stakes is more along the lines of a
quarter-table, dime-table, or even knickle-table. Small stakes gambling to
me does not constitute a $2-4 table.
Alan Bostick
>Alan Bostick <abos...@netcom.com> wrote in article
><iXw218m9...@netcom.com>...
>>
>> I don't see any need for separate discussion of home games, and I frankly
>> doubt that there is enough traffic on the subject to justify creation of
>> a Big-8 newsgroup, taking up inodes on thousands of machines around the
>> world, costing the net thousands of dollars.
>Costing the net thousands of dollars? I don't follow.
Maybe you had to have been there. In the old days, when netnews was
transmitted from machine to machine over phone lines at 1200 baud and
we had to walk fifteen miles through the snow every day to read news
(you kids don't know how easy you have it these days! <thumps walking
stick on the floor>) whenever you posted a message the newsreader (show
of hands -- how many people here remember reading news with rn?) would
prompt you with a message that went (if memory serves): "This message
will be sent to thousands of machines around the world, costing the
net hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Are you sure you want to send
it?"
It was intended to be a caution against frivolous waste of bandwidth,
and of course it was completely ignored.
>The purpose of the proposed newsgroup is not to compete with other
>newsgroups. I simply feel that the playing of casino poker (which
>dominates conversation and has basically established itself as the
>predominant theme in the the rec.gambling* groups) and the playing of home
>gambling are two separate entities.
>A discussion of games is not applicable to both, as there are only a set
>number of different casino poker games, and a near-infinite number of home
>gambling games. A discussion of strategy differs between the two themes.
>A discussion of stakes differs between the two themes. You could not hold
>a discussion about Seven Card Stud, for example, and have it go the same
>way if discussed in the contexts of these two separate themes. One thrives
>on excitement and profit. The other thrives on excitement and comaderie.
>I hold that casino gambling and home gambling are not the same thing, they
>are two separate themes discussed in two separate contexts.
The hierarchy of newsgroups is not intended to be a Dewey Decimal system
of topical discussions, and the lack of a 'perfect' newsgroup in which
to discuss a topic is not justification for the creation of such a
newsgroup.
The basic criterion for deciding whether to create a newsgroup in the Big
8 is: Is there the traffic to justify its creation? Then there are
subsidiary questions of appropriate place in the hierarchy, appropriate
naming, etc. But if there is no substantial demonstration of demand for
the group, it just isn't going to make it through the RFD/CFV process. And
a single person's coming forward and saying "wouldn't it be nice if . . ."
doesn't constitute a substantial demonstration of demand.
I really do wish you well in your effort. But I remain unconvinced that
the group's creation would be justified; until and unless I am so convinced,
I intend to vote NO should the proposal get as far as a CFV, and would
recommend that others do likewise.
Daniel M. C. Lawson
Alan Bostick <abos...@netcom.com> wrote:
>"Marc Wortman" <ma...@execulink.com> writes:
>>Costing the net thousands of dollars? I don't follow.
>Maybe you had to have been there. In the old days, when netnews was
>transmitted from machine to machine over phone lines at 1200 baud and
>we had to walk fifteen miles through the snow every day to read news
>(you kids don't know how easy you have it these days! <thumps walking
>stick on the floor>) whenever you posted a message the newsreader (show
>of hands -- how many people here remember reading news with rn?) would
>prompt you with a message that went (if memory serves): "This message
>will be sent to thousands of machines around the world, costing the
>net hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Are you sure you want to send
>it?"
>It was intended to be a caution against frivolous waste of bandwidth,
>and of course it was completely ignored.
FWIW, trn still prints the message. it's a big reason I lurked for over a
year before making my first post.
>The basic criterion for deciding whether to create a newsgroup in the Big
>8 is: Is there the traffic to justify its creation? Then there are
>subsidiary questions of appropriate place in the hierarchy, appropriate
>naming, etc. But if there is no substantial demonstration of demand for
>the group, it just isn't going to make it through the RFD/CFV process. And
>a single person's coming forward and saying "wouldn't it be nice if . . ."
>doesn't constitute a substantial demonstration of demand.
One person coming forward does not demonstrate suficient demand. An RFD
*is* all about one person (or a small group of people) coming forward saying
"wouldin't it be nice if..." Then people talk about how the proposal could
be improved. Finally, once the proponents think they've got the proposal in
a workable form, it goes to a CFV. The CFV exists to determine whether
sufficient demand is present to determine whether a group should be created.
Discussion on news.groups cannot and should not try to determine the
interest level, especially because we have the CFV explicitly for that
purpose.
>I really do wish you well in your effort. But I remain unconvinced that
>the group's creation would be justified; until and unless I am so convinced,
>I intend to vote NO should the proposal get as far as a CFV, and would
>recommend that others do likewise.
Of course , you can and should vote as you believe you should.
And I recommend that if others think the proposal has no serious flaws in
the proposal itself but that sufficient traffic isn't interested in the
group, they ABSTAIN. If not enough people are interested, the group will
fail WITHOUT and NO votes.
Peace,
Dan Lawson
squee...@my-dejanews.com
> ><iXw218m9...@netcom.com>...
> >>
> >> I don't see any need for separate discussion of home games, and I frankly
> >> doubt that there is enough traffic on the subject to justify creation of
> >> world, costing the net thousands of dollars.
>
> >Costing the net thousands of dollars? I don't follow.
>
> Maybe you had to have been there. In the old days, when netnews was
> transmitted from machine to machine over phone lines at 1200 baud and
> we had to walk fifteen miles through the snow every day to read news
> (you kids don't know how easy you have it these days! <thumps walking
> stick on the floor>) whenever you posted a message the newsreader (show
> of hands -- how many people here remember reading news with rn?) would
> prompt you with a message that went (if memory serves): "This message
> will be sent to thousands of machines around the world, costing the
> net hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Are you sure you want to send
> it?"
>
> It was intended to be a caution against frivolous waste of bandwidth,
> and of course it was completely ignored.
>
> >newsgroups. I simply feel that the playing of casino poker (which
> >dominates conversation and has basically established itself as the
> >predominant theme in the the rec.gambling* groups) and the playing of home
> >gambling are two separate entities.
>
> >A discussion of games is not applicable to both, as there are only a set
> >number of different casino poker games, and a near-infinite number of home
> >gambling games. A discussion of strategy differs between the two themes.
> >A discussion of stakes differs between the two themes. You could not hold
> >a discussion about Seven Card Stud, for example, and have it go the same
> >way if discussed in the contexts of these two separate themes. One thrives
> >on excitement and profit. The other thrives on excitement and comaderie.
> >I hold that casino gambling and home gambling are not the same thing, they
> >are two separate themes discussed in two separate contexts.
>
> The hierarchy of newsgroups is not intended to be a Dewey Decimal system
> of topical discussions, and the lack of a 'perfect' newsgroup in which
> to discuss a topic is not justification for the creation of such a
> newsgroup.
>
> 8 is: Is there the traffic to justify its creation? Then there are
> subsidiary questions of appropriate place in the hierarchy, appropriate
> naming, etc. But if there is no substantial demonstration of demand for
> the group, it just isn't going to make it through the RFD/CFV process. And
> a single person's coming forward and saying "wouldn't it be nice if . . ."
> doesn't constitute a substantial demonstration of demand.
>
> the group's creation would be justified; until and unless I am so convinced,
> I intend to vote NO should the proposal get as far as a CFV, and would
> recommend that others do likewise.
>
> Alan Bostick | LIVE ONE: Is this a game of chance?
> mailto:abos...@netcom.com | W.C. FIELDS: Not the way I play it, no....
> news:alt.grelb | (from MY LITTLE CHICKADEE)
> http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
If you base your argument on the fact that the strongest criteria for a new
newsgroup is sufficient demand (this is what I read from your arguments
above), then doesn't it stand to reason that most home gamblers with Internet
access and newsgroup interest would utilize this forum for the discussion of
home gambling?
Stephen H. Landrum
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
> rec.gambling.small-stakes Small stakes home gambling.
>
> RATIONALE: rec.gambling.small-stakes
There has been no evidence in rec.gambling.poker that there is
a need for this split. In fact, the current rec.gambling.* groups
are currently divided along lines drawn by the games played, and
this group would make a mess out of that distinction.
Splitting of rec.gambling.poker into a group for discussion of
home games and a group for discussion of cardroom games may be
warranted at some time, but is definitely not needed now.
Also, there is a lot of small-stakes gambling that goes on in
casinos and cardrooms, so the newsgroup name itself makes its
purpose unclear.
> CHARTER: rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
> For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling.
If this is the case, then the name should be
rec.gambling.home-games, or something that indicates that it is
not a newsgroup for discussion of casino and cardroom games.
> The
> theme is predominantly small stakes poker, but open to the discussion
> of such other small stakes gambling as other card games and dice
> games.
There is plenty of small stakes poker available in casinos in
cardrooms. In fact, by far the majority of cardroom poker is
small stakes, again making the intended purpose of the newsgroup
different than the name it is given.
> This medium is offered for those with more interest in the
> smaller profit gambling between friends than the higher profit
> gambling practiced in casinos and other commercial gambling
> institutions. Welcome discussions include those of specific small
> stakes games, small stakes gambling strategies, good small stakes
> gambling etiquette, and stories of interest as they pertain to small
> stakes gambling.
Game strategies in general do not change because of the stakes.
Discussion of game strategies in rec.gambling.poker is just as
valid to social home games as to high stakes professionals.
--
"Stephen H. Landrum" <slan...@pacbell.net>
Alan Bostick
>What comes to mind when I think of small stakes is more along the lines of a
>quarter-table, dime-table, or even knickle-table. Small stakes gambling to
>me does not constitute a $2-4 table.
So the $2-$4 and $3-$6 games I've played in at various times in people's
homes wouldn't be appropriate topics of discussion? What about the $0.25-
blind no-limit game I play in, where pots sometimes top $100?
Would the play of nickel slots or video poker machines be *appropriate*
topics for discussion? Those certainly are small stakes. (Hey, can't
you still find penny slots off of Fremont Street in Las Vegas?)
It's pretty clear that "small-stakes" is inappropriate for the group
name. One person's small stake game is another someone else's bankroll
buster. If the intent is to talk about home games, try
"rec.gambling.home-games"
Alan Bostick
>If you base your argument on the fact that the strongest criteria for a new
>newsgroup is sufficient demand (this is what I read from your arguments
>above), then doesn't it stand to reason that most home gamblers with Internet
>access and newsgroup interest would utilize this forum for the discussion of
>home gambling?
No, I'm afraid that it doesn't stand to reason.
If home gamblers with Internet access and newsgroup interest (like me)
have home-gaming topics to discuss, so far, we are able to do it in
existing newsgroups. Home game traffic in rec.gambling.poker is pretty
light.
Kate Wrightson
>Would the play of nickel slots or video poker machines be *appropriate*
>topics for discussion? Those certainly are small stakes. (Hey, can't
>you still find penny slots off of Fremont Street in Las Vegas?)
Not sure about Vegas. I know that, at least a couple of years ago, the
Cal-Neva in Reno had three penny slots in the very back of the second
floor, by the swinging door used by the staff.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
ka...@eyrie.org Kate Wrightson www.eyrie.org/~kate
Alan Bostick
rec.gambling.poker in articles appearing from January 1 to June 30, 1998.
This might overcount the number of home-game articles e.g. through
including "this casino spreads a variety of games and is only half an
hour from my home" messages -- but it might undercount pertinent posts
where the two words don't happen to both appear.
I got 545 hits, or an average of about three posts per day.
Marc Wortman
Marc Wortman <ma...@execulink.com> wrote in article
<9034472...@isc.org>...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
> world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.gambling.small-stakes.
> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this
> time. Procedural details are below.
>
> Newsgroup line:
> rec.gambling.small-stakes Small stakes home gambling.
>
> RATIONALE: rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
> Small stakes gambling is a topic currently discussed in many gambling
> newsgroups, for the most part, in rec.gambling groups. However, these
> groups are divided between subscribers of two different interests,
> casino-and tournament-playing, and small stakes home gambling.
> Further evidence of this division in interest is present in the
> division in Internet representation between casino-oriented websites
> and home-gambling-oriented websites. The suggested group would offer
> a medium for those interested in small stakes home gambling discussion
> as opposed to casino and tournament gambling discussion. These two
> themes are related in that they concern gambling, yet discussion of
> home gambling and that of casino gambling are entirely separate
> themes. As well, due to limited accessibility for people worldwide to
> casinos and tournaments, the suggested group would offer a medium for
> those involved in home and small stakes gambling.
>
> CHARTER: rec.gambling.small-stakes
>
> For the discussion of small stakes, "neighborhood" home gambling. The
> theme is predominantly small stakes poker, but open to the discussion
> of such other small stakes gambling as other card games and dice
> games. This medium is offered for those with more interest in the
> smaller profit gambling between friends than the higher profit
> gambling practiced in casinos and other commercial gambling
> institutions. Welcome discussions include those of specific small
> stakes games, small stakes gambling strategies, good small stakes
> gambling etiquette, and stories of interest as they pertain to small
> stakes gambling.
>
> Commercial advertisements are not acceptable. Binary postings are not
> acceptable.
>
> END CHARTER.
After reviewing discussion of the newsgroup that I have proposed, and
participating myself in this discussion, I have concluded that there are
two major pieces of constructive criticism that has come of it:
1) that there may not be a perceived need, and
2) that the proposed newsgroup name may be inappropriate
In response to the first, as new as I am to the newsgroup creation process,
I am assuming this would be determined in the CFV. I am not interested in
wasting the time of the volunteers who keep Usenet moving. However, I
still believe that the premise of the proposed newsgroup is valid enough to
take to the CFV if possible. It appears to me that the first piece of
criticism would be determined by the votes. Should the proposed newsgroup
receive a successful vote, then I assume there is sufficient interest and
need.
In response to the second, it is my intention to have this RFD scrapped, to
be replaced by an RFD with a similar (if not identical) charter, but a more
comprehensible name. I am convinced that the proposed newsgroup's name is
unclear, vague, and misleading, and should be replaced by one more
indicative of home gambling, as is the intention of the proposed newsgroup.
Marc Wortman
ma...@execulink.com
squeeg...@hotmail.com
>
This is Marc Wortman here. Can somebody please tell me how to cancel this
RFD? I know how to start a new one but not how to scrap this one. Thank
you, and please e-mail the response to ma...@execulink.com. Thanks alot.
/////