Yet Another Informal Proposal
Jennifer Moira Smith
hear some discussion on this, so changes and etc can be made before
anyone issues any official call for anything. Get all that?)
There's currently a discussion about whether or not to make rec.games.mud
moderated. I'm against it, for various reasons, although I certainly see
why some might want it such. Some people have suggested a spin-off group,
and after doing some thinking and talking to other people, I've come up
with the following proposal, which I hope will be a nice compromise.
Proposal:
Newsgroup: rec.games.mud.info moderated
(The name rec.games.mud.announce was considered; it was decided that an
"info" group would be a more intuitive place for new users to look.)
Purpose: To serve as a moderated group for postings of a purely informational
nature. Examples:
o muds --
new muds, moving muds, dead muds
o code announcements --
code releases as well as requests for discussion; releases
can include both posting of patches and simply where to get it
o miscellaneous mud announcements --
announcements about conventions, parties both on-line and
off-line, hatchings, and in short any sort of misc announcement
that might be interesting for more than one given mud
o FAQ sheets --
including definitions of muds, how to get started, where
to find client and mud code, purpose of the groups, etc
o lists --
mud lists, mailing list lists, ftp site lists, bug report
lists, etc
o any other type of announcement, with follow-ups directed to
rec.games.mud.
The moderator should also be in charge of keeping track of various doc
files and manuals, and should be able to handle most of the typical new
user questions either by directing them to the proper sources or by
providing an answer themself.
General discussions should take place on rec.games.mud, unmoderated. This
hopefully will have the effect of letting readers get announcements without
having to wade through general discussion and possibly flames. Additionally,
a notice can be posted to rec.games.mud.info that a discussion on some
subject will be taking place in rec.games.mud, so people that are currently
unsubscribed to the latter group will be aware of any discussion taking place
in which they might be interested.
Now, as you've probably noticed, this proposal does not do much for the
flaming problem. I'm hoping, though, that people will manage to tone their
posts down somewhat and get rid of the irrelevant comments (hint hint). I
may, however, be living in my own little dreamworld. We'll see.
Oh, as for who to moderate, I think that decision should be made much later,
after a consensus has been reached as to if a moderator is even needed, and
if so, for which group. Discussion on that point is not necessary nor needed
quite yet.
All comments welcome, either via posts or email.
Jennifer
--
Jennifer Smith (feh) \ jenn...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu
Moira@Asylum & other MUDS here 'n' there \ I have no quote, I
Here, have a clue. Take two, they're small. \ just like saying "Feh".
Kenneth Arromdee
I don't particularly want to see a group where the wolves get to moderate
the sheep.
--
"When you whine like a stuck pig, or flame like a blowtorch, then
people get angry. If you want to ACCOMPLISH something, p'raps you should
learn some tact."
-- Random, on rec.games.mud
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
Duane Hentrich
jenn...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jennifer "Moira" Smith) writes:
[a more than modest proposal]
This has been tried elsewhere with vartying results. It might be worth a try.
|> Now, as you've probably noticed, this proposal does not do much for the
|> flaming problem. I'm hoping, though, that people will manage to tone their
|> posts down somewhat and get rid of the irrelevant comments (hint hint). I
|> may, however, be living in my own little dreamworld. We'll see.
Evereyone has their own flame retardant level and everyone has their own,
valid idea of what irrelevant means. Groups develop conventions for
this type of thing but the process seems long and painful and not very
satisfying to some.
My vote: keep it in one group. Let me do my own moderation.
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
or ba...@opus.tymnet.com
Claimer: These are only opinions since everything I know is wrong.
Copyright notice: If you're going to copy it, copy it right.
Jennifer Moira Smith
>Who is proposed as moderator?
As I said at the end of my proposal, I don't see the need to discuss this
right yet. I think it's far more important to decide if there's going to
be a moderated group or not first.
>I don't particularly want to see a group where the wolves get to moderate
>the sheep.
Neither do I, but I really doubt that will happen. A vote for a moderated
group will also be a vote for that moderator. There's some sort of axiom
that says the person that most wants the job is least suited to it. This
may or may not be true. I do know that no one in their right mind ought to
*want* the job of moderator, but there may be some who would be willing to
devote the time and patience necessary to it. I might. I don't know yet,
and I'm really not going to discuss it for a while.
Duane Hentrich
goeh...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:
|> if your idea of "moderation" is posting meaningless little one-liners
|> that include more old text than new, i'd rather not have it your way.
My idea of self moderation is that I get to decide what comes up on my screen.
I pick and choose what gets thrown on the floor here.
Scott Goehring
My vote: keep it in one group. Let me do my own moderation.
if your idea of "moderation" is posting meaningless little one-liners
that include more old text than new, i'd rather not have it your way.
--
Help stamp out vi in our lifetime!
Scott Goehring goeh...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
goeh...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
"Then go cast an astral spell on yourself, ok?"
Bryant Durrell
it'll get past news.groups, but it's an idea.
It still doesn't deal with the problem of people either
intimidated or disgusted with the quality of discussion on
r.g.m. Yet another quote from my mail file:
----------
I am NOT afraid to post, or "argue" on Usenet. Ive gotten into a little
disagreements on rec.sport.football.pro about the run-and-shoot, and a
couple of minor points elsewhere. The DIFFERENCE is that most (not all)
of the disscussions on a rec.sport.football.pro stay ON TOPIC, in this
case football. There will always be toads who use insults to make their
point, but they can be ignored. R.g.m does NOT operate this way. You
can be taken to task for your spelling, grammar, name, knowledge, all
kinds of things as well as the point being made. I personally feel
that i do not wish to be undressed in this manner, that the chances of it
on r.g.m are more than i like, therefore i decline to post. Im still not
thrilled that i can let words influence me like that, but I am not some
cowardly geek who is afraid to get out of bed. I may not have anything to
say, but it annoys me that I fell taht I CANNOT say anything.
----------
So it goes. The guy's right; discussion here is closer to the
level of Mort Downey than the London Times. At this point, though,
I'm getting a little tired of making the point.
It's pretty obvious that a vocal minority can block consensus for
just about as long as they want. If they choose to ignore the
opinions of the majority, whether because they think the majority
isn't worth listening to or because they simply prefer the status
quo, well, there's not much to be done. I'm not really willing to
push this any farther without some kind of consensus.
My apologies to the people who wrote me with such enthusiasm. I
should note that in my opinion, the support exists to win a vote
for moderation if anybody else wants to run it. My scruples
about consensus may not be your scruples.
--
Cyberpixie dur...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"UUCP is an old protocol. Weeg does not support it and has no plans to do so."
-- Rex Pruess (rpr...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu)
John Random Bizarre
[oh, go read it yourself]
I find myself no longer wanting to hear about the results of discussion from
such an appallingly biased source. Sorry, Bry, but I read through this post
about three or four times, and...well.
It appears to me that your antagonistic attitude towards regular posters of
r.g.m. kind of disqualifies you as any reputable source of comparison of
volume of opinion.
Let's have a look:
- discussion here is all bad. (reflects on participants)
- vocal people here go against consensus, and indeed attempt to
foil it and obscure it
- ...and of course, we all know who posted the idea in the first place.
At any rate.
To the first point:
I find that the REAL obstruction to constructive conversation on rec.games.mud
is that the slightest attempt to engage in any is met with immediate cynical
and sarcastic posts about how unlikely it is that anyone will engage in
constructive conversation on rec.games.mud. Self-fulfilling prophecies are
always in bad taste, in my opinion.
And the second:
I COULD say that I have only your words as to what consensus is. I won't
bother. I'll instead comment that I don't really care what everyone else
in the entire world thinks about this; I know how *I* will vote, and I am
damned well not sorry, either, even if it does go against 400 pieces of email
you received. Notice how I just ruined the nice margins of my paragraph.
Further point:
Many of us AGAINST moderation have been enthusiastically behind a compromise
point such as that proposed by Moira. But you aren't. Should I find this
an endearing trait? I don't.
And lastly:
Many of you are going, "geezus christ, another senseless flame on
rec.games.mud." It is my considered opinion that it is exactly this habit
of dismissing content on the basis of style or emotional tone that causes
people to think that there is no such thing as worthwhile debate on here.
Please. Find a relatively unbiased party to start the call for discussion
for real, or just get off the pot.
-Random
( a mite tired of getting mail from people
he's never heard of before who believe
they have any idea what they are
talking about, but clearly do not. )
--
---------------------"Comedy. Sudden, violent, comedy!"---------------------
Random J Nightfall//ru...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu//No disclaimer, just a clue:
This was by a techno-christian-scottish-barbarian-libertarian-historian-guru.
"Acid is like a woman: a good one will eat right through your pants." -S.N.L.
Morgan Schweers
An amendment to my psot supporting moderation. I now think
that a moderated subgroup of RGM would be better than an unmoderated
subgroup.
I also think the line about this group being closer to Morton
Downey than London Times is appropriate. It's got that same
ATTACK! mentality running through it.
In effect, I think that *SOME* form of moderated group is
necessary. The adjusted proposal sounds just as good (to me)
as the original proposal. Something, ANYTHING to create a
group with useful information in it.
(Oh, and in reference to whomever mentioned the problem with
crossposts... Most mail readers handle crossposts nicely, in
that you only get to see them once. A very useful feature, IMHO.)
-- Morgan Schweers
+-------- _ _
m...@netcom.com /-\|/-\ | I failed the Turing Test!
--------+ \___/ | Caffiene is your only REAL friend!
Marcus J. Ranum
>Many of you are going, "geezus christ, another senseless flame on
>rec.games.mud." It is my considered opinion that it is exactly this habit
>of dismissing content on the basis of style or emotional tone that causes
>people to think that there is no such thing as worthwhile debate on here.
Actually, a lot of the time I suspect it's that certain poster's
content is dismissed purely based on the poster. In my case, my news reader
does this automatically, since certain posters have a history of being
rabid flamers or rabid follow-up-to-with-snappy-commenters. Decent news
reader software goes a long way towards making threads of flame vanish
along with the flamers - it's a more cost effective solution than having
a moderated newsgroup, since it gives anyone with an understanding of
regular expressions the ability to automatically do much of the
moderation themselves.
In short, if an individual is concerned that they are being
dismissed out of hand, they should look at the situation vis a vis
some of the things they've said in the past - some of the posters on
r.g.m. have a track record of being wastes of time, and it's not (IMHO)
unfair that their precious pearls of wisdom go unheard as a result of
that.
USENET's a funny place - newsgroups are (IMHO) largely self
regulating because, as the signal-to-noise ratio gets too low, people
just stop reading the group, and the noise ratio eventually dies down
when readership drops through the floor. Jennifer's suggestion of a
moderated mud newsgroup is another route that dying newsgroups often
follow - an attempt to apply a trusted filter on the noise. As such,
everyone would want the filter to be someone whose views about what is
interesting at least somewhat matches theirs. My impression of the
readership of rec.games.mud is that choosing a moderator without a
protracted and useless flame war would be unlikely.
mjr, who doesn't really care a whole lot anymore, since my kill-files
seem to already filter about 95% of this group - unsubscribing is next.
Marcus J. Ranum
Let's just dissolve the news group entirely and go back to
mailing lists. We're an embarrassment.
mjr.
Kenneth Arromdee
>Many of you are going, "geezus christ, another senseless flame on
>rec.games.mud." It is my considered opinion that it is exactly this habit
>of dismissing content on the basis of style or emotional tone that causes
>people to think that there is no such thing as worthwhile debate on here.
Exactly.
Except I'd say that dismissing content on this basis is perfectly justified.
Why should anyone _bother_ wading through flames to try to find the
content you secreted somewhere deep within?
--Jiro/Mizue, EVIL! snivelling crossdresser who occasionally quotes
Random in his .signature
T. Rev
No, no. If you all decide to abandon this froup, just stack the
chairs neatly, turn off the lights, lock the doors, and drop off the
keys in my mailbox down at the Talk.Bizarre Steering Committee
offices. We can always use more space.
T. Rev
--
The trak sign stirs like a nocturnal beast and bursts into blue flame,
"SMOKE TRAK CIGARETTES. THEY LIKE YOU. TRAK LIKE ANY YOU. ANY TRAK LIKE
YOU. SMOKE TRAKS. THEY SATISFY. THEY SERVICE. TRAK TRAK TRAK."
-- big bill burroughs, _the soft machine_. trevnonamenoslogan
Douglas Renze
>In article <russ.672094712@valkyrie> ru...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu (John "Random" Bizarre) writes:
>>for real, or just get off the pot.
>
>would have noticed the chunk at the end where I said I was going
>to drop it, and welcomed anyone else to pick it up. Sigh.
Well, since I'd consider myself a fairly unbiased party (unless you count the
fact that I'm on the same *campus* as Cyberpix a bias ;) so here goes...
Hear ye, hear ye!
In the spirit of free discussion,
And on behalf of all those who must spend four hours a day wading through
flames...
I hereby make a formal call for the discussion of
Whether the group rec.games.mud should be split into two groups.
Group the First being rec.games.mud, an unmoderated discussion group for people
to do whatever people do.
Group the Second being rec.games.mud.info, a moderated group dedicated to the
announcement of new MUDs (whether of the LP or the Tiny* variety), the
posting of patches to the same, and other such things as the moderator may,
from time to time, be appropriate.
I move that we discuss this in open, flame-less forum,
I furthermore move that, after two weeks of discussion, we go to a vote.
Good enough?
Peace and Long Life,
GreyLensman,
the Lost Wizard of Pegasus
Bob Greene
|flaming problem. I'm hoping, though, that people will manage to tone their
|posts down somewhat and get rid of the irrelevant comments (hint hint). I
|may, however, be living in my own little dreamworld. We'll see.
I hate to be the one to flame, 'cause I don't like flames, and I agree
totally with Michael, BUT - I don't think there this group will ever
be flame free. There is a certain mentality to being a mudder, call
it whatever you will, and that includes a lot of the same values that
go into being a flamer. Not all flamers are mudders and not all
mudders are flamers, but due to the very nature of the group, there
is a lot more flaming here than on a "serious" group.
I think the best answer is:
rec.games.mud, unmoderated
rec.games.mud.flame, unmoderated
Accept the flamers and embrace them. Give them a place to call home.
Magius @ Overdrive (128.110.6.68 2000)
Just Magius the Mortal on LPMuds everywhere near you. [:)]
Bob Greene Sunspots (comp.sys.sun) Moderator ESN 446-7396
LAN/WAN Engineering and Support (214) 907-7396
Bell Northern Research, Richardson, Texas, USA rgr...@bnr.ca
Brian Kendig
> Let's just dissolve the news group entirely and go back to
>mailing lists. We're an embarrassment.
I agree. This newsgroup is an embarassment to every player who tries
to have good clean fun on the game -- and if you have to ask what good
clean fun is, you've probably lost focus of it.
But is this a reflection on the games themselves, maybe? Perhaps
r.g.m is filled with flame wars because the MUDs are filled with jerks
and sluts and spammers and lechers, all going under the pretense that
if they're bothering you then you can always stop playing the game?
That's just what I've done -- stopped playing the game. I got sick of
people telling me to `cope' or `deal'. I've played for over a year
and a half; the past year has been spent dealing with the jerks, and
the last six months were an exercise in trying to cope. It wore away
at my patience until I really was being bothered far too much, wasn't
really having fun at all. I like to think I had at least a moderately
interesting character, but it hurt me when people would abuse my
character and destroy the role I was trying to play, and then
rationalize their actions at length in heated debate if I bothered to
express my displeasure. And this happened far, far too often for my
liking.
I'd rather not see r.g.m go, because we do need a way to disseminate
information about new MUDs and downtimes and other urgent issues. But
with all these flames, r.g.m has gone way out of line with its
charter. I second the proposal that rec.games.mud be dissolved;
information about new MUDs could possibly be sent out through Arki's
MUD-list mailing list, and technical issues could be dealt with over
any of several specific mailing lists. Flames, of course, could still
go on -- only through private email, where they belong.
I miss all the friends I made on the MUDs -- but, like I said, it was
getting to me too much. Maybe someday I'll come back, after I've
learned how to have fun again. If I don't think they've improved,
then maybe not.
Meanwhile, one last piece of advice to the teeming masses out there:
take a break! If you're spending hours every day on the MUDs, try
taking a few days away from them. Real Life (tm) has an awful lot to
offer once you get good at playing it...
<< WhiteUnicorn / Scotrix >>
| Brian S. Kendig \ Macintosh | Engineering, | bskendig |
| Computer Engineering |\ Thought | USS Enterprise | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU
| Princeton University |_\ Police | -= NCC-1701-D =- | @PUCC.BITNET |
"You gave your life to become the person you are right now. Was it worth it?"
PTed Garvin
>In article <56...@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> dur...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell) writes:
>>In article <russ.672094712@valkyrie> ru...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu (John "Random" Bizarre) writes:
>>>Please. Find a relatively unbiased party to start the call for discussion
>>>for real, or just get off the pot.
>>
>>Read my post, Russ? I mean, at all? If you had, hopefully you
>>would have noticed the chunk at the end where I said I was going
>>to drop it, and welcomed anyone else to pick it up. Sigh.
>
>Well, since I'd consider myself a fairly unbiased party (unless you count the
>fact that I'm on the same *campus* as Cyberpix a bias ;) so here goes...
Well, I'm on the same campus as Russ is, so I'm probably biases in one of
the cardinal directions.
>In the spirit of free discussion,
>And on behalf of all those who must spend four hours a day wading through
> flames...
>I hereby make a formal call for the discussion of
>Whether the group rec.games.mud should be split into two groups.
This should be cross-posted to news.groups.
>I furthermore move that, after two weeks of discussion, we go to a vote.
>Good enough?
Nope. Try again.
Ob.Mud: I think d'baba must be an AI gone astray or an psychology student.
>GreyLensman,
> the Lost Wizard of Pegasus
--
"...just when I had you wriggling in the crushing grip of reason, too..."
ptga...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu / ptga...@uokmax.UUCP | Wassail! O
in the Society: Padraig Cosfhota o Ulad / Barony of Namron, Ansteorra |
Disclaimer: Fragile. Contents inflammable. Do not use near open flame. ___|___
Bryant Durrell
>I find myself no longer wanting to hear about the results of discussion from
>such an appallingly biased source. Sorry, Bry, but I read through this post
>about three or four times, and...well.
Russ, I'm sorry, but just because I haven't been convinced by your
position doesn't make me any more biased than you are for not being
convinced by my position. If being biased is evil and wrong, than
we're both at fault. If you think that my mind can't be changed,
that's another thing; I'd be willing to accuse you of the same thing.
Boom: we're back to arguing about who's *right*.
>It appears to me that your antagonistic attitude towards regular posters of
>r.g.m. kind of disqualifies you as any reputable source of comparison of
>volume of opinion.
That's OK. It appears to me that your antagonistic attitude towards,
for instance, everyone who's sent you email on the subject
disqualifies you.
>Let's have a look:
> - discussion here is all bad. (reflects on participants)
Well, I didn't say that. I said most of it is bad, and I said it
tends to degenerate into flames. And yeah, it reflects on the
participants, including me. People manage to talk about things
in other groups without calling each other wads. How do *you*
explain it?
> - vocal people here go against consensus, and indeed attempt to
> foil it and obscure it
Confusing the general with the particular. Always poor logic.
> - ...and of course, we all know who posted the idea in the first place.
In other words, you're as willing to let personalities get in the
way as you claim I am.
>Many of us AGAINST moderation have been enthusiastically behind a compromise
>point such as that proposed by Moira. But you aren't. Should I find this
>an endearing trait? I don't.
Russ, get a grip. Really. I am not going to stop talking to you
because I disagree with you. If you want to stop talking to me
because I don't think Moira's proposal does the whole job, that's
your right. I am rather surprised that you're mixing my stance on
an issue with your personal feelings.
>Please. Find a relatively unbiased party to start the call for discussion
>for real, or just get off the pot.
Read my post, Russ? I mean, at all? If you had, hopefully you
would have noticed the chunk at the end where I said I was going
to drop it, and welcomed anyone else to pick it up. Sigh.
--
John Ockerbloom
>Many of you are going, "geezus christ, another senseless flame on
>rec.games.mud." It is my considered opinion that it is exactly this habit
>of dismissing content on the basis of style or emotional tone that causes
>people to think that there is no such thing as worthwhile debate on here.
I'm one person who finds this habit useful. Let's face it; the
Net as a whole transmits a huge amount of information, and personally I
like to read many of the newsgroups, at the moment this one included.
I also have limited time available to read news. So, like many other
netters, I can't take the time to read every article I see. Therefore, the
first decision I have to make when the first screenful of an article
appears is: "Is it worth my time to read this?"
It's a quick and largely instinctive decision, and takes many factors into
account, such as "How long is the article?", "Is this a topic I'm interested
in?", "Has this person's prior articles been useful?", and, yes, "What's the
style of what I can see so far?" It's a lot easier to evaluate style than
content in the split-second that the decision often takes.
Over the newsgroups I read, I've found that good style and good content
correlate. It's by no means a sure thing; there are posters who seem to
quite eloquently talk little sense, and there are those who I know often
have good things to say, even though their style or apparent demeanor may work
against them in my mind. I make allowances for these people, if I've seen
their stuff before. But overall, I've gotten more out of the average tight
and non-flamey (though perhaps impassioned and disagreeing) post than the
average flamey or rambling post. And I've been able to get more out of the
Net when I've applied my style heuristics than I have when I haven't used
them and read less.
Now, what style and what demeanor you choose to adopt is your choice.
I don't feel like playing Miss Manners on this group, and I don't think it
would be helpful if I did. I just have three points for people to consider:
-- Many people DO dismiss content based on style, if only because they
won't bother to extract the content if the style puts them off enough.
-- This is generally a useful thing to do, when the volume of material
you wish to examine is sufficiently high (as Usenet is).
-- So if you're interested in people beyond your circle of net-friends
and acquaintances reading your stuff, write with the above in mind.
(My article has mainly focused on individual articles, but I think
a similar set of points applies to entire newsgroups as well.)
Of course, if you don't particularly care if or how these unknown people read
you, feel free to ignore this article. Assuming you've bothered to read
this far.
- Y.
--
==========================================================================
ocker...@cs.cmu.edu ...!uunet!cs.cmu.edu!ockerbloom
oc...@yalecs.bitnet (forwarded) 4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217
John Random Bizarre
->Russ, I'm sorry, but just because I haven't been convinced by your
->position doesn't make me any more biased than you are for not being
->convinced by my position. If being biased is evil and wrong, than
->we're both at fault. If you think that my mind can't be changed,
->that's another thing; I'd be willing to accuse you of the same thing.
->Boom: we're back to arguing about who's *right*.
Note that I am not trying to compute a consensus opinion, either, nor to pass
it off as such. In fact, the only conclusion I care to draw from the mail
I've gotten is that people are pinheads.
->That's OK. It appears to me that your antagonistic attitude towards,
->for instance, everyone who's sent you email on the subject
->disqualifies you.
From what? Disliking everyone? See above.
->Well, I didn't say that. I said most of it is bad, and I said it
->tends to degenerate into flames. And yeah, it reflects on the
->participants, including me. People manage to talk about things
->in other groups without calling each other wads. How do *you*
->explain it?
You must read some interesting groups. In my experience, Usenet is noisy
and ridiculous. But still mildly entertaining and occasionally informative.
->In other words, you're as willing to let personalities get in the
->way as you claim I am.
See above comment about "I am not trying to compute..."
->Russ, get a grip. Really. I am not going to stop talking to you
->because I disagree with you. If you want to stop talking to me
->because I don't think Moira's proposal does the whole job, that's
->your right. I am rather surprised that you're mixing my stance on
->an issue with your personal feelings.
This is, of course, ridiculous, since it has nothing to do with what I was
saying. I claim that I am surprised at the unwillingness of pro-moderation
people to try to reach a compromise. I am. You are one of those people.
Anything else is sophistry; my personal feelings about you are not
relevant to this topic.
->Read my post, Russ? I mean, at all? If you had, hopefully you
->would have noticed the chunk at the end where I said I was going
->to drop it, and welcomed anyone else to pick it up. Sigh.
I readily admit it; I missed that. Scratch one post, then, I suppose.
My apologies. Observe that my statements should be read by anyone who decides
they would like to have a go at gauging public opinion.
-Random
( biased, and proud of it. wouldn't
you be if people used you constantly
as an example of why moderation
is necessary? )
Blackbird
>
>Note that I am not trying to compute a consensus opinion, either, nor to pass
>it off as such. In fact, the only conclusion I care to draw from the mail
>I've gotten is that people are pinheads.
>
pinheads. Fuckheads.
>
> -Random
> ( biased, and proud of it. wouldn't
> you be if people used you constantly
> as an example of why moderation
> is necessary? )
-Blackbird
( Trying to teach Random, but
failing miserably )
--
Blackbird | "Well... I'm a nice guy." - KnightSkye
----------------------------| "Heh, fuck that." - me
sund...@sage.cc.purdue.edu | "Shit! I spilled gin on the Peeps. Wait...
sund...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I think maybe I've got something here" - me
Kaine
>In article <russ.672268977@valkyrie> ru...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu (John "Random" Bizarre) writes:
>>it off as such. In fact, the only conclusion I care to draw from the mail
>>I've gotten is that people are pinheads.
>>
>Goddamnit! How many times do I have to tell you? It's *fuckheads* NOT
>pinheads. Fuckheads.
>
Bullshit, Mark! I got two fuckheads.
>>
>> -Random
>--
> Blackbird | "Well... I'm a nice guy." - KnightSkye
>----------------------------| "Heh, fuck that." - me
>sund...@sage.cc.purdue.edu | "Shit! I spilled gin on the Peeps. Wait...
>sund...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I think maybe I've got something here" - me
--
Kaine | "Well... I'm an idiot." - Hunter
-----------------------------| "Heh, I'll fuck anything." - Bruce
pkt1...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | "Shit! Mark spilled gin on the Peeps. Wait...
tevo...@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu | he may have something there" - me
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
>In article <10...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> sund...@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Blackbird) writes:
>>In article <russ.672268977@valkyrie> ru...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu (John "Random" Bizarre) writes:
>>>it off as such. In fact, the only conclusion I care to draw from the mail
>>>I've gotten is that people are pinheads.
>>Goddamnit! How many times do I have to tell you? It's *fuckheads* NOT
>>pinheads. Fuckheads.
>Bullshit, Mark! I got two fuckheads.
This is the type of thing I'd like to see out of rec.games.mud, as well as
flames. I mean, it's kinda funny, but it isn't really appropriate. At least
it shouldn't be in the same newsgroup as one that attempts a "serious"
discussion of mud-related social issues, or one that attempts a "serious"
discussion of coding issues.
My personal proposals:
rec.games.mud.info - FAQ and general annoucements, mud sites, etc.
rec.games.mud.programmer - Coding, both in and out of the server
rec.games.mud.issues? }
rec.games.mud.policy? } - Some place for "serious" discussion of mud
rec.games.mud.topics? } issues without flames and joke postings...
rec.games.mud.general?}
rec.games.mud.misc? } - Everything else, including flames
rec.games.mud.flame? }
IMHO, only the first needs to be moderated.... the third *maybe* but I would
rather think that mudders could exercise self-restraint and channel the flames
into the last group. No prefernces as to the actual names there, I was just
throwing out suggestions...
Bruce
>>> -Random
>>--
>> Blackbird | "Well... I'm a nice guy." - KnightSkye
>>----------------------------| "Heh, fuck that." - me
>>sund...@sage.cc.purdue.edu | "Shit! I spilled gin on the Peeps. Wait...
>>sund...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I think maybe I've got something here" - me
>--
> Kaine | "Well... I'm an idiot." - Hunter
>-----------------------------| "Heh, I'll fuck anything." - Bruce
>pkt1...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | "Shit! Mark spilled gin on the Peeps. Wait...
>tevo...@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu | he may have something there" - me
--
Bruce | "Well... I'm in love with Bruce." - Kaine
-----------------------------| "Heh, fuck you, Pete." - me
wood...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu| "Shit! Mark spilled gin on the Peeps. Wait...
sirb...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | Pete is trying to take the credit." - me
Marcus J. Ranum
> rec.games.mud.info - FAQ and general annoucements, mud sites, etc.
> rec.games.mud.programmer - Coding, both in and out of the server
> rec.games.mud.issues? }
> rec.games.mud.policy? } - Some place for "serious" discussion of mud
> rec.games.mud.topics? } issues without flames and joke postings...
> rec.games.mud.general?}
> rec.games.mud.misc? } - Everything else, including flames
> rec.games.mud.flame? }
Let's not go overboard with the MUD groups, here!! What about
rec.games.mud.aquaria and rec.games.mud.swedish.chef.spoik.spoik.spoik??
I suspect we could get away with 2 mud related news groups -
one for fluff and one that was (somewhat) controlled, but, considering
what a prize bunch of weenies we look like on the net, starting a whole
MUD-related sub-heirarchy is going to look kind of, well, weeny.
A rec.games.mud.flame is right out, and it's going to do nothing
for anyone - other that ensure that some news sites drop all the mud
newsgroups out of their active file altogether. (At least mine might).
The "alt" newsgroups are a mess, and some sites don't carry them, because
of the tremendous amount of fluff and nonsense - like rec.games.mud is
tending towards. If rec.games.mud becomes an "alt" group, it'll get
chopped off - if it becomes another talk.bizarre, I can assure you
that at least some of its propagation will stop.
mjr.
Sean Barrett
INFORMATION! BESIDES, THIS IS AN UTTER FANTASY. NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
I have to admit, after having given this further thought, that r.g.m
probably should be dissolved. Perhaps alt.mud would be restarted. I
think most of the arguments about moderation miss the point that MJR
has pointed out--both the argument that moderation is censorship and
the claims about the number of readers miss the point: when we start
having sites pulling the plug on r.g.m because of the crap in it you
will see what "censorship" and "readership loss" are about. I can't
imagine many places would be happy about some things we've seen here
lately. Hopefully, the total volume is so low that nobody's noticed
us. But posting a log of someone reciting a copyrighted story about
necrophilia seems to me to be the sort of thing that would attract a
sysadmin's attention. Of course, there was no copyright notice, nor
was the author's name even mentioned, so maybe we'll still manage to
slip by. I'm not posting this because that log morally outraged me;
I enjoyed it. But what reaction do you expect from those newsadmins
who *don't* carry alt.sex.* and talk.bizarre and such, but who ('til
now) thought rec.games.mud was a "serious" group? Aren't they going
to think "What is this crap? Why am I carrying it?" Shouldn't they?
Some time ago this group moved from the altnet to USENET. Those who
post to this group seem not to have to have realized the difference.
buzzard @ eng.umd.edu Merriversity of Uniland, College Purgatory, MD 20742
I was objectdestroy()ed by bob on ubermud and all I got was this lousy .sig!
Halloway@Asylum,evil!,von Satoria@DarkerRealms,lpmuds,Asylum,etc. syd@furmud
Sean Barrett
>Some time ago this group moved from the altnet to USENET. Those who
>post to this group seem not to have to have realized the difference.
Jeez, dude, get off your moral high-horse, eh?
I suppose this whole thing could be turned into another argument for
moderation, but I don't think that's the solution. The argument looks
like this: if we don't shape up, they'll pull the plug on us. We've
shown that we can't shape ourselves up. A moderator would shape us up.
Hence we should have a moderator.
But I don't really care for the argument. People don't want to shape
up. They want to continue to be able to post freely as they are now.
If they pull the plug, well, there's always alt.mud and mailing lists.
>buzzard @ eng.umd.edu Merriversity of Uniland, College Purgatory, MD 20742
>I was objectdestroy()ed by bob on ubermud and all I got was this lousy .sig!
Boy! So was I! What a coincidence
>Halloway@Asylum,evil!,von Satoria@DarkerRealms,lpmuds,Asylum,etc. syd@furmud
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
>>My personal proposals:
>> rec.games.mud.info - FAQ and general annoucements, mud sites, etc.
>> rec.games.mud.programmer - Coding, both in and out of the server
>> rec.games.mud.issues? }
>> rec.games.mud.policy? } - Some place for "serious" discussion of mud
>> rec.games.mud.topics? } issues without flames and joke postings...
>> rec.games.mud.general?}
>> rec.games.mud.misc? } - Everything else, including flames
>> rec.games.mud.flame? }
>
> Let's not go overboard with the MUD groups, here!! What about
>rec.games.mud.aquaria and rec.games.mud.swedish.chef.spoik.spoik.spoik??
Funny, but I have good reasons to support each newsgroup.
> I suspect we could get away with 2 mud related news groups -
>one for fluff and one that was (somewhat) controlled, but, considering
>what a prize bunch of weenies we look like on the net, starting a whole
>MUD-related sub-heirarchy is going to look kind of, well, weeny.
I was only proposing four... sure, this is more than many newsgroups, but
most other areas don't have the same sorts of problems we do. Some people
only want to read informative postings, others want to discuss primarily
coding issues, and still others want a place to discuss serious mud issues
without flamage and other stuff. Now, shuffling the flames to it's own
newsgroup partially helps, but I don't think it solves all the areas of
conflict. And I'd much rather see self-moderation than a moderated newsgroup.
Things like mud lists and code questions and faq posts can easily be
moderated... but when it comes to discussing issues without flamage, the lines
start to blur. So if we are going to have only two newsgroups, then I'd much
rather see one unmoderated that was designed to allow serious discussion of
policy issues, social concerns, etc. than a moderated one that contains only
info-related postings.
> A rec.games.mud.flame is right out, and it's going to do nothing
>for anyone - other that ensure that some news sites drop all the mud
>newsgroups out of their active file altogether. (At least mine might).
I don't follow the logic in this. While it is true it might be unsuccessful,
I would hope that self-censorship and respect might prevail and r.g.m.f be
used for it's intended purpose, freeing up r.g.m. If a sysadmin sees r.g.m.f
come across his screen and says, "Oh, how stupid, let's just drop both groups"
then I'd say the sysadmin has the problem, not the newsgroups.
>The "alt" newsgroups are a mess, and some sites don't carry them, because
>of the tremendous amount of fluff and nonsense - like rec.games.mud is
>tending towards. If rec.games.mud becomes an "alt" group, it'll get
>chopped off - if it becomes another talk.bizarre, I can assure you
>that at least some of its propagation will stop.
The assumption here is that the multiple rec.games.mud groups would all be
fluff and nonsense... and the only area I could see that true is in the area
of flames and irrelevant postings.
Bruce
--
| wood...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | -Top Three Things I Need In My Life- |
| sirb...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | 1. Money - Needed for Basic Survival |
| ster...@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu | 2. Love - Needed for Basic Happiness |
| Bruce@Asylum/CaveMUCK/FurryMUCK | 3. Sex - Needed for Basic Exercise |
Marcus J. Ranum
>I was only proposing four... sure, this is more than many newsgroups, but
>most other areas don't have the same sorts of problems we do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What, you mean maturity? You've sure hit the nail right on the
head.
That's exactly my point. We do NOT need *4* newsgroups related
to MUDding. We need clues first, and newsgroups second.
mjr.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
>wood...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Sterling Woodcock) writes:
>>I was only proposing four... sure, this is more than many newsgroups, but
>>most other areas don't have the same sorts of problems we do.
>head.
I couldn't agree with you more.
> That's exactly my point. We do NOT need *4* newsgroups related
>to MUDding. We need clues first, and newsgroups second.
Unfortunately, for all their talk of giving clues, many posters seem to have
profound lack of them. I guess your argument is that "you can't solve social
problems with software" which, if I recall, was the same thing you said a few
months back in reference to mud code specifically. :) While I agree with
that argument, I don't think the social problems *can* be solved... at least
not with the time and effort I (and probably others, else it wouldn't still be
a problem) want to put into it. So in my opinion, newsgroup creation is the
best idea. If one were to follow you're argument as a hard and fast rule,
we wouldn't need rec.arts.startrek.info or alt.flame....
>mjr.
Jesper Lauridsen
>Meanwhile, one last piece of advice to the teeming masses out there:
>take a break! If you're spending hours every day on the MUDs, try
>taking a few days away from them. Real Life (tm) has an awful lot to
>offer once you get good at playing it...
> << WhiteUnicorn / Scotrix >>
Yesterday I decided to try out this RealLifeMUD and see how it was
to play. Being a DikuMUD player I started with the gathering of some
equipment. The best stuff I could find in my home was a large kitchen
knife, but I guessed that I could get something better as I raised
level.
Out on the streets I looked for easy things to kill (remember this
my first character on this MUD). A dog came along, fine I thought
remembering the Beastly Fido's of DikuMUD, I charged at it and buried
my knife deep into it's furry body. Surprisingly quick the beast died.
My first kill!!! Naturally I sliced the corpse open to see if I could
find any gold or equipment inside it. The only thing I found were
blood, organs and bones, I decided to leave the stuff on the pavement
since I had no idea of what to do with it.
I continued my walk with the blood spotted blade at my side. At the
next street corner I meet an old lady,, the moment she saw my knife she
fainted. Great I thought, an easy kill, and cut her throat. Rather easy
actually, she didn't even wake up. The corpse didn't have any weapons,
allthoug I systematically cut it in small pieces. But there were some
coins and some strange things in her bag. I took the bag and was about
to walk on, when suddenly a man came running towards me, from his size
I gathered that he was a high level type. But before I could clamber on
my feet he was next to me, shouting and trying to hit me with his fists.
Since escape was out of the question I decided to go for my chance. I
made a swift attack at his stomach and much to my surprise the knife
went right through his armour and into his fletch. He passed out and I
finished the job with a stab in his hart. This was great!!! Already
3 kills and not a scratch.
At this moment I heard a strange sound, like a siren, and suddenly
at vehicle turned around the corner, shit cityguards. The vehicle
stopped next to me and a guard jumped out and tried to grab me, I
evaded his attack and stabbed him with my knife. Much to my surprise
his wound started to bleed a lot, he seemed to be mortally wounded.
I didn't have any time to finish this job through, cause the other
guard pulled forth a strange weapon and opened fire at me. The only
thing to do was to run, and so I did. I will not tire the reader
with a long tale of how I escaped and returned to my home.
Now I have realized how strange and uncomfortable this RealLifeMUD
is and I will not play again for a long time, so back to DikuMUD.
Jesper Lauridsen (aka Bystander)
--
|Jesper Lauridsen | |
| Datalogisk Afdeling | "I have things to do and news to read" |
| Matematisk Institut | |
| Aarhus Universitet | - rors...@daimi.aau.dk |