# RFD: rec.games.dungeon.* hierarchy

88 views

### Andrew Solovay

Jul 2, 1993, 10:33:26 AM7/2/93
to
Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy

I would like to propose formally that a new hierarchy be created,
namely rec.games.dungeon. This hierarchy would contain groups
dedicated to discussion of rogue-type games. These games share the
following characteristics:

* They are character-based; that is, the game generally presents a map
of the current playing area, with different characters representing
the player, opponents, objects, etc. Text is a secondary element at
games, such as Adventure, Zork (a.k.a. "Dungeon"), etc.

* They are very portable. The games are usually written in a
high-level langauge, and as noted, they use character graphics; this
makes them easy to port to various architectures (mainframes,
workstations, and different types of personal computers). As a
result, they don't fit into any of the comp.sys.*.games groups,
which are machine-specific.

There are several advantages to having such a hierarchy, notably:

* Most people who play any of these games are interested in other
games of the type. Thus, if the newsgroups were grouped together,
people could easily find other groups that interested them.

* It would provide an area for discussing dungeon games that do not
currently have a USENET group (e.g. larn), and for discussing the
relative merits of different games.

* It would provide a uniform framework for adding new groups for
dungeon-type games that become popular.

The reorganization would rename three existing groups thus:

rec.games.rogue -> rec.games.dungeon.rogue
rec.games.hack -> rec.games.dungeon.nethack(*)
rec.games.moria -> rec.games.dungeon.moria

All of these groups would remain unmoderated.

(*) The rec.games.hack newsgroup has long been exclusively for the
discussion of "nethack", not of "hack". Accordingly, this seems like a
good time to rename it. If people on rec.games.hack object to this
renaming, we can instead change it to rec.games.dungeon.hack.

Two additional groups would be created:

rec.games.dungeon.info (moderated)
rec.games.dungeon.misc (unmoderated)

rec.games.dungeon.info would be a forum for informational postings
about games (well-maintained spoiler files, announcements of new
revisions or patches, etc.). Every posting to this group would be
cross-posted to the most appropriate other rec.games.dungeon group,
and follows-up would be directed to that group. The moderator could,
at his/her discretion, change the subject line of postings (esp. to
add the word [SPOILERS] where appropriate).

I would be willing, though not eager, to moderate this group, but if
someone else wants to volunteer, that would be fine by me. A moderator
could be removed by a public vote with a two-thirds majority in favor
of removal.

rec.games.dungeon.misc would be a forum for discussion of dungeon-type
games that do not yet have mainstream groups (e.g. larn). It would
also be used for discussion that, e.g., compares different dungeon
games ("NetHack sucks! Moria rules!" "No, MORIA sucks! NETHACK rules!"
"No, *NETHACK* sucks..."). Postings to rec.games.dungeon.misc ought to
contain the name of the game in question in the subject line (e.g.
"Subject: [larn] How to I kill the Evil Frozzle?")

Things to Decide
================

First: Should the hierarchy actually be named "rec.games.dungeon"?
text-based adventure games (e.g. "Zork") are set in dungeons; indeed,
one early version of Zork was named "dungeon". Another concern: The
unifying characteristic of these games is *not* that they're set in
dungeons, but rather the style of interface. There is no reason one of
these games couldn't be set, e.g., on the Death Star or in a gulag,
and yet remain appropriate for the hierarchy. Again, perhaps

Perhaps, since "rogue" is the granddaddy of these games, the hierarchy
ought to be called "rec.games.roguelike". Or perhaps some other name
would be better. Any ideas?

Second: rec.games.dungeon.nethack, or rec.games.dungeon.hack? I think
"nethack", but I could be wrong.

What else?

FYI: I've contacted David Grabiner, the man who posted the RFD for
rec.games.angband. He and I agree that we should hold the reorg vote
first. WHen the reorg vote is concluded, he will restart the RFD for
rec.games.angband or rec.games.dungeon.angband, depending on how the
vote turns out.
--
Andrew Solovay

"But that was in another country;
and besides, the wench is dead." ---Marlowe

### Rich Walker

Jul 2, 1993, 11:03:46 AM7/2/93
to
Well, I think this is one of the better ideas I've heard all week.

I got into nethack by accident, ported it to my machine, then found three
other people were porting it as well... Then found a copy of moria, then
ported angband. And now I hear (accidentally) of a couple of others.
Perhaps rec.games.whatever.porting as well, which would probably end up
with some of the flavour of gnu.utils.bugs...

--
--- Rich! Walker (gr...@cus.cam.ac.uk)
"In a way, we're a kind of Peace Corps."
- Maj. A. Lincoln German, Training Director of the
Green Beret Special Warfare School, Ft. Bragg, N.C.

### kenneth r lipka

Jul 2, 1993, 11:17:23 AM7/2/93
to

In article <211gvm...@rodan.UU.NET>, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
> Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy
>
>
> * They are character-based; that is, the game generally presents a map
> of the current playing area, with different characters representing
> the player, opponents, objects, etc. Text is a secondary element at
> games, such as Adventure, Zork (a.k.a. "Dungeon"), etc.
>

Just to be a nit-picker, but it is an important nit.

This note should be changed to "ASCII Graphics-Based". Because just
about any game out there is "character" based. The EOB series is based on
characters (four in fact) and there is a map (from the first person point of
view). Many of the SSI games of the AD&D variety have a map that is more
overhead, with an individual figure for each character in the party.

But with the ASCII name, it shows much more readily what we are actually
so taken with. And as a question, would we all be playing these games if they
were done with hi-res VGA graphics but still the same "cheap" set-up? (i.e.
no sound, overhead view, no motions on the characters, etc)

/> Ken Lipka
/< fer...@engin.umich.edu
[\\\\\\(O):::<======================================-
\< Graduate Student - Mechanical Engineering
\> University of Michigan, Ann Arbor USA

### Eiji Hirai

Jul 2, 1993, 12:27:15 PM7/2/93
to
sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
: rec.games.rogue -> rec.games.dungeon.rogue

: rec.games.hack -> rec.games.dungeon.nethack(*)
: rec.games.moria -> rec.games.dungeon.moria

: rec.games.dungeon.info (moderated)
: rec.games.dungeon.misc (unmoderated)

I think all the proposals are great ideas! If I were to vote after a
CFV, I'd vote yes to all the proposals!

--
hi...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai) | Unix Geek for Swarthmore College
I don't speak for Swarthmore College | Computing Center, Swarthmore, PA, USA

"I post, therefore I am." -Rene Descartes on Usenet

### mne...@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu

Jul 2, 1993, 2:10:48 PM7/2/93
to
Andrew Solovay (sol...@netcom.com) wrote:
> Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy

> I would like to propose formally that a new hierarchy be created,
> namely rec.games.dungeon. This hierarchy would contain groups
> dedicated to discussion of rogue-type games. These games share the
> following characteristics:

[deleted]

> There are several advantages to having such a hierarchy, notably:

[deleted]

> The reorganization would rename three existing groups thus:

> rec.games.rogue -> rec.games.dungeon.rogue
> rec.games.hack -> rec.games.dungeon.nethack(*)
> rec.games.moria -> rec.games.dungeon.moria

> All of these groups would remain unmoderated.

> (*) The rec.games.hack newsgroup has long been exclusively for the
> discussion of "nethack", not of "hack". Accordingly, this seems like a
> good time to rename it. If people on rec.games.hack object to this
> renaming, we can instead change it to rec.games.dungeon.hack.

Nethack IS hack, but Hack isnt NetHack. Keep it as r.g.d.hack.

[more deleted]

> Things to Decide
> ================

> First: Should the hierarchy actually be named "rec.games.dungeon"?
> text-based adventure games (e.g. "Zork") are set in dungeons; indeed,
> one early version of Zork was named "dungeon". Another concern: The
> unifying characteristic of these games is *not* that they're set in
> dungeons, but rather the style of interface. There is no reason one of
> these games couldn't be set, e.g., on the Death Star or in a gulag,
> and yet remain appropriate for the hierarchy. Again, perhaps
> "dungeon" is a misleading name.

The other problem with dungeon is that some D&D'er who cant find r.g.rpg
may assume this group to be for them.

How about "Single-User Computer Role Playing Game" or .sucrpg. That is
what Hack, Moria, and the rest share. Only problem is that the name
is not descriptive, but as long as there is a .info group which
keeps a weekly FAQ, this should cause no problems with new reader.

--
+---------------------------------------+------------+-----------------------+
| Michael Neylon - Masem the Thermo God | How do | Phys Chem - An attempt|
| BS Chem Eng (UT), Grad (UM), NASA | YOU spell | to apply 'y=mx+b' to |
| ONLY THE AMIGA! | 'potato?' | everything in the uni.|
+---------------------------------------+------------+-----------------------+

### Tom O Breton

Jul 2, 1993, 3:10:35 PM7/2/93
to
Andrew:

> First: Should the hierarchy actually be named "rec.games.dungeon"?

I consider the existence of another game called "dungeon" pretty much a
killer. I favor "roguelike".

> Second: rec.games.dungeon.nethack, or rec.games.dungeon.hack? I think
> "nethack", but I could be wrong.

Of course I'll yield to the more frequent players, but it looks like
"nethack" to me.

> rec.games.dungeon.misc would be a forum for discussion of dungeon-type
> games that do not yet have mainstream groups (e.g. larn). It would
> also be used for discussion that, e.g., compares different dungeon
> games ("NetHack sucks! Moria rules!" "No, MORIA sucks! NETHACK rules!"
> "No, *NETHACK* sucks..."). Postings to rec.games.dungeon.misc ought to
> contain the name of the game in question in the subject line (e.g.
> "Subject: [larn] How to I kill the Evil Frozzle?")

Sounds like it's doing two different things.

How about creating an *.advocacy group for the fights, and also creating
an *.other group for lesser-known games. To my mind *.other states the
purpose more clearly than *.misc

Tom

--
The Tom spreads its huge, scaly wings and soars into the sky...
(t...@world.std.com, TomB...@delphi.com)

### Charles Bertrand

Jul 2, 1993, 1:05:54 PM7/2/93
to
<New news group to collectively include info from all rogue like
games>

Several problems with this, aside choosing from a name that will
clearly let people know what the group is about.

Have you seen the traffic on r.g.hack, r.g.moria, and I would
assume r.g.rogue? I am a hacker, born and bread. I don't want to try
to plow through hundreds of posts on the other games just to get to
the ones on Nethack.

More critically: Nethack already eats too much of my
productivity. I don't _want_ to know about other games which might do
the same thing to me. :-)

Question: What is the procedure for terminating and creating new
groups? Is it a vote? How is the vote handled? Do I have any
influence at all? Am I just a nameless speck floating in a universe
that would be uneffected by my cessation of existance? God, I'm
depressed.

/>
/<
[\\\\\\(O):::<======================================-
\<
\>

### Ben Coleman

Jul 2, 1993, 12:03:16 AM7/2/93
to
mne...@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu () writes:

> How about "Single-User Computer Role Playing Game" or .sucrpg. That is
> what Hack, Moria, and the rest share.

Or, more accurately, "Single-User Text-Based Computer Role Playing Game",
or .sutbcrpg. Except that someone seeing that in a newsgroups list is
liable to conclude that the list has an 8-byte corruption in it.

Ben

+---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Ben Coleman NJ8J | "All that is not eternal is |
| AX.25: NJ8J@W4QO.#EAL.#ATL.GA.USA.NA | eternally irrelevant." |
| Internet: b...@nj8j.atl.ga.us | C. S. Lewis |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

### Magnus Olsson

Jul 5, 1993, 8:52:48 AM7/5/93
to
In article <BERTRAND.9...@husc10.harvard.edu> bert...@husc10.harvard.edu (Charles Bertrand) writes:
><New news group to collectively include info from all rogue like
>games>
>
>
>Several problems with this, aside choosing from a name that will
>clearly let people know what the group is about.
>
> Have you seen the traffic on r.g.hack, r.g.moria, and I would
>assume r.g.rogue? I am a hacker, born and bread. I don't want to try
>to plow through hundreds of posts on the other games just to get to
>the ones on Nethack.

Charles, would you *please* go back and *read* the article to which you are
responding? Thanks. Now, did you see that the proposal is *not* about
one "New news group to collectively include info from all rogue like
games", but about an entire *hierarchy* (if you don't know what that is,
there are excellent dictionaries) of groups. Each of the games that has
its own group today will continue to have it under the new scheme -
it will just be renamed. Rec.games.hack will be renamed to rec.games.
dungeon.nethack, or something like that.

>Question: What is the procedure for terminating and creating new
>groups?

news.announce.newusers before you start posting.

>God, I'm
>depressed.

\begin {flame}
I'm depressed, too. Is the reading comprehension of rogue-like game
players significantly worse than average or someting? (And I'm not
referring just to Charles' post above, but to many other recent posts
- such as the ones in rec.games.moria flaming me for things I've never
said. Sheesh.
\end {flame}

Magnus Olsson | \e+ /_
Department of Theoretical Physics | \ Z / q
University of Lund, Sweden | >----<
mag...@thep.lu.se, the...@selund.bitnet | / \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e- \q

### mil...@wharton.upenn.edu

Jul 6, 1993, 12:14:05 PM7/6/93
to
In article <211gvm...@rodan.UU.NET>, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
> Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy

How would this affect other newsgroups such as
discuss exactly the same issues as your proposed hierarchy?

--
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MIL...@wharton.upenn.edu
"Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.

### Andrew Solovay

Jul 6, 1993, 1:22:39 PM7/6/93
to
In article <1993Jul6...@wharton.upenn.edu> mil...@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>In article <211gvm...@rodan.UU.NET>, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>> Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy
>
>How would this affect other newsgroups such as
>discuss exactly the same issues as your proposed hierarchy?

Very little. I don't believe NetHack, for example, is discussed much
in either group, even though NetHack has been ported to the IBM PC.
The games discussed in this hierarchy are available on many
architectures, only one of which is the IBM PC; and most of the
"adventure" and "frp" games for the IBM are completely beyond the
scope of the proposed hierarchy.

So I think it's simply wrong to say those newsfroups "discuss exactly
the same issues as [my] proposed hierarchy".

But I'll take this as further evidence that "dungeon" is a bad name
for the hierarchy; it just leads to far too much confusion. So what
should the hierarchy be called? I think "roguelike" is clearest and
most informative. Other suggestions have included "ascii" (which I
find not very informative), "termcap" (ditto), "tty" (ditto),
"hacking" (ditto ditto), and "text-adventure" (???).

Any other suggestions? Should I issue a 2nd RFD for
"rec.games.roguelike"?

### Ron Asbestos Dippold

Jul 6, 1993, 3:49:03 PM7/6/93
to
mil...@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>In article <211gvm...@rodan.UU.NET>, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>> Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy

>How would this affect other newsgroups such as
>discuss exactly the same issues as your proposed hierarchy?

Little, I think. It's already pretty accepted that rogue-like games
are a special category of their own, and questions about Nethack, etc.
are already referred to existing groups such as rec.games.hack.
--
You have a massage. (From the Swedish prime minister.)

### David Grabiner

Jul 6, 1993, 7:51:38 PM7/6/93
to
On Tue, 6 Jul 1993 17:22:39 GMT, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) said:

> But I'll take this as further evidence that "dungeon" is a bad name
> for the hierarchy; it just leads to far too much confusion. So what
> should the hierarchy be called? I think "roguelike" is clearest and
> most informative. Other suggestions have included "ascii" (which I
> find not very informative), "termcap" (ditto), "tty" (ditto),
> "hacking" (ditto ditto), and "text-adventure" (???).

"Roguelike" identifies the class of game properly, which "dungeon" does
not. In particular, "rec.games.roguelike.misc" is a good name for a
group dealing with general Rogue-like games.

The problem with a "roguelike" hierarchy is that new users may never
have heard of Rogue, and may have trouble finding
rec.games.roguelike.hack to deal with their Nethack questions. I would
prefer to create only a misc group, and leave the other groups where
they are.

--
David Grabiner, grab...@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.

### Andrew Solovay

Jul 6, 1993, 8:49:31 PM7/6/93
to
In article <GRABINER.9...@zariski.harvard.edu> grab...@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner) writes:
>
>The problem with a "roguelike" hierarchy is that new users may never
>have heard of Rogue, and may have trouble finding
>rec.games.roguelike.hack to deal with their Nethack questions. I would
>prefer to create only a misc group, and leave the other groups where
>they are.

Hoom. Surely "rec.games.roguelike.moria" is at least as easy to find
as "rec.games.moria". And "rec.games.roguelike.nethack" would be much
easier for a nethack player to find than "rec.games.hack". How many
new nethack players-- players who haven't heard of rogue-- know about
nethack's ancestry as "hack"?

### Juha Laiho

Jul 6, 1993, 1:18:54 PM7/6/93
to
t...@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) said:
>> First: Should the hierarchy actually be named "rec.games.dungeon"?
>
>I consider the existence of another game called "dungeon" pretty much a
>killer. I favor "roguelike".
>
Well, I know of the rogue, but I think there's a lot of people who don't.
After all, rogue is quite an old game, and not very common any more.
But as there's also the classic 'dungeon' text adventure, the choice is
quite hard..

>> rec.games.dungeon.misc would be a forum for discussion of dungeon-type
>> games that do not yet have mainstream groups (e.g. larn). It would
>> also be used for discussion that, e.g., compares different dungeon
>> games ("NetHack sucks! Moria rules!" "No, MORIA sucks! NETHACK rules!"
>> "No, *NETHACK* sucks..."). Postings to rec.games.dungeon.misc ought to
>> contain the name of the game in question in the subject line (e.g.
>> "Subject: [larn] How to I kill the Evil Frozzle?")
>
>Sounds like it's doing two different things.
>
>How about creating an *.advocacy group for the fights, and also creating
>an *.other group for lesser-known games. To my mind *.other states the
>purpose more clearly than *.misc
>

Well, if (because?) there has to be fights, .advocacy is quite good trashcan
to have.
.misc seems still better than .other to me, since .other would limit the
group to be about other games only, but .misc could be used to discuss general
game mechanics and design points as well.

### Andrew Solovay

Jul 6, 1993, 11:53:40 PM7/6/93
to

I dunno. I think we really only need to create one group now, .misc
(as the general catch-all). If there turns out to be a lot of traffic,
and there are a lot of fights, we can easily create an .advocacy
group; but I don't think that'll be a problem. No point in creating an
.advocacy group if we don't know there'll be a demand.

I mentioned the fights in my RFD, not to make sure that there would be
fights in .misc (oy), but rather to make clear that those fights, if
they happen, should not be in the single-game newsfroups. But I'll
happily remove all mention of fights from the CFV/charter, if it would

### David Seal

Jul 5, 1993, 8:22:09 AM7/5/93
to
In article <BERTRAND.9...@husc10.harvard.edu>
bert...@husc10.harvard.edu (Charles Bertrand) writes:

>Question: What is the procedure for terminating and creating new
>groups? Is it a vote? How is the vote handled? Do I have any
>influence at all? Am I just a nameless speck floating in a universe
>that would be uneffected by my cessation of existance? God, I'm
>depressed.

Yes, the procedure is like that for creating new groups - i.e. a discussion
period followed by a vote. Or to be more accurate, by several votes: each
individual group creation or renaming has to be voted on separately. They're
usually done all together on one ballot, but you can vote individually on
each item, and each item passes or fails independenetly of the rest. So the
ballot for this proposal (as originally stated) would be something like:

Q1) Rename rec.games.hack as rec.games.dungeon.nethack? YES/NO/ABSTAIN
Q2) Rename rec.games.moria as rec.games.dungeon.moria? YES/NO/ABSTAIN
Q3) Rename rec.games.rogue as rec.games.dungeon.rogue? YES/NO/ABSTAIN
Q4) Create rec.games.misc? YES/NO/ABSTAIN
Q5) Create rec.games.info? YES/NO/ABSTAIN

If the proposals pass, the creations are treated just like ordinary
newsgroup creations. The renamings are somewhat more complicated: first a
group with the new name is created, with recommendations to sysadmins to
shift over to it, then the old group is removed about three months later.

David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...

### David Seal

Jul 5, 1993, 8:13:10 AM7/5/93
to
In article <C9Jx9...@world.std.com> t...@world.std.com (Tom O Breton)
writes:

>How about creating an *.advocacy group for the fights, and also creating
>an *.other group for lesser-known games. To my mind *.other states the
>purpose more clearly than *.misc

Are fights about which game is best common? If so, a *.advocacy group would
be a good idea; if not, don't encourage them!

Quite possibly *.other would be better than *.misc considered purely from
the point of view of the new hierarchy. However, using *.misc has become the
Usenet standard for the name of the "all other postings" group in a
hierarchy: I would recommend not breaking this standard.

### Peter Glen Berger

Jul 7, 1993, 10:32:01 AM7/7/93
to
I wholeheartedly support the change from
rec.games.[hack,rogue,moria,omega,larn] to
rec.games.dungeon[rogue,etc.] with the exception of a few minor
quibbles:

1) I do worry about confusion between "dungeon" and dungeon and
dragons type people. "Roguelike" is the most accurate description
anyone has yet come up with for these games. Unless someone comes up
with a better suggestion, I would support "roguelike" before
"dungeon."

2) The tree for nethack should be rec.games.roguelike.nethack, NOT
.hack. Why? Because it will reduce the quite common occurrence of a
newbie blundering in and saying, "hi guys, how can I break into a
[system type] at [important government installation]?"

That's all for now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Glen Berger <pet...@cmu.edu>
Carnegie Mellon University / University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Listen to "Swing Low Sweet Cadillac," 3-5 pm Tuesdays 88.3fm Pittsburgh!
= = = = = = = = = =
PGP 2.2 public key available on request.
A8A641 / 79 88 13 38 B3 44 E6 BD C3 2E B1 66 47 38 D6 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

### Dale Eckart

Jul 8, 1993, 10:18:16 AM7/8/93
to
In article <AgChtV200...@andrew.cmu.edu> Peter Glen Berger <pet...@CMU.EDU> writes:
>I wholeheartedly support the change from
>rec.games.[hack,rogue,moria,omega,larn] to
>rec.games.dungeon[rogue,etc.] with the exception of a few minor
>quibbles:
>
>1) I do worry about confusion between "dungeon" and dungeon and
>dragons type people. "Roguelike" is the most accurate description
>anyone has yet come up with for these games. Unless someone comes up
>with a better suggestion, I would support "roguelike" before
>"dungeon."
At long last, I will agree also. If someone is looking for moria or
angband (or larn or nethack), it is no more difficult to find under
rec.games.roguelike.* than rec.games.*. This also sidesteps the
"dungeon" confusion.

>
>2) The tree for nethack should be rec.games.roguelike.nethack, NOT
>.hack. Why? Because it will reduce the quite common occurrence of a
>newbie blundering in and saying, "hi guys, how can I break into a
>[system type] at [important government installation]?"
I guess I haven't read that many news groups, but do we really expect
these sorts of messages in a rec.games.* hierarchy? Maybe if it were
"alt.games.hack" or "comp.games.hack" but not "rec.games.roguelike.nethack."

>
>That's all for now.
From me, too. Dale

>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Glen Berger <pet...@cmu.edu>
>Carnegie Mellon University / University of Pittsburgh School of Law
>Listen to "Swing Low Sweet Cadillac," 3-5 pm Tuesdays 88.3fm Pittsburgh!
>= = = = = = = = = =
>PGP 2.2 public key available on request.
>A8A641 / 79 88 13 38 B3 44 E6 BD C3 2E B1 66 47 38 D6 13
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Dale E. Eckart "Oh, it's a *UNIX* system!"
Chemical Engineering Analyst -- Lex, in _Jurassic Park_
eck...@cray.com (317) 477-4031

--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Dale E. Eckart "Oh, it's a *UNIX* system!"
Chemical Engineering Analyst -- Lex, in _Jurassic Park_
eck...@cray.com (317) 477-4031

### Andrew Solovay

Jul 12, 1993, 8:32:08 PM7/12/93
to
Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.roguelike hierarchy

[This is a second RFD, proposing a different name for the hierarchy.
The first RFD was issued for a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy.]

NEW STUFF
=========

There is general consenus that "rec.games.dungeon" would be a bad name
for the hierarchy. The main problem is that "dungeon" describes far
too wide a variety of games, including pencil-and-paper FRP games,
games like ZORK (one version of which was actually called "dungeon"),
graphic-oriented computer games, etc.

"roguelike" seems to me much superior. It describes all the games in
the proposed hierarchy, and no other games. The one thing all these
games have in common is that they're descended from "rogue", and have
a basically rogue-style interface.

Some object that "roguelike" is a mystifying term to new players, who
may not know that (for example) Moria is descended from a game like
"rogue". But this shouldn't be a real problem.
rec.games.roguelike.moria will be at least as easy to find as
rec.games.moria, so even if people don't know what "roguelike" means,
they'll still be able to participate. And "rec.games.roguelike.misc"
is a much more accurate and descriptive name for a group than are any
of the alternatives I've seen.

Also: In the first RFD, I offered to be the moderator of the proposed
.info group. I wish to retract and recant that offer; I just don't
think I'll have time. So, if anyone wants to moderate this group, let
me know. If no potential moderator comes forward by the time of the
CFV, I will not issue a CFV for rec.games.roguelike.info; but anyone
who wants to do so, at a later date, may feel free.

The rest of the RFD is mostly the same as the first RFD. There seems
to be a consensus to name the Nethack group ".nethack", not ".hack";
that's reflected in this RFD.

OLD STUFF
=========

I would like to propose formally that a new hierarchy be created,

namely rec.games.roguelike. This hierarchy would contain groups

dedicated to discussion of rogue-type games. These games share the
following characteristics:

* They are usually ASCII-character-based; that is, the game generally

presents a map of the current playing area, with different
characters representing the player, opponents, objects, etc. Text is
a secondary element at most. This is in contradistinction to other,
"Dungeon"), etc.

* They are very portable. The games are usually written in a
high-level langauge, and as noted, they use character graphics; this
makes them easy to port to various architectures (mainframes,
workstations, and different types of personal computers). As a
result, they don't fit into any of the comp.sys.*.games groups,
which are machine-specific.

There are several advantages to having such a hierarchy, notably:

* Most people who play any of these games are interested in other
games of the type. Thus, if the newsgroups were grouped together,
people could easily find other groups that interested them.

* It would provide an area for discussing dungeon games that do not
currently have a USENET group (e.g. larn), and for discussing the
relative merits of different games.

* It would provide a uniform framework for adding new groups for
dungeon-type games that become popular.

The reorganization would rename three existing groups thus:

rec.games.rogue -> rec.games.roguelike.rogue
rec.games.hack -> rec.games.roguelike.nethack(*)
rec.games.moria -> rec.games.roguelike.moria

All of these groups would remain unmoderated.

(*) The rec.games.hack newsgroup has long been exclusively for the
discussion of "nethack", not of "hack". Accordingly, this seems like a
good time to rename it.

Two additional groups would be created:

rec.games.roguelike.info (moderated)
rec.games.roguelike.misc (unmoderated)

rec.games.roguelike.info would be a forum for informational postings

about games (well-maintained spoiler files, announcements of new
revisions or patches, etc.). Every posting to this group would be

cross-posted to the most appropriate other rec.games.roguelike group,

and follows-up would be directed to that group. The moderator could,
at his/her discretion, change the subject line of postings (esp. to

add the word [SPOILERS] where appropriate). A moderator could be

removed by a public vote with a two-thirds majority in favor of
removal.

As yet, nobody has offered to moderate the .info group. If no
volunteer comes forward by the time the CFV is issued, I will not put
the .info group on the CFV. So act now! Fame and adulation as an
Official Usenet Moderator await!

rec.games.roguelike.misc would be a forum for discussion of

dungeon-type games that do not yet have mainstream groups (e.g. larn).
It would also be used for discussion that, e.g., compares different

dungeon games. Postings to rec.games.roguelike.misc ought to contain

the name of the game in question in the subject line (e.g.
"Subject: [larn] How to I kill the Evil Frozzle?")

### The Grim Reaper

Jul 12, 1993, 9:47:12 PM7/12/93
to
In article <21svq8...@rodan.UU.NET> sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.roguelike hierarchy
>
>[This is a second RFD, proposing a different name for the hierarchy.
>The first RFD was issued for a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy.]
[Good ideas cut to save space]

>
>The reorganization would rename three existing groups thus:
>
>rec.games.rogue -> rec.games.roguelike.rogue
>rec.games.hack -> rec.games.roguelike.nethack(*)
>rec.games.moria -> rec.games.roguelike.moria
>
>All of these groups would remain unmoderated.
>
>(*) The rec.games.hack newsgroup has long been exclusively for the
>discussion of "nethack", not of "hack". Accordingly, this seems like a
>good time to rename it.
>
>Two additional groups would be created:
>
>rec.games.roguelike.info (moderated)
>rec.games.roguelike.misc (unmoderated)
>
>rec.games.roguelike.info would be a forum for informational postings
>about games (well-maintained spoiler files, announcements of new
>revisions or patches, etc.). Every posting to this group would be
>cross-posted to the most appropriate other rec.games.roguelike group,
>and follows-up would be directed to that group. The moderator could,
>at his/her discretion, change the subject line of postings (esp. to
>add the word [SPOILERS] where appropriate). A moderator could be
>removed by a public vote with a two-thirds majority in favor of
>removal.

I see no real reason for this group. Anyone interested in Nethack spoilers
or patches (for example) would be reading the nethack group. There is no real
reason to use this group besides comparing the merits of the various games,
and this could be handled by crossposting.

[More stuff killed]

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| One .sig to rule them all, one .sig to find them... |
| One .sig to bring them all and in the darkness bind them |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| The Grim Reaper (Reaper of Souls, Stealer of .sigs) |
| scy...@u.washington.edu |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

### Robert A. Hayden

Jul 13, 1993, 1:08:49 AM7/13/93
to
I just plain don't like 'roguelike'.

I've never seen rogue. Played rogue. Or even heard of rogue until this
RFD and the name just rubs me the wrong way.

or just: rec.games.*

ascii-dungeon is perfectly discriptive, shows newbies that it is both for
computers AND simplistic (in display) and shows the theme of the games
without anyone having to know anything about rogue.

--
{[> Robert A. Hayden ____ hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \ /__ hay...@att2.cs.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \/ / aq...@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu <]}
{[> #include <std_disclaimer.h> \/ <]}
-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 0.3): GSS d- p--/-p+ c++ l++ m+/* s-/++ g+ w++ t++ r++ x+

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Random Thought:

"Oh yeah, laugh now! But when the millions start pouring in, I'll be the one
at Burger King, sucking down Whoppers at my own private table!"
-- Al Bundy
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

### Zodiac

Jul 12, 1993, 11:45:41 PM7/12/93
to

I don't like the idea of having this group of games named after a single one
of them, I recall when I was sifting through the groups that I deleted such
groups because I thought they referred to games I wasn't using.
I know that my suggested title will raise some quibbling from the mage-based
characters, but hey! That's the way I play the game, even with a mage.

Carl.

### Joe Slater

Jul 13, 1993, 3:46:58 AM7/13/93
to
I think a better name would be rec.games.tty.

The unifying feature of these games is that they are designed to run with
tty-style graphics. Admittedly there are non-rogue style games that also
use this interface, but I don't know if that would be a problem - perhaps
it would be an advantage. A person who doesn't know what "tty" means won't
have heard of Rogue, anyway.

jds
--
j...@zikzak.apana.org.au | "A sick feeling of repugnance and
Fax: +61-3-562-0756 | apprehension grows in me as I near
Tel: +61-3-525-8728 | Australia."
If all else fails try Fidonet: | Diary of Sir Robert Menzies, Prime
joe_s...@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org | Minister of Australia, May 23 1941

### Rebecca Harris

Jul 13, 1993, 12:12:15 PM7/13/93
to
In article <21svq8...@rodan.UU.NET>, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
wrote:

>
> There is general consenus that "rec.games.dungeon" would be a bad name
> for the hierarchy.
and

> The rest of the RFD is mostly the same as the first RFD. There seems
> to be a consensus to name the Nethack group ".nethack", not ".hack";
> that's reflected in this RFD.
and
> * Most people who play any of these games are interested in other
> games of the type.

I, for one, read this group regularly and have not seen any discussion of
Andrew's proposal. Perhaps he has received some e-mail which has led him
to believe that the consensus he mentions exists, and has given him a sense
of what "most people" want. Personally, I prefer the group as is, and am
not the least interested in having my spoilers (or anything else, for that
matter) moderated.

### Axl

Jul 13, 1993, 1:15:54 PM7/13/93
to
In article <1993Jul12....@msus1.msus.edu> hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu (Robert A. Hayden) writes:
>I just plain don't like 'roguelike'.
>
>I've never seen rogue. Played rogue. Or even heard of rogue until this
>RFD and the name just rubs me the wrong way.
>
>or just: rec.games.*
>
Yes, just leave it as it is now...rec.games.* All the
omegas, morias, hacks, etc...have diverged too far from each other to
be unified into 1 hierarchy.

-axl

### Per Abrahamsen

Jul 13, 1993, 3:10:54 PM7/13/93
to

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert A. Hayden <hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu> writes:

Pretty confusing to those who does not play the ASCII variants of the
games. The text-adventure named dungeon' is also purely ASCII.

Robert> or just: rec.games.*

Has no group for larn, omega, and the other minor games in the genre.

We might try creating a single group if (when) the vote for the
hierarchy fails, but I think the hierarchy would have been better for
players who would like to learn about other games in the genre.

### Tom O Breton

Jul 13, 1993, 6:27:38 PM7/13/93
to
Rebecca:

> I, for one, read this group regularly and have not seen any discussion of
> Andrew's proposal.

I can't understand how you missed it. There've been about two dozen
messages on it. "roguelike" seems to be the consensus.

### Ron Asbestos Dippold

Jul 13, 1993, 6:36:30 PM7/13/93
to
sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.roguelike hierarchy

Looks good! Gopher it...
--
May you have many friends and very few living enemies.

### David Seal

Jul 14, 1993, 4:25:23 AM7/14/93
to
In article <woolto_c.742535141@kultarr> wool...@cs.uwa.oz.au (Zodiac)
writes:

Won't do - hack'n'slash is a playing style that extends well beyond this
class of games - e.g. I've seen it in role-playing games and in many

I like rec.games.ascii-dungeon better than anything else I've seen. I
realise that some of these games have acquired somewhat more sophisticated
interfaces than ASCII graphics. At least in the ones I've seen, this is
simply a matter of substituting coloured ASCII characters or small graphical
images for the original plain ASCII characters, and the game still feels
very much like an ASCII graphics one.

I'm willing to go along with rec.games.roguelike, though.

### Magnus Olsson

Jul 14, 1993, 6:16:04 AM7/14/93
to
In article <21tp9i...@zikzak.apana.org.au> j...@zikzak.apana.org.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>I think a better name would be rec.games.tty.
>
>The unifying feature of these games is that they are designed to run with
>tty-style graphics.

IMHO, this (rec.games.tty) is a BAD idea.

Firstly: it suffers from exactly the same disadvantage as
rec.games.ascii: there are lots of other games that could be described
as "tty games" - Star Trek (which was actually written for "real"
TTY:s), for example, not to speak of all the other text-based games.

Secondly: Do you really know what a tty is? A tty used to be a
teletype - a huge, noisy, electromechanical,printing terminal that
works at a ridiculously slow speed. It's hard to find a terminal
*less* suitable for playing a rogue-like game. Even though the term
tty has a broader meaning today, it is still widely used to denote a
"dumb" terminal ("glass tty") which is not very suitable either for
playing rogue.

One thing in common for all the rogue-like games is that they rely
extensively on cursor-addressing, so that the terminal doesn't have to
redraw the entire map for every move.

(But I have actually received a letter from one person who's played
hack on a hard-copy terminal, but it didn't sound like an experience
I'd like to share... :-)).

### Vincent Archer

Jul 14, 1993, 8:56:27 AM7/14/93
to
In article <rharris-13...@rharris.uoregon.edu> rha...@aaa.uoregon.edu (Rebecca Harris) writes:
>I, for one, read this group regularly and have not seen any discussion of
>Andrew's proposal. Perhaps he has received some e-mail which has led him
>to believe that the consensus he mentions exists, and has given him a sense
>of what "most people" want. Personally, I prefer the group as is, and am
>not the least interested in having my spoilers (or anything else, for that
>matter) moderated.

I also oppose any moderation in games newsgroup... except for a .info
newsgroup. But the purpose of the info newsgroup should NOT include
posting of spoilers, but only posting by various game authors/maintainers
about new versions, patches, posting to comp.sources, compiled binaries
and so on.

I'm in favor of a .info groupe because, when I've got work to do (which
happens, even if you cannot believe it :-), I tend to stop reading most
news, and catch-up later. If there was an info group, I would keep on
reading it for these kind of posts... (for example, I totally missed NH3.1)

If the rec.games.roguelike hierarchy fails, I'll probably try to launch a
generic rec.games.info for that purpose...
--
Vincent Archer Email: arc...@frmug.fr.net
Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.

### Andrew Solovay

Jul 14, 1993, 12:31:13 PM7/14/93
to
In article <1993Jul14.1...@frmug.fr.net> arc...@frmug.fr.net (Vincent Archer) writes:
>I also oppose any moderation in games newsgroup... except for a .info
>newsgroup. But the purpose of the info newsgroup should NOT include
>posting of spoilers, but only posting by various game authors/maintainers
>about new versions, patches, posting to comp.sources, compiled binaries
>and so on.
>
>I'm in favor of a .info groupe because, when I've got work to do (which
>happens, even if you cannot believe it :-), I tend to stop reading most
>news, and catch-up later. If there was an info group, I would keep on
>reading it for these kind of posts... (for example, I totally missed NH3.1)

I'm much the same way. I tend to play a game till I beat it, then drop
the game till a new version comes out. When I drop the game, I usually
drop the group it's in; this means that I find out about new versions
largely by accident (e.g. I first heard of Angband when someone posted
an RFD for rec.games.angband here).

I think other players of rogueish games are much like that, so an
.info (or .announce) group would serve a valid purpose. Nobody seems
interested in having a group for spoilers postings, so perhaps we
should just drop that from the charter (if & when there is such a
thing).

Also: One person suggested that .announce might be a better name for
the group. This appeals to me, for the reasons I mentioned above. Food
for thought.

Note that this is all still hypothetical; I won't include the group in
the CFV unless a moderator steps forward.

### David Grabiner

Jul 14, 1993, 10:17:56 AM7/14/93
to
In article <ABRAHAM.93...@loke.iesd.auc.dk> abr...@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:

>Robert> or just: rec.games.*

>Has no group for larn, omega, and the other minor games in the genre.

>We might try creating a single group if (when) the vote for the
>hierarchy fails, but I think the hierarchy would have been better for
>players who would like to learn about other games in the genre.

You can do this; vote against the rest of the groups, but vote for the
creation of rec.games.roguelike.misc. This would leave the current
hierarchy intact, but create a separate place to put Larn and Omega.

--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.harvard.edu (temporarily grabiner@husc10)

"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."

Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me...

### Eiji Hirai

Jul 14, 1993, 1:58:36 PM7/14/93
to
hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu (Robert A. Hayden) writes:
: ascii-dungeon is perfectly discriptive

Sigh. I thought we discussed this not one week ago. Sigh.

rec.games.ascii-dungeon.* includes games like Zork Zero (to use one example)
and similar games which are "dungeon" game and use ascii graphics, but
aren't related to moria/hack/larn/omega/etc at all.

Also, rec.games.ascii-dungeon.* doesn't include games like Xmoria, which
is definitely related to moria/hack/larn/omega/etc.

Yes, rec.games.roguelike.* may not be a pretty name but it just so happens
that this is a precise definition of the relationship between all these
games.

--
hi...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai) | Unix Geek for Swarthmore College
I don't speak for Swarthmore College | Computing Center, Swarthmore, PA, USA

"I post, therefore I am." -Rene Descartes on Usenet

### Eiji Hirai

Jul 14, 1993, 1:55:47 PM7/14/93
to
ds...@armltd.co.uk (David Seal) writes:
: I like rec.games.ascii-dungeon better than anything else I've seen.

This still includes games that aren't related to moria/hack/etc and doesn't
include some games which are related to moria/hack/etc.

: simly a matter of substituting coloured ASCII characters or small graphical

: images for the original plain ASCII characters

An example of non-ascii based moria/hack game: Xmoria.

### Eiji Hirai

Jul 14, 1993, 2:00:21 PM7/14/93
to
j...@zikzak.apana.org.au (Joe Slater) writes:
: I think a better name would be rec.games.tty.

Sigh, this was discussed about a week ago. Sigh.

: there are non-rogue style games that also
: use this interface

precisely. What's to prevent me from thinking that this hiearchy is
for discussing ascii tetris?

The rec.games.tty.* name is just too ambiguous to be useful.

### Eiji Hirai

Jul 14, 1993, 2:02:32 PM7/14/93
to
rha...@aaa.uoregon.edu (Rebecca Harris) writes:
: I, for one, read this group regularly and have not seen any discussion of
: Andrew's proposal.

That's because he made Followup-To: news.groups, which is where all the
discussion has been taking place. Andrew was just following the newsgroup
creation guidelines. If he didn't, he'd get flamed and rightly so. You
shouldn't fault him for doing the right thing.

### Eiji Hirai

Jul 14, 1993, 2:03:50 PM7/14/93
to
arc...@frmug.fr.net (Vincent Archer) writes:
: I also oppose any moderation in games newsgroup... except for a .info
: newsgroup.

Which is precisely what the proposal says. You don't need to oppose anything.

### Eiji Hirai

Jul 14, 1993, 2:06:13 PM7/14/93
to
sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
: Also: One person suggested that .announce might be a better name for

: the group. This appeals to me

This appeals to me too. I'd also like a moderated .announce group (instead
of the .info) group for just announcements of new versions.

### Rebecca Harris

Jul 14, 1993, 5:19:39 PM7/14/93
to
In article <CA4Jq...@world.std.com>, t...@world.std.com (Tom O Breton)
wrote:

>
> Rebecca:
>
> > I, for one, read this group regularly and have not seen any discussion of
> > Andrew's proposal.
>
> I can't understand how you missed it. There've been about two dozen
> messages on it. "roguelike" seems to be the consensus.

I read Andrew's cross-posting in rec.games.hack, which is the group I read
regularly. His postings did not indicate that discussion was to take place
in news.groups (a convention he e-mailed me about) and then HE posted my
message in news.groups...clearly out of my original context. I think that
changes to existing groups should be discussed by posting to the affected
groups themselves, and that this convention creates a situation where
parties who are unaware of the content and interests of a group become part
of a consensus which does not concern them. I find the naming discussions
trivial, and am profoundly disinterested in creating yet another "moderator
fiefdom." If I don't want to read something, I am completely capable of
not reading it myself. Andrew's behavior in cross-posting someone else's
message (mine in this case) is a good example of how someone can be
misrepresented by a volunteer censor. I'm sure he had my best interests in
mind.

& & & & & & & & & & &
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
help!
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & \
& & & && & & & & & & & & & & @
& & && & & & & & & & & & & & &
& & & & && & & & & & & & &&& & & & &

### Andrew Solovay

Jul 14, 1993, 5:50:46 PM7/14/93
to
In article <rharris-14...@rharris.uoregon.edu> rha...@aaa.uoregon.edu (Rebecca Harris) writes:
>
>I read Andrew's cross-posting in rec.games.hack, which is the group I read
>regularly. His postings did not indicate that discussion was to take place
>in news.groups (a convention he e-mailed me about)

Well, they directed follow-ups to news.groups, not to rec.games.hack.
That could serve as a hint.

> and then HE posted my
>message in news.groups...clearly out of my original context.

This is patently untrue. My RFDs directed follow-ups to news.groups.
You posted a follow-up, so it went to news.groups. I reposted
nothing. You did it all by yourself.

#ifdef FLAME
If you'd get the most minimal freaking clue about how USENET works,
you'd save yourself a lot of embarassment and the rest of us a lot of
line noise.
#else
This is a natural mistake; don't sweat it.
#endif

Look through rec.games.hack. See your post anywhere? Now look through
news.groups. See it there? Check the header; you posted it, not me.

> Andrew's behavior in cross-posting someone else's
>message (mine in this case) is a good example of how someone can be
>misrepresented by a volunteer censor.

See above.

>& & & & & & & & & & &
> & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
>help!
> & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & \
> & & & && & & & & & & & & & & @
>& & && & & & & & & & & & & & &
> & & & & && & & & & & & & &&& & & & &

### Per Abrahamsen

Jul 14, 1993, 8:26:31 PM7/14/93
to

>>>>> "David" == David Grabiner <grab...@husc10.harvard.edu> writes:

David> You can do this; vote against the rest of the groups, but vote for the
David> creation of rec.games.roguelike.misc. This would leave the current
David> hierarchy intact, but create a separate place to put Larn and Omega.

I could, but I think it is even better to vote yes to all of them.
This would make it obvious for people who know moria, nethack, or
angband what kind of games are discussed in rec.games.roguelike.misc,
even if they don't know rogue. It would also make it easier for
people who know one of the games to find other games in the same
genre.

### Rebecca Harris

Jul 14, 1993, 9:42:08 PM7/14/93
to
> --
> Andrew Solovay
>
> "But that was in another country;
> and besides, the wench is dead." ---Marlowe

Part flame, part mistake, part honest belief in a process wherein
discussion takes place within the forum being discussed, and that decision
be made by those affected. It makes sense to use news.groups to discuss NEW
groups, not existing groups. Conventions are agreed upon within a society,
and when they do not function, they are changed. Conventions change when
they are not honored.

I would apologize for my abject ignorance had your reactions, both here and
in the e-mail I've received from you, not been unbearably arrogant. Now you
"compliment" me on my sig, and include an endearment which seems designed
I'll bet you call all the boys honey too. Can't say I love your sig. Does

### Brian J. Dunford

Jul 14, 1993, 11:01:14 PM7/14/93
to

Could someone please explain how a RFD for rec.games.angband(IMHO not
really a great idea to start with) has suddenly turned into trying to
re-name all the rec.games.{moria,hack,etc} in r.g.{roguelike,tty,ascii,
whatever else}. There has been little confusion in the past on what the
various groups are for(except hack but those seem to be rare). Do we
really need to add roguelike to all the current newsgroups? Is this really
going to make it easier for people to find the groups. It seems all this
will do is add more confusion onto the r.g.* groups with no benefit that
I can see.

Dun...@lictor.acsu.buffalo.edu

### Andrew Solovay

Jul 14, 1993, 11:17:02 PM7/14/93
to
In article <rharris-14...@rharris.uoregon.edu> rha...@aaa.uoregon.edu (Rebecca Harris) writes:
>I would apologize for my abject ignorance had your reactions, both here and
>in the e-mail I've received from you, not been unbearably arrogant. Now you
>"compliment" me on my sig, and include an endearment which seems designed
>I'll bet you call all the boys honey too. Can't say I love your sig. Does

As a matter of fact, I do (call the boys honey, that is). If you read
soc.motss, you'd know that.

And I assure you, I would "diminish" any male who was so singularly
and publicly clueless, quite as much as I have you. Read the SRIA
thread, and you'll see that, as well.

Thirdly: My tone did, I admit, get somewhat more snide, PARTICULARLY
in my e-mail, after you publicly accused me of quoting you out of
context and subjecting you to flaming thereby. You quoted yourself out
of context, as it were, and that's nobody's fault but your own.

Fourthly: If that was a .sig, it was a deucedly ugly one.

Fifthly: Well, I suppose not everyone's up to Marlowe.

### Patricia Evans

Jul 14, 1993, 5:29:26 PM7/14/93
to

>You can do this; vote against the rest of the groups, but vote for the
>creation of rec.games.roguelike.misc. This would leave the current
>hierarchy intact, but create a separate place to put Larn and Omega.
>

>David Grabiner, grab...@math.harvard.edu (temporarily grabiner@husc10)

If only rec.games.roguelike.misc passes, will it be obvious that this group
is where discussion of omega and larn takes place? At least with the .moria
and .nethack groups as well, some further indication of what games are
considered "roguelike" is given.

Patricia Evans
pev...@sanjuan.uvic.ca

### David Seal

Jul 15, 1993, 7:34:10 AM7/15/93
to
In article <rharris-14...@rharris.uoregon.edu>
rha...@aaa.uoregon.edu (Rebecca Harris) writes:

>Part flame, part mistake, part honest belief in a process wherein
>discussion takes place within the forum being discussed, and that decision
>be made by those affected. It makes sense to use news.groups to discuss NEW
>groups, not existing groups. Conventions are agreed upon within a society,
>and when they do not function, they are changed. Conventions change when
>they are not honored.

Changes to an existing group can affect and be affected by other existing
groups, so news.groups should be involved. There is a case to be made that
proposals which change existing groups should be discussed in the groups
concerned, with RFDs and CFVs being sent to news.announce.newgroups and
news.groups as well, while proposals which create new groups should be done
as at present (i.e. discussion in news.groups, with RFDs and CFVs being sent
to news.announce.newgroups and affected groups). But I don't think it's a
very good case.

The main problem is the confusion that it would cause. The present rule is
simple - all discussion of group proposals in news.groups - and people still
get it wrong. (BTW, this isn't a flame directed at Rebecca, just an
observation of what does in fact happen. I have a suspicion that a lot of
these cases are caused by new users either not being advised to read
news.announce.newusers, or not taking that advice.) A more complicated rule
will probably just cause more mistakes...

On top of that, what should happen when (as in many re-organisations,
including this one) some old groups are being renamed and some new ones are
being created? If the discussion is supposed to take place in each of the
existing groups *and* in news.groups, it will just become hopelessly
fragmented. Partly due to the way different newsreaders work and partly due
to people's different crossposting habits, different messages will be sent
to different subsets of the full set of groups.

This could be settled by an even more complicated rule - e.g. "if a proposal
is only about new groups, discussion should take place in news.groups; if it
changes just one existing group, discussion should take place in that group;
if it changes 2 or more existing groups, discussion should take place in the
(hypothetical) news.reorgs group". But this just gives yet more opportunity
for confusion...

The "discussion in news.groups" convention has been agreed for the very good
reason that, by and large, it works. Any convention about where discussion
takes place is almost certainly going to fail at some point for some reason:
if we're to replace the existing one, we need an alternative that looks
likely to fail significantly less often than the existing one. I can't see
such an alternative.

### Magnus Olsson

Jul 15, 1993, 8:33:36 AM7/15/93
to
In article <CA6r2...@acsu.buffalo.edu> dun...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Brian J. Dunford) writes:
>
> Could someone please explain how a RFD for rec.games.angband(IMHO not
>really a great idea to start with) has suddenly turned into trying to
>re-name all the rec.games.{moria,hack,etc} in r.g.{roguelike,tty,ascii,
>whatever else}.

It hasn't. They are two separate proposals, but the proposer of
rec.games.angband (David Grabiner, if I'm not mistaken) has agreed to
postpone the discussion on the rec.games.angband proposal until after
the rec.games.roguelike.* vote.

### Eiji Hirai

Jul 15, 1993, 11:26:37 AM7/15/93
to
ds...@armltd.co.uk (David Seal) writes:
: There is a case to be made that

: proposals which change existing groups should be discussed in the groups
: concerned

Andew was only following the news.announce.newgroup guideline on creating
new newsgroups and making followups to news.groups. If he didn't do this,
he'd be violating those guidelines.

If you want to change the guidelines, you should propose that as an entirely
different proposal on news.groups. However, you shouldn't criticize Andrew
or his RFD just because he was correctly following the guidelines.

BTW, you should read the "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup FAQ" in

rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet-by-groups/news.announce.newsgroups/

### Tom O Breton

Jul 15, 1993, 12:13:11 PM7/15/93
to
Brian:

> Could someone please explain how a RFD for rec.games.angband(IMHO not
> really a great idea to start with) has suddenly turned into trying to
> re-name all the rec.games.{moria,hack,etc} in r.g.{roguelike,tty,ascii,
> whatever else}.

That's not exactly what happened. The "rec.games.angband" discussion
inspired Aliza to make a larger suggestion, and after it bounced around
a bit, it got serious, Andrew Solovay picked it up, and here we are
on 2nd RFD, nearing a CFV.

I was against it at first, because I felt that the work of getting it
done outwieghed the benefits. The main benefit is that people interested
in one roguelike game can easily find discussion of other roguelike
games.

However, now that some of the work has been done and people are taking
it seriously, I feel this changes the equation.

Incidentally, the rec.games[.|.roguelike].angband CFV is postponed until
the other is settled one way or the other.

### Brian J. Dunford

Jul 15, 1993, 1:49:56 PM7/15/93
to
In article <CA7rq...@world.std.com> t...@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) writes:
>Brian:
>
>> Could someone please explain how a RFD for rec.games.angband(IMHO not
>> really a great idea to start with) has suddenly turned into trying to
>> re-name all the rec.games.{moria,hack,etc} in r.g.{roguelike,tty,ascii,
>> whatever else}.
>
>That's not exactly what happened. The "rec.games.angband" discussion
>inspired Aliza to make a larger suggestion, and after it bounced around
>a bit, it got serious, Andrew Solovay picked it up, and here we are
>on 2nd RFD, nearing a CFV.

I should have been more clear in my initial posting. I'm aware of the new
RFD proposed by Andrew Solovay. The point I was attempting to
get across is whether changing the organization of Rec.games.* by adding
{roguelike,ascii,dungeon,etc} will work better than the way it is now?

>I was against it at first, because I felt that the work of getting it
>done outwieghed the benefits. The main benefit is that people interested
>in one roguelike game can easily find discussion of other roguelike
>games.

I can understand this point but for people new to these programs may not
understand what the added name means, and how will a title be found that
will fit for a description equally well for Moria,Larn,Omega,Nethack,Angband,
Xmoria, etc. Also, how does Rec.Games.* not fit this already? Games is
somewhat generic, but does denote what all of these programs are. Roguelike
i could see applying to Larn and Nethack, but a program like Moria is somewhat
a different now(I understand it's origins in rogue).For example it is not
a single screen game, as Rogue is. Many of the programs are ascii based, but
then you have programs run under X. It just seems that any attempt at
narrowing the specifications of the groups will be either not completely
applicable or confusing to some people.

>
>However, now that some of the work has been done and people are taking
>it seriously, I feel this changes the equation.

> Tom
>--
>The Tom spreads its huge, scaly wings and soars into the sky...
>(t...@world.std.com, TomB...@delphi.com)

Dun...@lictor.acsu.buffalo.edu
(this will have to do for a .sig, i haven't bothered to make one, i'm just
one of those lurkers in the background who decided to say something)

### Per Abrahamsen

Jul 15, 1993, 9:39:53 PM7/15/93
to

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian J. Dunford <dun...@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:

Brian> Do we really need to add roguelike to all the current
Brian> newsgroups? Is this really going to make it easier for people
Brian> to find the groups. It seems all this will do is add more
Brian> confusion onto the r.g.* groups with no benefit that I can
Brian> see.

Adding roguelike' will not help those who look for a newsgroup for
moria or nethack and are not interested in other roguelike games, but
I don't think it will harm either.

Adding roguelike' will help people who look for a newsgroup for larn
or omega or other roguelike games even if they don't know rogue. If
you know moria and see

rec.games.roguelike.moria
rec.games.roguelike.misc

it is pretty obvious that rec.games.roguelike.misc is the place to

Adding roguelike' would also help people who play one of the games,
and would like to try other games in the genre.

### Tom O Breton

Jul 16, 1993, 2:30:15 AM7/16/93
to
Brian:

> I can understand this point but for people new to these programs may not
> understand what the added name means

OK, but it can be explained in a sentence even to someone who never saw
rogue.

> Also, how does Rec.Games.* not fit this already?

Because they have a collection of feature in common which other games do
not.

Some attempts to enumerate these features have failed (IE, "ascii",
"dungeon", etc.) But for any of them you can look at the screen and say
"Duzzn't dat remind ya of rogue?" They don't each have every common
feature, but they form a reasonable grouping.

### The Quixotic Ninja

Jul 16, 1993, 1:06:25 PM7/16/93
to
In article <ABRAHAM.93...@loke.iesd.auc.dk> abr...@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>Adding roguelike' will not help those who look for a newsgroup for
>moria or nethack and are not interested in other roguelike games, but
>I don't think it will harm either.

Except for the fact that there will suddenly be a number of 'bogus'
groups (rec.games.moria and the rest) which will need to be rmgrouped.
Chances are, they will never completely vanish. (See 'rec.arts.startrek'
for an example of what I mean.)

>Adding roguelike' will help people who look for a newsgroup for larn
>or omega or other roguelike games even if they don't know rogue. If
>you know moria and see
>
> rec.games.roguelike.moria
> rec.games.roguelike.misc
>
>it is pretty obvious that rec.games.roguelike.misc is the place to

Sorry, I don't agree at all with the logic. If someone doesn't know
of rogue, the group names will just create a lot of added confusion.

--
:.:.:.: john n. trussell :.:.:.: Everything in the universe is a joke.
:.:.:. jtr...@wpi.wpi.edu .:.:.: Normally, you're intelligent enough to 'get'
:.:. dev...@ulthar.wpi.edu .:.: only the obvious ones. But go without sleep
devnull%hotb...@schunix.dmc.com for some time, and you gain the intelligence
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: to 'get' them all. --Hyperintelligence Theory

### The Quixotic Ninja

Jul 16, 1993, 1:15:39 PM7/16/93
to
In article <CA8vE...@world.std.com> t...@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) writes:
>Brian:
>> Also, how does Rec.Games.* not fit this already?
>
>Because they have a collection of feature in common which other games do
>not.

So what? It's not *necessary* to have a separate subheirarchy just
because the games have a similar distant ancestor. I don't see
rec.games.8x8board.chess and rec.games.8x8board.checkers out there,
either. And, considering how much the 'roguelike' (that has got to be
the worst heirarchy name I've ever seen) games have diverged since the
creation of rogue, they no longer need to be grouped together.

>Some attempts to enumerate these features have failed (IE, "ascii",
>"dungeon", etc.) But for any of them you can look at the screen and say
>"Duzzn't dat remind ya of rogue?" They don't each have every common
>feature, but they form a reasonable grouping.

Perhaps the difficulty in finding a unifying term for the games should
serve as a hint to you that there *aren't* enough similarities between
them anymore to justify a subheirarchy.

### mil...@wharton.upenn.edu

Jul 16, 1993, 3:05:13 PM7/16/93
to
In article <226nnr\$h...@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, jtr...@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (The Quixotic Ninja) writes:
> Perhaps the difficulty in finding a unifying term for the games should
> serve as a hint to you that there *aren't* enough similarities between
> them anymore to justify a subheirarchy.

Perhaps the problem is that the single characteristic which *best*
distinguishes them, that they are *computer* games, is nowhere mentioned
in the newsgroup name. Personally I find annoying the way that solo
computer games and games played face to face or over postal or e-mail
are mixed in the same hierarchy.

Maybe the advocates should step back a bit and make rec.games.comp.rogue
and rec.games.comp.nethack and rec.games.comp.misc, leaving plenty of
room for more computer games to be added to the hierarchy, rather than
creating a hierarchy with built in obsolescence...

Now *that* would be a change that the hierarchy purists (like me) could
support.

--
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MIL...@wharton.upenn.edu
"Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.

### Robert A. Hayden

Jul 16, 1993, 4:26:01 PM7/16/93
to
mil...@wharton.upenn.edu wrote:
-> Maybe the advocates should step back a bit and make rec.games.comp.rogue
-> and rec.games.comp.nethack and rec.games.comp.misc, leaving plenty of
-> room for more computer games to be added to the hierarchy, rather than
-> creating a hierarchy with built in obsolescence...

I agree. Not only is 'roguelike' a poor name, but it says nothing about
the fact that they are for the computer. rec.games.comp.* would work
great, and allow the addition of non-ASCII-Dungeon games also.
{[> Robert A. Hayden ____ hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \ /__ hay...@att2.cs.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \/ / aq...@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu <]}
{[> #include <std_disclaimer.h> \/ <]}
-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 0.3): GSS d- p--/-p+ c++ l++ m+/* s-/++ g+ w++ t++ r++ x+

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Random Thought:

"But are you not," he said, "a more fiendish disputant than the Great
Hyperlobic Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler of Ciceronicus Twelve, the Magic
and Indefatigable?"

"The Great Hyperlobic Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler," said Deep Thought,
thoroughly rolling the r's, "could talk all four legs off an Arcturan
Mega-Donkey -- but only I could persuade it to go for a walk afterward."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

### Per Abrahamsen

Jul 16, 1993, 3:34:41 PM7/16/93
to

This has nothing to do with discussion of a roguelike' hierarchy.
Tetris and Space Invaders hardly qualifies as roguelike.

Feel free to propose a rec.games.computer' hierarchy in a separate
RFD (I will support it), but don't mix it with the current
discussion.

### Andrew Solovay

Jul 16, 1993, 7:50:24 PM7/16/93
to
[Note follow-up is set to news.groups; that is where discussion of
this proposed hierarchy is taking place.]

Status report:

I have a volunteer to moderate the fifth group. Ms. Aliza Panitz
<bug...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> has volunteered to moderate the group.
The group would be called rec.games.roguelike.announce; it would be
for annoncements of new releases and patches, postings of FAQ lists,
and similar informational material.

Second: The big unresolved question is, still, the name of the
hierarchy. (That is, the big, unresolvced question other than "should
we do this at all", which will be resolved by the vote. ;-) So far,
there have been a great many suggestions; but very few of these have
attracted support from anyone but the suggester. The only one which
has a reasonable following is the (admittedly ugly) compromise of
"rec.games.roguelike". This has the virtue of specifying the one thing
these games have in common with each other, and not with other games;
that is, rogueish ancestry and a rogue-like game interface.

I am willing to have a straw poll for the hierarchy name, if others
think it warranted. However, as I've said, I haven't seen any other
suggested group name gat