Request for Inclusion in Current RFD
Raphael Quinet
[posted and e-mailed]
In article <3368f72...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
|> We, the undersigned, formally request the addition to the current RFD
|> of the group rec.games.computer.online* for consideration.
Formally? Isn't that a bit pompous? Come on, we are on Usenet, where
the tone is usually more relaxed... :-)
|> In view of the fact that the our existing group
|> rec.games.computer.ultima-dragons cannot exist in parallel to the
|> proposed new group rec.games.computer.ultima* based on standard big-8
|> control mechanisms, we request that the option to retain the existing
|> newsgroup, and to put Ultima Online in a separate hierarchy where it
|> belongs, be made available to be voted upon.
Sorry, but the current newsgroup creation guidelines do not include
a provision for having multiple proposals in a single RFD. Although one
votes separately on all groups included in an RFD, it is not possible to
propose multiple names for the same group and expect that only one of
them will be retained. All RFDs should be designed in such a way that
all proposed groups could co-exist if they all pass the vote.
This is why it is not possible to include both r.g.c.ultima.online and
r.g.c.online.ultima in the same RFD.
Since the current RFD proposes the former (and there seems to be more
support for that, by the way) and you would prefer the latter, the
appropriate solution according to the group creation guidelines is to
propose a new reorg (new RFD) after the voting period for the current
one is over. If the current reorg succeeds, you will have to wait for
three months before proposing a new reorg. If the current reorg fails,
you will have to wait for six months. All this is explained in some
documents that are posted periodically in news.groups and in
news.announce.newusers.
Another solution is to change the group creation process, but this is
likely to take much more time than the current reorgs, including the
mandatory waiting period between RFDs.
[...]
|> If the proponents of the current RFD are not prepared to include
|> this option, we feel it will be necessary to put forward a parallel
|> RFD proposing the alternative hierarchy.
This is a bit silly, since that option cannot be included in the current
RFD, even if the proponents wanted it. Besides, it is not allowed to
have to competing RFDs at the same time for a reorganization of the same
groups. So if you want to put forward another RFD for an alternative
hierarchy, you will only be allowed to post it after the current RFD is
over (plus the three or six months waiting period, depending on the
results of the vote).
|> signed,
|>
|> Andrew Burke (Reknaw Dragon)
|> Michael Carmack (Vulcan Dragon)
|> Michael Cecil (Polychromic Dragon)
|> Rob M. Davies (RedFerret Dragon)
|> Michael Fleming (Contrapuntal Dragon)
|> Edward Franks (Fortran Dragon)
|> Michael Hilborn (A New Breed of Dragon)
|> Mark Maurer (Exanter Dragon)
|> Glenys Skipper (Disoriented Dragon)
|> R. Serena Wakefield (Kender Dragon)
I am sorry to say this, but this article shows that you do not have a very
good understanding of the group creation process, which might explain some
of the anger expressed in this discussion. I think it would help if you
could read the following articles:
Subject: How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.announce.newusers,
news.admin.misc,news.answers
Subject: How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups
Subject: How to Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups
Subject: Usenet Newsgroup Creation Companion
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.announce.newusers,news.answers
Subject: Guidelines on Usenet Newsgroup Names
Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.groups,news.admin.misc,alt.config,
alt.answers,news.answers
Subject: What is Usenet?
Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.admin.misc,news.answers
The first article ("How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup") contains an
almost up-to-date list of the current guidelines. Some minor details have
been modified since then and discussed in news.groups, but most of this
article can be considered as a reference for creating newsgroups. The
second article ("How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal") is an
excellent reference for writing an RFD.
-Raphael
Raphael Quinet
GSkip
In <5k6um2$2...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu> ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu (Matt
Bandy) writes:
>
>[Posted and e-mailed.]
>
>mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>
>>We, the undersigned, formally request the addition to the current RFD
>>of the group rec.games.computer.online* for consideration.
>
creating.ultima.online and .online.* are separate issues (and would
cause confusion if together in the same RFD.)
No. I feel people should be presented with and given the opporunity
to vote on all the options at the same time.
If you feel that rgc.online.* is a better solution, feel free to
submit your own RFD -- you already seem to have the proponents together
for it.
Do I take it you are declining our request?
>
>> In view of the fact that the our existing group
>>rec.games.computer.ultima-dragons cannot exist in parallel to the
>>proposed new group rec.games.computer.ultima* based on standard big-8
>>control mechanisms, we request that the option to retain the existing
>>newsgroup, and to put Ultima Online in a separate hierarchy where it
>>belongs, be made available to be voted upon.
>
> The option to retain the existing newsgroup is *already* available
>to be voted upon. Whether Ultima Online belongs in a separate
>hierarchy is also highly debatable, considering all that it shares
>with other Ultima games.
>
>> We consider the proposed creation of the rec.games.computer.ultima*
>>hierarchy to be undesirable for the following reasons:
>>
>> (1) The existing RGCU-D is the largest body of knowledge available
>>on existing Ultima games, and handles all requests for information in
>>a timely and adequate manner. To divorce discussion from the largest
>>source of information on the subject matter is senseless - it will
>>involve constant crossposting at best - at worst it will mean all
>>newcomers to Ultima will have no pool of experience on which to draw.
>
> This argument is badly flawed. RGCU-D is not a body of
knowledge.
The contributing people are, as you state below.
>The Ultima Dragons are the largest source of Ultima info on Usenet,
but so far as I know I've never proposed that they not be allowed to
provide Ultima info in the proposed hierarchy. I've only proposed that
Dragon social discussion and Ultima discussion be separated into two
groups.
The Ultima content simply does not warrent another newsgroup. Because
of the nature of this group, and the extensive crossposting for any
effective communication to take place, these discussions would end up
in the proposed Ultima group - just as they currently are in
news.groups.
>
>> (2) Discussion of the existing games is going to decline, simply
>>because there are no Ultima games available for purchase.
> There have already been no new Ultima games available for
>purchase for three years. What makes you think that discussion of the
>existing games will decline further?
*new* games are discussed below. I was talking about existing games,
which until about 3 months ago were still available for retail
purchase. They no longer are, and Origin has given no indication they
ever will be - nor do they appear willing to make them available. As
there are none available, it is logical the number of newcomers to the
game would be much smaller - and these are the only people this
proposed group could appeal to.
>
>> (3) Ultima IX is by no means a certainty, and RGCU-D is more than
>>adequate to handle discussion of one game. In addition, if it is
>>released, UIX will be the last in the current series - all the
>>history of Ultima will be lost in a separate group.
>
> It will be the last in the current trilogy, yes. We don't have
>separate groups for U1-3, U4-6, and U7-9, nor should we in my opinion.
I meant series. Richard Garriott has indicated this will be the last
of tha Avatar/Brittania type Ultima, and there is absolutely NO
indication that any further Ultimas will be forthcoming. Trilogies are
not relevent to this point. You are proposing the inception of a NG
that is for handling discussion of non available games, for obsolete
engines based on the possibility that the last of a series may come
out. RGCU-D is perfectly suited, perfectly capable and already exists
to handle these discussions.
>
>> (4) There is a need for an U-O group, and
rec.games.computer.online will provide that without destroying the
current satisfactory
>>situation.
>
> .ultima.online destroys nothing. You can already vote for it and
>against the other changes if you feel that the other changes "destroy"
>RGCU-D, which I feel is rather doubtful.
As I understand it, ultima.online sets a hierachy which, under big8
guidelines will preclude RGCU-D. Correct me if I am wrong.
The only reason I've heard
>stated why the reorg might destroy RGCU-D is because some Ultima
traffic would go to a separate group.
You may have heard that stated. This request does not state that r
> Yet above you state that you don't think future Ultima traffic will
>be enough to sustain .series. You can't have it both ways;
I will reiterate - we did *not* state that, therefore we are not
'having it both ways". Please try to keep discussion focussed on the
relevent issues, not on heresay.
either current Ultima traffic is enough to support a newsgroup,
>or Ultima traffic is not what keeps RGCU-D going, in which case it
certainly won't be destroyed by moving some Ultima traffic to .series.
>
>> If the proponents of the current RFD are not prepared to include
>>this option, we feel it will be necessary to put forward a parallel
>>RFD proposing the alternative hierarchy.
>
> Then do so already. You can find the documents applicable to
putting forward an RFD at
>
>ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/news/announce/newgroups
>
> Hopefully we'll see your RFD soon.
>
> -- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
GSkip
In <5k7bct$b...@newstoo.ericsson.se> qui...@gamers.org (Raphael Quinet) writes:
>
>In article <3368f72...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, mce...@cyberramp.net
(Michael Cecil) writes:
>|> We, the undersigned, formally request the addition to the current RFD
>|> of the group rec.games.computer.online* for consideration.
>
>Formally? Isn't that a bit pompous? Come on, we are on Usenet, where
>the tone is usually more relaxed... :-)
>
>|> In view of the fact that the our existing group
>|> rec.games.computer.ultima-dragons cannot exist in parallel to the
>|> proposed new group rec.games.computer.ultima* based on standard big-8
>|> control mechanisms, we request that the option to retain the existing
>|> newsgroup, and to put Ultima Online in a separate hierarchy where it
>|> belongs, be made available to be voted upon.
>
>Sorry, but the current newsgroup creation guidelines do not include
>a provision for having multiple proposals in a single RFD. Although one
>votes separately on all groups included in an RFD, it is not possible to
>propose multiple names for the same group and expect that only one of
>them will be retained. All RFDs should be designed in such a way that
>all proposed groups could co-exist if they all pass the vote.
>
>This is why it is not possible to include both r.g.c.ultima.online and
>r.g.c.online.ultima in the same RFD.
>
>Since the current RFD proposes the former (and there seems to be more
>support for that, by the way) and you would prefer the latter, the
>appropriate solution according to the group creation guidelines is to
>propose a new reorg (new RFD) after the voting period for the current
>one is over. If the current reorg succeeds, you will have to wait for
>three months before proposing a new reorg. If the current reorg fails,
>you will have to wait for six months. All this is explained in some
>documents that are posted periodically in news.groups and in
>news.announce.newusers.
>
>Another solution is to change the group creation process, but this is
>likely to take much more time than the current reorgs, including the
>mandatory waiting period between RFDs.
Maybe this is an option we will have to explore, if we are prevented from
presenting our proposal, which seems to have some very active support from
within the group you appear determined to destroy.
>
>[...]
>|> If the proponents of the current RFD are not prepared to include
>|> this option, we feel it will be necessary to put forward a parallel
>|> RFD proposing the alternative hierarchy.
>
>This is a bit silly, since that option cannot be included in the current
>RFD, even if the proponents wanted it. Besides, it is not allowed to
>have to competing RFDs at the same time for a reorganization of the same
>groups. So if you want to put forward another RFD for an alternative
>hierarchy, you will only be allowed to post it after the current RFD is
>over (plus the three or six months waiting period, depending on the
>results of the vote).
That seems a little high handed - kind of like having only the one candidate
to vote for in an election. Reminds me a lot of the iron curtain
dictatorships.
>
>|> signed,
>|>
>|> Andrew Burke (Reknaw Dragon)
>|> Michael Carmack (Vulcan Dragon)
>|> Michael Cecil (Polychromic Dragon)
>|> Rob M. Davies (RedFerret Dragon)
>|> Michael Fleming (Contrapuntal Dragon)
>|> Edward Franks (Fortran Dragon)
>|> Michael Hilborn (A New Breed of Dragon)
>|> Mark Maurer (Exanter Dragon)
>|> Glenys Skipper (Disoriented Dragon)
>|> R. Serena Wakefield (Kender Dragon)
>
>I am sorry to say this, but this article shows that you do not have a very
>good understanding of the group creation process, which might explain some
>of the anger expressed in this discussion. I think it would help if you
>could read the following articles:
In my case this is certainly true; I thank you for your information
>
> Subject: How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
> Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.announce.newusers,
> news.admin.misc,news.answers
>
> Subject: How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal
> Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups
>
> Subject: How to Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal
> Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups
>
> Subject: Usenet Newsgroup Creation Companion
> Newsgroups: news.groups,news.announce.newusers,news.answers
>
> Subject: Guidelines on Usenet Newsgroup Names
> Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.groups,news.admin.misc,alt.config,
> alt.answers,news.answers
>
> Subject: What is Usenet?
> Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.admin.misc,news.answers
>
>The first article ("How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup") contains an
>almost up-to-date list of the current guidelines. Some minor details
have
>been modified since then and discussed in news.groups, but most of
this
>article can be considered as a reference for creating newsgroups. The
>second article ("How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal") is an
>excellent reference for writing an RFD.
>
>-Raphael
Glenys Skipper/Disoriented Dragon
Kate Wrightson
In article <3368f72...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Michael Cecil <mce...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
> If the proponents of the current RFD are not prepared to include
>this option, we feel it will be necessary to put forward a parallel
>RFD proposing the alternative hierarchy.
Fine; you've got either three or six months to work on it, depending on
the outcome of the vote on the current RFD.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Kate Wrightson |
ka...@rigel.econ.uga.edu | "Mine is a life fairly teeming with little
blaze.cba.uga.edu/~kate | elves." - Henry Alford
james patrick hogan
gs...@ix.netcom.com(GSkip) writes:
> I meant series. Richard Garriott has indicated this will be the last
>of tha Avatar/Brittania type Ultima, and there is absolutely NO
>indication that any further Ultimas will be forthcoming. Trilogies are
>not relevent to this point. You are proposing the inception of a NG
>that is for handling discussion of non available games, for obsolete
>engines based on the possibility that the last of a series may come
>out.
I have heard Richard Garriott make references to U10 several times in
interviews and such... offhand references, sure, and it may not be an
official project yet in the books at OSI, but I wouldn't say there is
"absolutely no indication."
james
Kate the Short
Michael Cecil <mce...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
>We, the undersigned, formally request the addition to the current RFD
>of the group rec.games.computer.online* for consideration.
I, the undersigned, politely request that all those who are dealing with
the ultima proposals begin their subject lines with ultima:
Subject: ultima: Request for Inclusion in Current RFD
Remember, there's about TWO DOZEN "current" RFDs out there. And I think it
would be a lot easier to get all of the discussion together if it begins
with the same keyword.
Please?
kate.
not a dragon.
Kate the Short -(ka...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu)- at the U. of Chicago
Read FAQs at: http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/keweizel/faq.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of twelve proponents for the moderation of news.newusers.questions
VOTE! Get the 2nd Call for Votes (CFV) at news:8622423...@isc.org
2nd CFV: moderate news.newusers.questions (in news.announce.newgroups)
or email mailto:bost...@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu and request the CFV.
GSkip
In <5k7nmu$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu (james patrick
hogan) writes:
>
>gs...@ix.netcom.com(GSkip) writes:
>
>> I meant series. Richard Garriott has indicated this will be the
last
>>of tha Avatar/Brittania type Ultima, and there is absolutely NO
>>indication that any further Ultimas will be forthcoming. Trilogies
are
>>not relevent to this point. You are proposing the inception of a NG
>>that is for handling discussion of non available games, for obsolete
>>engines based on the possibility that the last of a series may come
>>out.
>
>I have heard Richard Garriott make references to U10 several times in
>interviews and such... offhand references, sure, and it may not be an
>official project yet in the books at OSI, but I wouldn't say there is
>"absolutely no indication."
>
Again, a personal opinion and irrelevent to the point, which was the
history of Ultima. So you think a newsgroup for a game that isn't even
a proposition is viable?
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
Michael Carmack
james patrick hogan (j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: I have heard Richard Garriott make references to U10 several times in
: official project yet in the books at OSI, but I wouldn't say there is
: "absolutely no indication."
Many of us actually question whtehr we'll even see U9, my friend.
Origin's continued existence seems to hinge on UOL being not only successful,
but OUTRAGEOUSLY successful.
--
========================================================================
"Villains, I say to you now: | Mike Carmack
KNOCK OFF ALL THAT EVIL!" | Vulcan Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
S P O O N !!!! - The Tick | mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Matthew Daly
In article <5k7nmu$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu (james patrick hogan) writes:
>gs...@ix.netcom.com(GSkip) writes:
>
>>of tha Avatar/Brittania type Ultima, and there is absolutely NO
>>indication that any further Ultimas will be forthcoming. Trilogies are
>>not relevent to this point. You are proposing the inception of a NG
>>that is for handling discussion of non available games, for obsolete
>>engines based on the possibility that the last of a series may come
>>out.
>
>interviews and such... offhand references, sure, and it may not be an
>official project yet in the books at OSI, but I wouldn't say there is
>"absolutely no indication."
The references to U10 have been that it will be the culmination of
the Brittania epic and that anything that comes afterward will have
a completely different set of characters.
I do disagree with gskip that the games are unavailable or obsolete.
You can still buy the entire Ultima series and play it on a wide
range of modern machinery. Indeed, regardless of the technological
advances that have been made in the past decade, I continue to think
that U4 remains one of the best gameplay opportunities out there,
especially for the price these days.
Compare with rec.games.int-fiction, which still has a certain amount
of traffic dedicated to Infocom games, a company that has been out
of business for almost ten years. There are some differences there --
the source code for the Z-machine is widely available, so people can
continue to expand Infocom engines to new platforms as well as
write new games that take advantage of the technology. This goes
to indicate to me that if Origin were ever feeling generous enough
to release, say, the U5 engine to the public domain, that they would
enjoy the same eternal relevance as Infocom.
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly I feel that if a person has problems communicating
mwd...@kodak.com the very least he can do is to shut up - Tom Lehrer
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
Michael Carmack
Matthew Daly (da...@PPD.Kodak.COM) wrote:
: I do disagree with gskip that the games are unavailable or obsolete.
: You can still buy the entire Ultima series and play it on a wide
: range of modern machinery.
No you can't, at least not through normal distribution channels. The only
format that U1-6 is available for at all these days is the U1-6 Encore CD,
which is out of print. You can find it at some online outlets if you
look, but as far as Origin is concerned they will not sell it to you.
As for any and all other platforms, they are not commercially available in
any way except as used software from someone who owns a copy. They are
pirated a lot, but they are not legally available.
: Indeed, regardless of the technological
: advances that have been made in the past decade, I continue to think
: that U4 remains one of the best gameplay opportunities out there,
: especially for the price these days.
I agree, except that you can't go to CompUSA and buy it.
james patrick hogan
da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew Daly) writes:
>>I have heard Richard Garriott make references to U10 several times in
>>interviews and such... offhand references, sure, and it may not be an
>>official project yet in the books at OSI, but I wouldn't say there is
>>"absolutely no indication."
>
>The references to U10 have been that it will be the culmination of
>the Brittania epic and that anything that comes afterward will have
>a completely different set of characters.
No, that's U9.
james
james patrick hogan
gs...@ix.netcom.com(GSkip) writes:
>>I have heard Richard Garriott make references to U10 several times in
>>interviews and such... offhand references, sure, and it may not be an
>>official project yet in the books at OSI, but I wouldn't say there is
>>"absolutely no indication."
>
> Again, a personal opinion
It was not an opinion. It is a fact that Garriott has made references to
U10; it is therefore a fact that there HAVE been indications that a U10
will happen. How likely that is to occur is a matter of opinion, but I
didn't speculate on that.
>history of Ultima. So you think a newsgroup for a game that isn't even
>a proposition is viable?
What do you mean by "proposition?"
In my understanding, it *is* a proposition -- it's simply not "offical" yet.
james
james patrick hogan
mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) writes:
>Many of us actually question whtehr we'll even see U9, my friend.
>Origin's continued existence seems to hinge on UOL being not only successful,
>but OUTRAGEOUSLY successful.
I have heard this a few times now and haven't been quite clear as to the
reason people are saying this, other than some disgruntled former OSI
customer support guy in agu-o who made the claim...
I'm not saying it's baseless, just asking for some
clarification/justification.
james
Matt Bandy
gs...@ix.netcom.com(GSkip) writes:
>In <5k6um2$2...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu> ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu (Matt
>Bandy) writes:
>>
>>mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>>
>>>We, the undersigned, formally request the addition to the current RFD
>>>of the group rec.games.computer.online* for consideration.
>>
>> This is not reasonable as an addition to the current RFD;
>creating.ultima.online and .online.* are separate issues (and would
>cause confusion if together in the same RFD.)
> No. I feel people should be presented with and given the opporunity
>to vote on all the options at the same time.
This is *not possible*. There is no way to present two possible
changes in one RFD and allow only one to be enacted. I suggest that you
and the other people signing the original "formal request" review the
documents on creating Usenet groups, available at
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/news/announce/newgroups
> If you feel that rgc.online.* is a better solution, feel free to
>submit your own RFD -- you already seem to have the proponents together
>for it.
> Do I take it you are declining our request?
Your request is impossible.
>>> (1) The existing RGCU-D is the largest body of knowledge available
>>>on existing Ultima games, and handles all requests for information in
>>>a timely and adequate manner. To divorce discussion from the largest
>>>source of information on the subject matter is senseless - it will
>>>involve constant crossposting at best - at worst it will mean all
>>>newcomers to Ultima will have no pool of experience on which to draw.
>>
>> This argument is badly flawed. RGCU-D is not a body of
>knowledge.
> The contributing people are, as you state below.
The contributing people are welcome to post in the new groups.
It does not "preclude" RGCU-D. In my mind, and in many other people's,
it's preferable for RGCU-D to be renamed, but if the renaming doesn't pass,
nothing stops .ultima.online and .ultima-dragons from coexisting. Once again,
I advise you to read the available documents on Usenet group creation.
> The only reason I've heard
>>stated why the reorg might destroy RGCU-D is because some Ultima
>traffic would go to a separate group.
> You may have heard that stated. This request does not state that r
The request states absolutely no reasons.
>> Yet above you state that you don't think future Ultima traffic will
>>be enough to sustain .series. You can't have it both ways;
> I will reiterate - we did *not* state that, therefore we are not
>'having it both ways". Please try to keep discussion focussed on the
>relevent issues, not on heresay.
Fine. Your request contains a grand total of zero reasons to support
the notion that RGCU-D will be "destroyed".
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Matt Bandy
gs...@ix.netcom.com(GSkip) writes:
> That seems a little high handed - kind of like having only the one candidate
>to vote for in an election. Reminds me a lot of the iron curtain
>dictatorships.
If you don't feel that this policy is fair, go to news.groups and
try to get it changed.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Stephane Evoy
In article <5k7v9a$r...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) wrote:
> Matthew Daly (da...@PPD.Kodak.COM) wrote:
> : I do disagree with gskip that the games are unavailable or obsolete.
> : You can still buy the entire Ultima series and play it on a wide
> : range of modern machinery.
>
> No you can't, at least not through normal distribution channels. The only
> format that U1-6 is available for at all these days is the U1-6 Encore CD,
> which is out of print. You can find it at some online outlets if you
> look, but as far as Origin is concerned they will not sell it to you.
You guys should think twice when using the lack of Ultima games as argument.
By doing so, you admit that the Dragons group's purpose is solely for
social issues of a club and not for the discussion of a family of computer
games. In such a case, it is _definitely_ the one that's badly named, not
rgcu.online.
--
Stephane Evoy
Cornell University
-=UDIC=- Luminescent Dragon
Official UDIC GVT thread smeller
Stephane Evoy
In article <5k800u$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu (james
patrick hogan) wrote:
> gs...@ix.netcom.com(GSkip) writes:
>
> >>I have heard Richard Garriott make references to U10 several times in
> >>interviews and such... offhand references, sure, and it may not be an
> >>official project yet in the books at OSI, but I wouldn't say there is
> >>"absolutely no indication."
> >
> > Again, a personal opinion
>
> It was not an opinion. It is a fact that Garriott has made references to
> U10; it is therefore a fact that there HAVE been indications that a U10
> will happen. How likely that is to occur is a matter of opinion, but I
> didn't speculate on that.
>
For the sake of fairness...
LB's comments on U10 are extremely outdated, before the release of U8, methinks.
On the other hand, i am still quite confident that U9 will be released.
They won't so easily discard something which was only a few months from
release.
The latest shuffle at Origin was probably prompted by a desire to cut
back on costs, and merge both UO and U9 team. Once UO is up and running, I
personally feel confident that resources will be shifted back to U9. IMHO,
correct me if I am wrong, da-dee-da-dee-da.
So we _will_ have more than enough Ultima material to talk about. Heck, I
just perfromed my own study, and I actually counted _more_ U-series
related threads than UO threads, although the latter contained more
articles...
I should post those numbers...
Mark Maurer
Stephane Evoy (se...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <5k7v9a$r...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
We are not "admitting" to sqaut when we use the lack of Ultimas as an
argument. If anything, it shows that having a series group is a little
impractical, since there wouldn't be enough discussion to warrant it. This
group *is* for Ultima discussion, *and* socialization. The fact that it is
mostly socialization now should tell you something about how many ultima
games have been released in the last few years....
--
Mark Maurer mwma...@mtu.edu mwma...@colossus.csl.mtu.edu
Undergraduate, Computer Science Michigan Technological University
Exanter Dragon ---==[UDIC]==--- http://www.csl.mtu.edu/~mwmaurer
"You can use it to send email, even over the internet!" -- AOL commercial.
devere1
Matt Bandy <ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<5k81ms$4...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu>...
>
>
> This is *not possible*. There is no way to present two possible
> changes in one RFD and allow only one to be enacted. I suggest that you
> and the other people signing the original "formal request" review the
> documents on creating Usenet groups, available at
Sure there is. You list all the possible out comes and let people chose
what they want, ie
1. I want a new online group but not a new heiarchy.
2. I want both the new heiarchy and the new online group within the
heiarchy.
3. I want the new heiarchy but the online group in a different heiarchy.
4. I want no online group but a new heiarchy.
5. I want nothing about the current group changed.
Of course, you're beurocracy wouldn't allow something so logical.
Reminiscent of a certain extremely powerful nation's government....
-Ophidian Dragon
devere1
> Again, a personal opinion and irrelevent to the point, which was the
> history of Ultima. So you think a newsgroup for a game that isn't even
> a proposition is viable?
THought i might point out here that Richard said when asked if there would
be an Ultima X; "Definitely. Unless Ultima IX is a complete flop." Also,
he gave outlines on Victorian-Era technology that would be in U10.
However, U10 would probably not be out until after 2000. He said he was
planning on taking a long break after U9 to think up a new way of doing
things, presumably.
-Ophidian Dragon
Matt Bandy
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Matt Bandy <ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
><5k81ms$4...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu>...
>>
>>
>> This is *not possible*. There is no way to present two possible
>> changes in one RFD and allow only one to be enacted. I suggest that you
>> and the other people signing the original "formal request" review the
>> documents on creating Usenet groups, available at
>Sure there is. You list all the possible out comes and let people chose
>what they want, ie
>1. I want a new online group but not a new heiarchy.
>2. I want both the new heiarchy and the new online group within the
>heiarchy.
>3. I want the new heiarchy but the online group in a different heiarchy.
>4. I want no online group but a new heiarchy.
>5. I want nothing about the current group changed.
READ THE DOCUMENTS ON RFDS. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROPOSE THIS.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Stephane Evoy
In article <5k85vj$4...@pacemaker.cts>, mwma...@mtu.edu (Mark Maurer) wrote:
The fact that it is
> mostly socialization now should tell you something about how many ultima
> games have been released in the last few years....
Then, given the nature of these discussions, rgc.u-d _is_ badly named,
isn't it ? ;-()
Anyways, I dont believe this one bit. As I said earlier, there are
currently _more_ U-series thread than UO threads in this group. Therefore,
at this time, .series is actually _more_ justified than .online.
devere1
Matt Bandy <ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<5k8gkh$5...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu>...
>
> READ THE DOCUMENTS ON RFDS. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROPOSE >THIS.
I don't CARE about that crap. There is a way to do it, I just told you but
you have to follow your pointless and useless rules! If it weren't for
that garbage YOU COULD EASILY DO IT!
-Ophidian Dragon
GSkip
In <5k7p58$ie6$1...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM> da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew
Daly) writes:
>
"
>
>The references to U10 have been that it will be the culmination of
>the Brittania epic and that anything that comes afterward will have
>a completely different set of characters.
Not so, I'm afraid. That is UIX. If you are able to follow the
discussions on this NG, you would realise that.
>
>I do disagree with gskip that the games are unavailable or obsolete.
>You can still buy the entire Ultima series and play it on a wide
>range of modern machinery.
Where, pray tell. We have requests on a daily basis almost because
there are non available at retail outlets. One Dragon has a web page
devoted to reselling old games at his cost to try to help people who
can't get them. Another of the many services the Ultima-Dragons offer
for Ultima fans - that could not be offered on an Ultima discussion
group.
Indeed, regardless of the technological
>advances that have been made in the past decade, I continue to think
>that U4 remains one of the best gameplay opportunities out there,
>especially for the price these days.
Sorry, but this information is simply misleading. About the only game
you might be able to purchase are a few gold edition U7s. that some
stores may have left on the shelves.
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
>
devere1
james patrick hogan <j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<5k8ibv$s...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> "devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> If it bothers you that much, then what you CAN do is write up some sort
> of proposal to change the way RFDs work.
>
But my suggestion would get tossed out. Because of two things:
1. It would be a nuisance to change them
and
2. They've been around for some time now.
THis is the same reason a lot of the idiot laws are on the books. I could
not get enough support to change this single rule, and even if I tried it
would be difficult to drudge through the news.groups stuff.
-Ophidian Dragon
Joshua Kramer
In article <01bc55b0$61bb4840$50a7b8cd@occam-s-razor>, "devere1"
<dev...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Of course, you're beurocracy wouldn't allow something so logical.
>Reminiscent of a certain extremely powerful nation's government....
I invoke Goodwins law and win by default?
Um, you know, I'd take you a whole lot more seriously if you, perhaps,
had been reading news.groups for all of two days before you came
rip-roaring in.
--
Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College.
Remove nospam from my address to reply.
Do not post and mail copies.
Any opinions expressed herein represent only those of Joshua Kramer
and should not be taken to represent the views of any organization
or any other individual living or dead.
GSkip
In <01bc55b5$fb994a20$50a7b8cd@occam-s-razor> "devere1"
In addition, you don't even back your own decisions, and allow your
members to take partisan actions and make misleading statements.
Disoriented Drgon
-==(UDIC)==-
Matt Bandy
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Matt Bandy <ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
><5k8gkh$5...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu>...
>>
>> READ THE DOCUMENTS ON RFDS. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROPOSE >THIS.
>I don't CARE about that crap. There is a way to do it, I just told you but
>you have to follow your pointless and useless rules! If it weren't for
>that garbage YOU COULD EASILY DO IT!
There is no way to do it. I can't help it if you don't care enough
about your own group to read the rules. RFDs *must* follow those rules.
If you want those rules changed, that is a separate issue which you should
pursue on your own.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Matt Bandy
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
I have very little respect for your attitude (it probably won't pass,
so I won't even try.) If you don't care enough to try to get it changed,
stop complaining about it.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Matt Bandy
mr_...@ix.netcom.com (Vulcan Dragon) writes:
>A mind meld with "devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> has revealed:
>>Of course, you're beurocracy wouldn't allow something so logical.
>>Reminiscent of a certain extremely powerful nation's government....
>Unfortunately, that *is* what he's saying. Apparently it's not his fault,
>the news.groupies simply won't let us do anything that might make this
>whole procedure work better. Although I could easily write up a decent
>proposal that offered mutually exclusive either-or proposals, it doesn't
>fit in with the Usenet gods' perception of reality.
Such a proposal is against the rules as they now stand. If you
disagree with the rules, it would be much more constructive to attempt
to change them rather than incessantly bitching about them. I might
even be in support of such a change, as long as you can figure out
how to solve problems with voting on such proposals.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Matt Bandy
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Vulcan Dragon <mr_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><336815af...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>> Unfortunately, that *is* what he's saying. Apparently it's not his
>fault,
>> the news.groupies simply won't let us do anything that might make this
>> whole procedure work better. Although I could easily write up a decent
>> proposal that offered mutually exclusive either-or proposals, it doesn't
>> fit in with the Usenet gods' perception of reality.
>>
>Oh, BTW, they are in the proccess of updating the rules now, or so someone
>from news.groups told me. Is Matt trying to get his changes made before it
>becomes impossible do to new rules?
Read the news.groups reorganization thread. They're reorganizing
news.groups, not changing the group creation rules. If you want the
group creation rules changed, by all means start a proposal to do so. I
might even support it.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Matt Bandy
mwma...@mtu.edu (Mark Maurer) writes:
>The Daemons (dae...@uiuc.edu) spewed forth this crap:
>: "devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>:
>: >> READ THE DOCUMENTS ON RFDS. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROPOSE >THIS.
>:
>: >I don't CARE about that crap. There is a way to do it, I just told you but
>: >you have to follow your pointless and useless rules! If it weren't for
>: >that garbage YOU COULD EASILY DO IT!
>:
>: /No/
>: *You are 100% entirely wrong, guy*
>: /Period/
>: *End of story*
>: /There is no way to do this using anything vaguely resembling the current
>: system. If you'd care to make a new system, have fun, but it won't be
>: the Big-8.../
>What the hell? You have some split personality? People might take you a
>little more seriously if you use your real name, Tim. I know I would.
Go look at his homepage. He has some bizarre desire to write in
this dialog format. I don't know why, but he does, and it doesn't make
his point any less valid.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
james patrick hogan
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> READ THE DOCUMENTS ON RFDS. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROPOSE >THIS.
>
>I don't CARE about that crap. There is a way to do it, I just told you but
>you have to follow your pointless and useless rules! If it weren't for
>that garbage YOU COULD EASILY DO IT!
Dude, stop and think for a second. Rules are what keep Usenet from being
a fucked-up jumble of makeshift newsgroups, poor propogation, and chaos.
They are not pointless and useless.
That being said, of course they're not perfect, and this is a prime example
why. I think your suggestion would be a very logical way to do things,
but you can't just decide to ignore the rules on a whim because they
don't suit your needs.
If it bothers you that much, then what you CAN do is write up some sort
of proposal to change the way RFDs work.
I DO agree with what you are saying, Ophidian, and agree that it is bad
that the range of choices (with regard to this stage of the rgcu-d reorg)
are somewhat limited. But it would be even worse to just say "to hell
with the rules" because they become inconvenient.
But unless you or someone else takes action to see that the rules get
changed, if you don't like any of the things the current re-org proposes,
just vote no to everything, and make your own proposal later on.
james
Kate Wrightson
In article <01bc55ba$22040ca0$33a7b8cd@occam-s-razor>,
devere1 <dev...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>james patrick hogan <j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
><5k8ibv$s...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>> "devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> of proposal to change the way RFDs work.
>
>1. It would be a nuisance to change them
>and
>2. They've been around for some time now.
>
>THis is the same reason a lot of the idiot laws are on the books. I could
>not get enough support to change this single rule, and even if I tried it
>would be difficult to drudge through the news.groups stuff.
Uh, hello? If you look at some of the other threads here in news.groups,
you'll see that we're currently discussing a way to reorganize
news.groups itself; this is a change borne from a very, very long
discussion about how group creation is going to evolve.
The rules of group-creation are not engraved in stone. They evolve; like
most regulation, they evolve slowly but with justification. If you want
to stick around, learn the ropes, and help change the system toward
something you're happier with, you're welcome to. There's no membership
fee, nor do you have to choose a new name. If you just want to insult a
system you have no intention of understanding, however, so be it.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Kate Wrightson |
ka...@rigel.econ.uga.edu | "Mine is a life fairly teeming with little
blaze.cba.uga.edu/~kate | elves." - Henry Alford
GSkip
In <5k8ibv$s...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu (james
patrick hogan) writes:
>
>"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>> READ THE DOCUMENTS ON RFDS. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROPOSE >THIS.
>>
>>I don't CARE about that crap. There is a way to do it, I just told
you but you have to follow your pointless and useless rules! If it
weren't for that garbage YOU COULD EASILY DO IT!
>
>Dude, stop and think for a second. Rules are what keep Usenet from
being a fucked-up jumble of makeshift newsgroups, poor propogation, and
chaos. They are not pointless and useless.
>
>That being said, of course they're not perfect, and this is a prime
example why. I think your suggestion would be a very logical way to do
things, but you can't just decide to ignore the rules on a whim because
they don't suit your needs.
>
sort of proposal to change the way RFDs work.
Now there is a suggestion I could live with.
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
>james
GSkip
In <01bc55ba$22040ca0$33a7b8cd@occam-s-razor> "devere1"
<dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>
>
>james patrick hogan <j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
><5k8ibv$s...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>> "devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>> If it bothers you that much, then what you CAN do is write up some
>>sort of proposal to change the way RFDs work.
>>
>
>But my suggestion would get tossed out. Because of two things:
>1. It would be a nuisance to change them
>and
>2. They've been around for some time now.
>
>THis is the same reason a lot of the idiot laws are on the books. I
could not get enough support to change this single rule, and even if I
tried it would be difficult to drudge through the news.groups stuff.
<G> As you once said to me, Phid, get on with it or quit whining. Want
to give it a shot?
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
>-Ophidian Dragon
devere1
GSkip <gs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5k8mue$l...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> <G> As you once said to me, Phid, get on with it or quit whining. Want
> to give it a shot?
SImply put--I don't now enough about Usenet to try, and I would at least
like to get out of high school so I don't look like some kid who popped in
complaining and trying to change things...Besides, if they were interested
in change it would be changed by now.
-Ophidian Dragon
Rebecca McQuitty
devere1 <dev...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Besides, if they were interested in change it would be changed by now.
You'd be amazed what inertia can do. <g>
--
Rebecca Graham McQuitty
m...@wco.com
Vulcan Dragon
A mind meld with j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu (james patrick hogan) has revealed:
>>mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) writes:
>
>>Many of us actually question whtehr we'll even see U9, my friend.
>>Origin's continued existence seems to hinge on UOL being not only successful,
>>but OUTRAGEOUSLY successful.
>
>I have heard this a few times now and haven't been quite clear as to the
>reason people are saying this, other than some disgruntled former OSI
>customer support guy in agu-o who made the claim...
>
>I'm not saying it's baseless, just asking for some
>clarification/justification.
A great deal of it stems from Origin now being owned by Electronic Arts, a
big giant distribution company more interested in spitting out as many
flavors of Madden '9x as humanly possible than in creating quality RPGs.
Not being independent anymore, Origin does not have the luxury of having
flops like U8 under its belt. If they don't produce, i.e. make money for
EA, they will be written off.
Couple this with the fact that UOL is very late, U9 is so frigging late
that I sometimes wake up at night in a cold sweat screaming "WHERE'S THE
AVATAR? WHERE'S THE DAMN AVATAR?!?!?" (...uh...did I post that out
loud...?), and that there has been some sort of employee shakeout at Origin
(rumors about what really happened abound, I won't repeat them) and you
start to wonder how tenable a company Origin really is at this stage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Villains, I say to you now: | Vulcan Dragon, -=(UDIC)=-
KNOCK OFF ALL THAT EVIL!!! | mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
| mr_...@ix.netcom.com
S P O O N ! ! ! | http://www.netcom.com/~mr_worf/vulcan.htm
Vulcan Dragon
>that the range of choices (with regard to this stage of the rgcu-d reorg)
>are somewhat limited. But it would be even worse to just say "to hell
>with the rules" because they become inconvenient.
In his fit of anger, Phid may be saying "to hell with the rules". But I
don't think we have to say that at all to get such a proposal made. It
really isn't that hard to put together wording that would allow a
multiple-choice scenario, and it makes no sense to me that the
news.groupies don't allow it.
>But unless you or someone else takes action to see that the rules get
>changed, if you don't like any of the things the current re-org proposes,
>just vote no to everything, and make your own proposal later on.
What, waltz into news.groups and take action to change their structure and
policy? How rude!
Vulcan Dragon
A mind meld with "devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> has revealed:
>Of course, you're beurocracy wouldn't allow something so logical.
>Reminiscent of a certain extremely powerful nation's government....
Unfortunately, that *is* what he's saying. Apparently it's not his fault,
the news.groupies simply won't let us do anything that might make this
whole procedure work better. Although I could easily write up a decent
proposal that offered mutually exclusive either-or proposals, it doesn't
fit in with the Usenet gods' perception of reality.
james patrick hogan
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> If it bothers you that much, then what you CAN do is write up some sort
>> of proposal to change the way RFDs work.
>
>But my suggestion would get tossed out. Because of two things:
>1. It would be a nuisance to change them
>and
>2. They've been around for some time now.
The same could have been said about the rgcu-d re-org that's currently on
the table, but it's gathered a fair amount of support so far.
Also, there's a thread in news.groups right now called "news.groups
reorganization"... I haven't looked at it, so I don't know exactly what
issues are being discussed, but the point is that if there's a thread on
it, maybe they're not all *that* resistant to change, so long as it is
reasonable and beneficial.
james
james patrick hogan
mr_...@ix.netcom.com (Vulcan Dragon) writes:
>>But unless you or someone else takes action to see that the rules get
>>changed, if you don't like any of the things the current re-org proposes,
>>just vote no to everything, and make your own proposal later on.
>
>What, waltz into news.groups and take action to change their structure and
>policy? How rude!
*laugh*... I don't think they'd mind :)
There are newsgroup regulars, but they don't exactly view n.g as their
territory, or their home, or any of those other things I seem to
get the sense of from rgcu-d guys (and gals).
james
devere1
Vulcan Dragon <mr_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<336815af...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Unfortunately, that *is* what he's saying. Apparently it's not his
fault,
> the news.groupies simply won't let us do anything that might make this
> whole procedure work better. Although I could easily write up a decent
> proposal that offered mutually exclusive either-or proposals, it doesn't
> fit in with the Usenet gods' perception of reality.
>
Oh, BTW, they are in the proccess of updating the rules now, or so someone
from news.groups told me. Is Matt trying to get his changes made before it
becomes impossible do to new rules?
-Ophidian Dragon
The Daemons
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> READ THE DOCUMENTS ON RFDS. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROPOSE >THIS.
>I don't CARE about that crap. There is a way to do it, I just told you but
>you have to follow your pointless and useless rules! If it weren't for
>that garbage YOU COULD EASILY DO IT!
/No/
*You are 100% entirely wrong, guy*
/Period/
*End of story*
/There is no way to do this using anything vaguely resembling the current
system. If you'd care to make a new system, have fun, but it won't be
the Big-8.../
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/daemons/home">The Daemons</a>
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/daemons/">The Dungeon</a>
Mark Maurer
:
: >> READ THE DOCUMENTS ON RFDS. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROPOSE >THIS.
:
: >I don't CARE about that crap. There is a way to do it, I just told you but
: >you have to follow your pointless and useless rules! If it weren't for
: >that garbage YOU COULD EASILY DO IT!
:
: /No/
: *You are 100% entirely wrong, guy*
: /Period/
: *End of story*
: /There is no way to do this using anything vaguely resembling the current
: system. If you'd care to make a new system, have fun, but it won't be
: the Big-8.../
What the hell? You have some split personality? People might take you a
little more seriously if you use your real name, Tim. I know I would.
--
Mark Maurer mwma...@mtu.edu mwma...@colossus.csl.mtu.edu
Undergraduate, Computer Science Michigan Technological University
Exanter Dragon ---==[UDIC]==--- http://www.csl.mtu.edu/~mwmaurer
"You can use it to send email, even over the internet!" -- AOL commercial.
devere1
james patrick hogan <j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<5k8qvt$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> "devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> The same could have been said about the rgcu-d re-org that's currently on
> the table, but it's gathered a fair amount of support so far.
From who? Which Dragons have chimed in support that post regularly to this
group?
I do not support it because I have no way of knowing if I'll get the new
group!
-Ophidian Dragon
Andrew D. Charlton
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Matt Bandy <ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
><5k8gkh$5...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu>...
>>
>> READ THE DOCUMENTS ON RFDS. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROPOSE >THIS.
>
>I don't CARE about that crap. There is a way to do it, I just told you but
>you have to follow your pointless and useless rules! If it weren't for
>that garbage YOU COULD EASILY DO IT!
I have a hard time believing that an CFV with conditionals would be
anything other than confusing. The time for discussing alternatives is
during the RFD period. The most accepted proposals should be included in
subsequent RFDs (Which is what has occured BTW), and then the vote occurs.
I actually think democracy works best for yes/no decisions, otherwise, you
end up with the third best option, because people couldn't agree on options
1 and 2 which are similar enough to split the vote.
If the RFD was
rec.games.computer.ultima.online
OR
rec.games.computer.online.ultima
OR
no UO group
Then "no UO group" could win with a minority (33%/33%/34%). While this is
clearly what Ophidian wants, my impression is that very few others share
that opinion.
There are two main issues: Whether a group is wanted - determined by the
vote, and the best name for the group, determined by discussion. It would
be a pity if squabbles about naming would overshadow the popular demand for
a group.
--
____/\___ Erraticus
___/__\__) -==(UDIC)==-
(__/ \__ \\//
/ \ \/
Daermonestroer Dragon
On 1 May 1997 01:41:03 GMT, j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu (james patrick hogan)
wrote:
<Daer's eyes start gleaming with purple madness>
Get away from it, human! <RRAARRGH!> Do you hear me, thief? <WHOOOOSH>
Yes, I am talking to you! <STOMP> This newsgroup is MINE! Mine, do you hear
it?! <SPLAT!> NOBODY touches MY newsgroup!!! <CHOMP>
<A sound of chanting can be heard, and suddenly a wall of nuclear fire
surrounds the newsgroup, erected by Daer to keep those pesky humans away>
<Daermonestroer licks his lips contentedly and goes back to dreaming of
elven maidens dancing in the starlight, a happy smile on his face>
--
Daermonestroer Dragon (min...@ix.netcom.com)
http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/DaerInfo.html
o
//
O-==(UDIC)==-OXXDAERXX>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=-
\\
o
james patrick hogan
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Oh, BTW, they are in the proccess of updating the rules now, or so someone
>from news.groups told me. Is Matt trying to get his changes made before it
>becomes impossible do to new rules?
Conspiracy theories again... *sigh*
james
Tim Skirvin
mwma...@mtu.edu (Mark Maurer) writes:
>The Daemons (dae...@uiuc.edu) spewed forth this crap:
>: >I don't CARE about that crap. There is a way to do it, I just told you but
>: >you have to follow your pointless and useless rules! If it weren't for
>: >that garbage YOU COULD EASILY DO IT!
>: /No/
>What the hell? You have some split personality? People might take you a
>little more seriously if you use your real name, Tim. I know I would.
To repeat: Nik and Kile are the guys in charge of my killfile.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a> <*>
james patrick hogan
mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>>Compare with rec.games.int-fiction, which still has a certain amount
>>of traffic dedicated to Infocom games, a company that has been out
>>of business for almost ten years. There are some differences there --
>>the source code for the Z-machine is widely available, so people can
>>continue to expand Infocom engines to new platforms as well as
>>write new games that take advantage of the technology. This goes
>>to indicate to me that if Origin were ever feeling generous enough
>>to release, say, the U5 engine to the public domain, that they would
>>enjoy the same eternal relevance as Infocom.
>
>Oh no! Another horrible atrocity on the Usenet. Better get some guys
>together and start the renaming process so that rec.games.int-fiction
>becomes rec.games.fiction.interactive.
Are you intentionally being dense or do you just selectively ignore any
post that happens to rebuke one of your arguments?
For the millionth time, the problem with rgcu-d is not the bloody hyphen.
It is because if the other groups are created, there will be two ultima
heirarchies under rec.games.computer.
There are not two interactive fiction heirarchies under rec.games to my
knowledge, hence there is not a problem with the name.
james
Matt Bandy
mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:18:59 -0400, se...@cornell.edu (Stephane Evoy)
>wrote:
>>
>>You guys should think twice when using the lack of Ultima games as argument.
>>
>>By doing so, you admit that the Dragons group's purpose is solely for
>>social issues of a club and not for the discussion of a family of computer
>>games. In such a case, it is _definitely_ the one that's badly named, not
>>rgcu.online.
>>
>I don't believe that any Dragons or other UO fans (with the exception
>of F-15) have ever suggested that the creation of a UO newsgroup would
>be bad or misnamed. I think Matt just followed the existing example
>of rec.games.computer.ultima-dragons when he named his initial
>alt.games.ultima-online newsgroup.
What are you talking about? You are the one who posted yesterday
asking that .online.ultima be in the RFD. You didn't suggest any content
changes, so your problem was clearly with the naming. I don't really see
how the alt.* group's naming is even relevant.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Matt Bandy
[Posted and e-mailed.]
mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>On 30 Apr 1997 17:21:05 -0500, ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu (Matt Bandy)
>wrote:
>>"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>Umm, Matt, it has been proposed. You must mean that the existing
>rules don't support voting on multiple parallel group names which is
>odd because in my limited reading on the subject that was fine. Maybe
>you just mean there is now way that the current RFD proponents will
>write this into the RFD.
Go read the documents. It's not possible to propose more than
one group name. All that's possible is simple yes/no propositions --
there's no provision for either-or, etc. In any case, you'll have to
read the documentation if you want to produce an RFD for rgc.online.*
at some point.
>Even if such a situation has never occurred before, which seems
>unlikely but I don't know, then we can find a way to do it. Just
>because a rule doesn't support what the people want doesn't mean that
>it can't be done. The welfare of the people should be the supreme
>law.
There is a reason why only simple yes/no propositions are allowed.
The logistics of a vote on a more complex proposition would be a nightmare.
A simple multiple choice is not adequate, because what if 33% support
.online.ultima, 33% support .ultima.online, and 34% support neither?
Neither wins, even though 66% of people supported the creation of an
Ultima Online group. Therefore, much more complex votes would have to be
allowed. If you don't agree with the current group creation rules on Usenet,
you need to go propose that they be changed. I personally think that
allowing voting on more complex propositions would be desirable, but that
the logistics of the vote don't permit it. If you can find a way to
solve the problems with the vote to make such changes feasible, I might
even be in support of your proposed changes.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Matt Bandy
mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>On 1 May 1997 03:48:55 GMT, "devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Vulcan Dragon <mr_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
>><336815af...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that *is* what he's saying. Apparently it's not his
>>fault,
>>> the news.groupies simply won't let us do anything that might make this
>>> whole procedure work better. Although I could easily write up a decent
>>> proposal that offered mutually exclusive either-or proposals, it doesn't
>>> fit in with the Usenet gods' perception of reality.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, BTW, they are in the proccess of updating the rules now, or so someone
>>from news.groups told me. Is Matt trying to get his changes made before it
>>becomes impossible do to new rules?
>>
>>-Ophidian Dragon
>No, I strongly doubt the whole thing was that carefully crafted.
>However, suggesting that we change the news.groups rules (possibly a
>diversionary tactic) won't help us either. By the time we change the
Suggesting that we, the proponents, ignore established Usenet
procedure, is IMO more of a diversionary tactic. Surely you are aware
that blatantly ignoring the applicable Usenet rules will not actually
help our proposal in any way; in fact, numerous people who care about
Usenet in general would be likely to vote against the proposal just to
avoid setting a precedent that one can disobey the rules and get away
with it.
>rules, our beloved newsgroup may well have been pillaged in our
>absence. If the renaming CFV was held off until we could run our
I'm hardly pillaging here.
>ideas for news.groups rule changes through the gammut, then the
>suggestion to change the rules would would hold more weight.
>"Hey, you just shot my wife!" "So what - that's not illegal, why
Renaming rgcu-d is not comparable to murdering anyone. In addition,
murder is illegal.
>don't you lobby congress to change the laws?"
If you feel that Usenet group creation procedure should be changed,
go ahead and propose the changes. So far as I can tell, all of you are
just too lazy to propose a change and prefer to suggest disobeying the
rules instead. I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong on the last
statement, though.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Matt Bandy
mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>On 30 Apr 1997 22:55:53 -0500, ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu (Matt Bandy)
>wrote:
>> Read the news.groups reorganization thread. They're reorganizing
>>news.groups, not changing the group creation rules. If you want the
>>group creation rules changed, by all means start a proposal to do so. I
>>might even support it.
>>
>> -- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
>>
>I might start doing that. Some of the rules seem seriously messed up.
>One problem is that it seems that a RFD and CFV can be proposed for a
>newsgroup from outside the newsgroup. If no one inside the newsgroup
IMO, this is a good thing. Outsiders are frequently the best
at overcoming inertia and pushing for a change. In addition, outsiders
to the newsgroup may have an interest in the topic (such as myself.)
>is familiar with the rules governing newsgroup creation, etc. then
>they are rather ill-equipped to deal with such proposals.
They could read the applicable documents. It took me all of half
an hour, plus three to write my first RFD (which was, admittedly, rather
ill-considered, hence the later changes.)
> It seems
>like taxation without representation, sort of. Does each group need a
>'senator' to monitor news.groups and the rules to protect the
>newsgroup from outside interference, whether good intentioned or not?
I don't think so. It's not like familiarizing oneself with
Usenet policy takes years of study.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Joshua Kramer
In article <01bc55e2$90ef4120$97a7b8cd@occam-s-razor>, "devere1"
<dev...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Vulcan Dragon <mr_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><336815af...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>
>> Unfortunately, that *is* what he's saying. Apparently it's not his
>fault,
>> the news.groupies simply won't let us do anything that might make this
>> whole procedure work better. Although I could easily write up a decent
>> proposal that offered mutually exclusive either-or proposals, it doesn't
>> fit in with the Usenet gods' perception of reality.
>>
>
>Oh, BTW, they are in the proccess of updating the rules now, or so someone
>from news.groups told me. Is Matt trying to get his changes made before it
>becomes impossible do to new rules?
*plonk*
The new news.groups structure will do nothing to change this aspect
of the proposal. In fact, it will hopefully contain a naming committee,
with the power, by fiat, to rename bullshit like ultima-online.
The reason we ignore you is because you have no clue. I'll see you again
in three months, when you leave the killfileodoom.
--
Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College.
Remove nospam from my address to reply.
Do not post and mail copies.
Any opinions expressed herein represent only those of Joshua Kramer
and should not be taken to represent the views of any organization
or any other individual living or dead.
Matt Bandy
mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>On 1 May 1997 01:36:34 -0500, ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu (Matt Bandy)
>wrote:
>> -- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
>I was defending the RGCU-D as not being badly misnamed (not at all
>IMO). I was also defending the naming convention you used initially
>since it was similar to RGCU-D. We suggested the creation of RGCO.U
>as an alternative to the renaming of RGCU-D to RGCU.D and the creation
>of RGCU.O so that there would not be two parallel hierarchies next to
>one another since so many of the news.groups folks were having fits
>with that idea.
You stated above that you have never suggested that the creation of
a UO group would be misnamed. You've been quite vocal in the past about wanting
.ultima.online named .online.ultima, going so far as to collect signatures
to this effect. Changing the name of .ultima.online to .online.ultima is
clearly a naming complaint.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Matt Bandy
mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>On 1 May 1997 02:00:47 -0500, ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu (Matt Bandy)
>wrote:
>>>don't you lobby congress to change the laws?"
>>
>> If you feel that Usenet group creation procedure should be changed,
>>go ahead and propose the changes. So far as I can tell, all of you are
>>just too lazy to propose a change and prefer to suggest disobeying the
>>rules instead. I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong on the last
>>statement, though.
>>
>Not laziness - I'd rather just be playing Ultima than debating Usenet
>rules with the Usenet administrators and whatnot.
You'd rather do something fun than something unpleasant. While
this is understandable, sometimes you have to work to accomplish your
goals. Note this definition from OED2 for lazy:
Averse to labour, indisposed to action or effort; idle; inactive, slothful.
You are averse to the work involved in changing Usenet policy. You
are indisposed to action or effort on this issue; likewise, with regard to
this issue, you are idle, inactive, and slothful. In a word, as far as
changing Usenet policy is concerned, you are too lazy.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Samurai Dragon
Matt Bandy wrote:
> The logistics of a vote on a more complex proposition would be a
> nightmare.
A single transferable vote isn't _that_ complicated!
And I'm not being flip, since I think a multi-choice solution will be
the only way to satisfy everyone. I personally do not want to see any
more animosity over this than necessary. I'm sure most of us don't.
Samurai Dragon
-==UDIC==-
Pauly G
Samurai Dragon
-==UDIC==-
[Cc: rec.games.computers.ultima-dragons]
Kate Wrightson
In article <jkramer1-010...@res100.parrish-dorm01.swarthmore.edu>,
Joshua Kramer <jkra...@nospamswarthmore.edu> wrote:
>In article <01bc55e2$90ef4120$97a7b8cd@occam-s-razor>, "devere1"
><dev...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Oh, BTW, they are in the proccess of updating the rules now, or so someone
>>from news.groups told me. Is Matt trying to get his changes made before it
>>becomes impossible do to new rules?
Actually, what I said was that we are working on a reorg of news.groups,
which grew out of a year's worth of discussion on the way things work
here. We are *always* reviewing the way things are done, and welcome
thoughtful input from anyone willing to take the time to learn the
current system and why we use this current procedure.
Such change will take a while. Believe me, you'll have plenty of time to
get this vote through before we even finish our group re-org, let alone
any substantive change to the creation process. We cannot change our
procedures overnight, or even over a month's time.
>The new news.groups structure will do nothing to change this aspect
>of the proposal. In fact, it will hopefully contain a naming committee,
>with the power, by fiat, to rename bullshit like ultima-online.
Where in Russ's RFD is a naming committee, Josh? I sincerely hope we
don't go beyond group-advice in creating a naming-by-fiat system; the way
we handle it now is fine. If the Dragons like their name, they'll vote
to keep it - they did it once, against news.groups outcry. They can do
it again; nobody's forcing anything except a vote.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Kate Wrightson |
ka...@rigel.econ.uga.edu | "Mine is a life fairly teeming with little
blaze.cba.uga.edu/~kate | elves." - Henry Alford
Kate Wrightson
In article <337846d6...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Michael Cecil <mce...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>That's it - we'll just take over news.groups with our dragonish
>posts...ahahahahhhahaaaaa....
Actually, you are. The threads concerning this RFD are, on my news
spool, the largest threads currently running in news.groups. (Note to
n.g readers - I didn't actually count the messages in the talk.origins
debate, but a casual review shows more unexpired Ultima discussion than
any other.)
GSkip
In <33723e94...@newshost.cyberramp.net> mce...@cyberramp.net
(Michael Cecil) writes:
>
>I might start doing that. Some of the rules seem seriously messed up.
>One problem is that it seems that a RFD and CFV can be proposed for a
>newsgroup from outside the newsgroup. If no one inside the newsgroup
>is familiar with the rules governing newsgroup creation, etc. then
>they are rather ill-equipped to deal with such proposals. It seems
>like taxation without representation, sort of. Does each group need a
>'senator' to monitor news.groups and the rules to protect the
>newsgroup from outside interference, whether good intentioned or not?
>
>Michael Cecil
>
We apparently have a self appointed one here, in F-15. Unfortunately,
he doesn't bother to ask us how we feel before he takes action. He does
what *he* considers best for the group.
And I have to say - this is a situation that asises in an anarchy.
One of its downsides.
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
Bruce Baugh
>whole procedure work better. Although I could easily write up a decent
>proposal that offered mutually exclusive either-or proposals, it doesn't
>fit in with the Usenet gods' perception of reality.
I laugh. Who do you think the Usenet gods _are_? This is a system that
works on the basis of the passions and interests of an entirely
self-selected crowd. I'm not a bad example - I was interested in a
couple of specific votes, hung around, and am still here. My "expertise"
is merely a deep curiosity about a) how things are actually being done
now and b) how they might be done better.
One of the drawbacks of the all-volunteers nature of things is that
there's a lot of lore which has never been written down in one coherent
form. From time to time we whittle away at it (Joe Bernstein's FAQ is a
big step in that direction), but more could be done. This means that
learning how the system is actually working (or not working) requires
some investment of time, so that you can see the sundry special cases
and concerns in action.
Once you've done that, though, your proposals will be taken as seriously
as anyone else's. When I started posted, people looked at the content of
my posts, not whether I had the right magic fez or secret handshake.
That's still the case. (And when I make a bone-headed error, that gets
pointed out to me, too. You can see me oops and retract in the thread
about names for groups in the news.groups reorganization just this
week.)
--
Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.kenosis.com
Moderator, comp.os.ms-windows.win95.moderated
List manager, Christlib, Christian/libertarian mailing list
Host, new sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Bruce Baugh
In article <3368164a...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mr_...@ix.netcom.com (Vulcan Dragon) wrote:
>don't think we have to say that at all to get such a proposal made. It
>really isn't that hard to put together wording that would allow a
>multiple-choice scenario, and it makes no sense to me that the
>news.groupies don't allow it.
Single transferrable votes exist and have been used before; if you look
into the threads about a general-purpose soc.sexuality group you'll find
a growing consensus that they should be used there, too.
What you want to do is make a case to someone in a position to conduct
the vote that it would be a good idea here. Step #1: don't piss on them
in the process.
D Landhill
> Apparently it's not his fault,
>the news.groupies simply won't let us do anything that might make this
>proposal that offered mutually exclusive either-or proposals, it doesn't
>fit in with the Usenet gods' perception of reality.
In fact, such mutually exclusive choices in a vote (often called Single
Transferable Votes or STVs, which have some additional features when more
than 2 choices are offered) have been debated on news.groups for some
time, and may well be a feature of the group creation system when it is
next revised. Such a revision has been in the works for over a year, as I
understand it, but has bogged down because it is a LOT of work, people
have some genuine disagreements on what to change and how, and most
news.groups regulars have a life outside usenet.
Don A. Landhill
Mark Maurer
Matt Bandy (ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu) spewed forth this crap:
: mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
: >rules, our beloved newsgroup may well have been pillaged in our
: >absence. If the renaming CFV was held off until we could run our
:
: I'm hardly pillaging here.
That's what may happen, if the current charters stay as they are. *UNTIL* I
see the charters changed, that is what I think as well. Just saying that the
proponents are discussing it means shit, since I have heard two of you state
different opinions.
: >ideas for news.groups rule changes through the gammut, then the
: >suggestion to change the rules would would hold more weight.
:
: >"Hey, you just shot my wife!" "So what - that's not illegal, why
:
: Renaming rgcu-d is not comparable to murdering anyone. In addition,
: murder is illegal.
I'm pretty sure he knows that. It's called making a point.
: If you feel that Usenet group creation procedure should be changed,
: go ahead and propose the changes. So far as I can tell, all of you are
: just too lazy to propose a change and prefer to suggest disobeying the
: rules instead. I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong on the last
: statement, though.
I believe Mike covered this in the very post you were responding to...
james patrick hogan
mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>One problem is that it seems that a RFD and CFV can be proposed for a
>newsgroup from outside the newsgroup. If no one inside the newsgroup
>is familiar with the rules governing newsgroup creation, etc. then
>they are rather ill-equipped to deal with such proposals. It seems
This is a good thing, IMO (that anyone can do it). Really, it doesn't
take THAT long to educate yourself -- an afternoon of FAQ reading and a
week or two of discussion during the RFD in news.groups should give you a
clear idea of how things are working.
>like taxation without representation, sort of. Does each group need a
>'senator' to monitor news.groups and the rules to protect the
>newsgroup from outside interference, whether good intentioned or not?
It would be bad taste (and surprising) if someone got an RFD and CFV
through without anyone in the newsgroup even finding out about it...
james
james patrick hogan
mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>No, I strongly doubt the whole thing was that carefully crafted.
>However, suggesting that we change the news.groups rules (possibly a
>diversionary tactic) won't help us either. By the time we change the
>rules, our beloved newsgroup may well have been pillaged in our
>absence.
If the result of the re-org is really something that horrid, then I'm
sure you had have no trouble passing a proposal in a few months to get
things back the way they were.
james
james patrick hogan
mwma...@mtu.edu (Mark Maurer) writes:
>That's what may happen, if the current charters stay as they are. *UNTIL* I
>see the charters changed, that is what I think as well. Just saying that the
>proponents are discussing it means shit, since I have heard two of you state
>different opinions.
I am assuming from your phrase "the two of you" that you are assuming I
am a proponent.
Jesus, doesn't anyone even *read* these proposals they spend hours on end
trying to shoot down?
The proponents for the re-org are Matt, Raphael Quinet, F-15, and
Geomorphic. My name is not on the list.
(If I *did* misinterpret your above statement, and you did not mean to
imply that I was a proponent, then I apologize.)
rant off.
james
Edward Franks
My glass typewriter shows james patrick hogan saying...
> mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) writes:
>
> >Many of us actually question whtehr we'll even see U9, my friend.
> >Origin's continued existence seems to hinge on UOL being not only successful,
> >but OUTRAGEOUSLY successful.
>
> I have heard this a few times now and haven't been quite clear as to the
> reason people are saying this, other than some disgruntled former OSI
> customer support guy in agu-o who made the claim...
>
> I'm not saying it's baseless, just asking for some
> clarification/justification.
Origin has bet the company several times on a game. Ultima VI (see
the Dr. Cat post in DejaNews) for one.
The thing is, Origin doesn't control their own destiny anymore.
They *have* to keep EA happy or they won't be around any more.
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=={MDLAM}==- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Edward Franks
My glass typewriter shows devere1 saying...
>
>
> GSkip <gs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <5k8mue$l...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> >
> > <G> As you once said to me, Phid, get on with it or quit whining. Want
> > to give it a shot?
>
> SImply put--I don't now enough about Usenet to try, and I would at least
> like to get out of high school so I don't look like some kid who popped in
> complaining and trying to change things...Besides, if they were interested
> in change it would be changed by now.
No one does know enough when they start. Start lurking here and
learn the ropes by reading the discussions.
And, to you the changes are obvious. I imagine that they aren't
when you look at all of the ramifications of those changes.
Edward Franks
My glass typewriter shows Andrew D. Charlton saying...
[Snip]
> I have a hard time believing that an CFV with conditionals would be
> anything other than confusing. The time for discussing alternatives is
> during the RFD period. The most accepted proposals should be included in
> subsequent RFDs (Which is what has occured BTW), and then the vote occurs.
My problem is that there is no way to amend the RFD outside of the
proponents.
You are forced to go to a vote to kill a bad RFD instead of having
a chance to amend it before it goes to a vote.
Mark Maurer
james patrick hogan (j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu) spewed forth this crap:
: mwma...@mtu.edu (Mark Maurer) writes:
:
: >That's what may happen, if the current charters stay as they are. *UNTIL* I
: >see the charters changed, that is what I think as well. Just saying that the
: >proponents are discussing it means shit, since I have heard two of you state
: >different opinions.
: I am assuming from your phrase "the two of you" that you are assuming I
: am a proponent.
BZZZTT!!! I *DO* know who the proponents are, and this was in response to
something Matt said. The two proponents I meant were Bandy and Quinet.
: Jesus, doesn't anyone even *read* these proposals they spend hours on end
: trying to shoot down?
Why yes, *most* of us have. Just because one person got confused doesn't
mean we all haven't read it. Besides, it would be easy to mistake you for a
proponent, because most of the time you are arguing in support of them. And
you are a lot more vocal than two of the proponents.
: The proponents for the re-org are Matt, Raphael Quinet, F-15, and
: Geomorphic. My name is not on the list.
Again, already knew that.
: (If I *did* misinterpret your above statement, and you did not mean to
: imply that I was a proponent, then I apologize.)
Apology accepted.
Robotech_Master
In article <5kaf67$m...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
james patrick hogan <j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> If the result of the re-org is really something that horrid, then I'm
> sure you had have no trouble passing a proposal in a few months to get
> things back the way they were.
<devil's advocate>
Tell that to rec.arts.anime(.misc).
</devil's advocate>
--
Chris Meadows aka | Author, Team M.E.C.H.A., Crapshoot & Co.
Robotech_Master | on the Superguy Listserv (bit.listserv.superguy)
robo...@jurai.net | With a World Wide Web homepage located at
robo...@eyrie.org | http://www.jurai.net/~robotech/index.html
Matthew Daly
In article <336d3366...@newshost.cyberramp.net> mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
>
>Oh no! Another horrible atrocity on the Usenet. Better get some guys
>together and start the renaming process so that rec.games.int-fiction
>becomes rec.games.fiction.interactive.
Why? What other newsgroups do you think belong in the rec.games.fiction.*
heirarchy? Perhaps rec.games.computer.int-fiction would be more
sensible, since only computer-based interactive fiction is discussed
there, but it is also a 10 year-old group with strong ties to
rec.arts.int-fiction, which is about the creation of interactive
fiction but not restricted to computer-based "adventure games". All
that being said, I would support a change to rgci-f, although I
recognize that you're just trying to make a funny.
Hint: There are two or three newsgroups as poorly-named as rgcu-d,
but not rec.games.computer.puzzle or rec.games.int-fiction.
One of them is even in the rec.games heirarchy. Keep looking....
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly I feel that if a person has problems communicating
mwd...@kodak.com the very least he can do is to shut up - Tom Lehrer
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
devere1
Michael Cecil <mce...@cyberramp.net> wrote in article
<336c3276...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
> Yes, he has mentioned it several times. Whenever someone has asked if
> there will be a U10, he says no, that U9 is the end of the series and
> then goes on to describe how he wants to create a new world.
Well, that's a lie. He said there would be a U10, but it will start a new
'trilogy of trilogies' and there would be no Avatar as the player
character. It WILL happen unless U9 is a total bust, as was the exact
quote. He also stated that Britannia and LB etc. very well may be there,
but it would be the opening of a new age, a pseudo-Victorian era, and the
Avatar may or may be a character.
-Ophidian Dragon
devere1
Michael Cecil <mce...@cyberramp.net> wrote in article
<336e34b8...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:18:59 -0400, se...@cornell.edu (Stephane Evoy)
> wrote:
> that the series is nearly over. Once U9 ends it's time on the store
> shelves, the games will no longer be available.
?
What about U10 and UW3? Both games, from everything I know, are a defnite
'yes' unless U9 is a complete bust, and if THAT happens Origin would be
dead anyway so it doesn't matter.
-Ophidian Dragon
james patrick hogan
mwma...@mtu.edu (Mark Maurer) writes:
>: Jesus, doesn't anyone even *read* these proposals they spend hours on end
>: trying to shoot down?
>
>Why yes, *most* of us have. Just because one person got confused doesn't
>mean we all haven't read it. Besides, it would be easy to mistake you for a
>proponent, because most of the time you are arguing in support of them. And
>you are a lot more vocal than two of the proponents.
This was meant to be a rhetorical "anyone."
>: (If I *did* misinterpret your above statement, and you did not mean to
>: imply that I was a proponent, then I apologize.)
>
>Apology accepted.
Doh. Sorry again.
james
james patrick hogan
robo...@eyrie.org (Robotech_Master) writes:
>> If the result of the re-org is really something that horrid, then I'm
>> sure you had have no trouble passing a proposal in a few months to get
>> things back the way they were.
>
><devil's advocate>
>Tell that to rec.arts.anime(.misc).
></devil's advocate>
Enlighten me... it's been so long since I've been in raa I didn't even
know there had been a re-org. Why did it fail, and why is there
opposition to changing it back?
james
james patrick hogan
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> Conspiracy theories again... *sigh*
>
>Well, it is a rather obvious conclusion. Why WOULD you try to do something
>just before a change in rules?
Coincidence?
james
devere1
Michael Cecil <mce...@cyberramp.net> wrote in article
<33713cd4...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
> On 1 May 1997 03:48:55 GMT, "devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> absence. If the renaming CFV was held off until we could run our
> ideas for news.groups rule changes through the gammut, then the
> suggestion to change the rules would would hold more weight.
I hink you misunderstood. RIGHT NOW in the news.groups they are trying to
update the rules to make it easier to propose and counterpropose group
changes. We don't have to do anything. Someone told me an idea like mine
was already in consideration. :-)
-Ophidian Dragon
Matt Bandy
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
Whoever told you that was confused. You should take a look at what's
actually up in news.groups, and read the news.groups reorg RFD which they are
discussing. What's being discussed right now is simply renaming/splitting
news.groups to make it more intuitive, not changes to the group creation
process. In the fairly distant future, it is likely that a proposal to
revise group creation rules will be introduced by Tale, but he himself has
said that his proposal will not be ready for several months. If you want to
see a change in Usenet policy now, you need to initiate it yourself.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
devere1
Henryk Bochmann <boch...@TUDURZ.urz.tu-dresden.de> wrote in article
<5k9qae$f...@irz401.inf.tu-dresden.de>...
>
> This shows that you haven't read the rules of newsgroup creation.
>
I didn't say that the current rules allowed it. I said that it is possible
to do that. You could base the rules on that fact. But you don't.
-Ophidian Dragon
Kender Dragon
Joshua Kramer wrote:
> The new news.groups structure will do nothing to change this aspect
> of the proposal. In fact, it will hopefully contain a naming committee,
> with the power, by fiat, to rename bullshit like ultima-online.
> The reason we ignore you is because you have no clue. I'll see you again
> in three months, when you leave the killfileodoom.
Congratulations. In six years online, that is the single most
muleheaded, ignorant thing I have ever heard anyone say.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kender Dragon (R. Serena Wakefield)
rai...@gate.net -==(UDIC)==-
snailmail to: 21 Adverb Way, Dictionopolis, Kingdom of Wisdom
Kender Dragon
Matt Bandy wrote:
> mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) writes:
> >I might start doing that. Some of the rules seem seriously messed up.
> >One problem is that it seems that a RFD and CFV can be proposed for a
> >newsgroup from outside the newsgroup. If no one inside the newsgroup
>
> IMO, this is a good thing. Outsiders are frequently the best
> at overcoming inertia and pushing for a change. In addition, outsiders
> to the newsgroup may have an interest in the topic (such as myself.)
I still think it might be a better idea if someone had to actually
understood a group's dynamics before being able to promote these kinds
of changes. You showed your lack of understanding of our dynamics in
your original RFD on this group.
Although it wasn't your intention, you may well have ended up pushing
this change through without giving the Dragons a chance to stop it. The
overwhelming majority of those on your side are lurkers and newbies, who
may not be able to see what will happen to the group if the changes
pass. There's an unlimited supply of them and many of them don't seem
to understand the whole point of the Dragons.
It also would have been a better idea to try to solve the perceived
problems with this group before proposing a competing one.
It's especially ironic considering that your very first idea -- the alt
group -- was the correct one. As far as I can tell, the two arguments
against it were "it won't be propagated enough" (it'll be propagated
enough to judge the viability of a rec version) and "it pissed me off"
(thank you F-15).
Kender Dragon
james patrick hogan wrote:
> mr_...@ix.netcom.com (Vulcan Dragon) writes:
>
> >What, waltz into news.groups and take action to change their structure and
> >policy? How rude!
>
> *laugh*... I don't think they'd mind :)
> There are newsgroup regulars, but they don't exactly view n.g as their
> territory, or their home, or any of those other things I seem to
> get the sense of from rgcu-d guys (and gals).
<obscure reference>
Wannabeamember? Wannabeamember?
</obscure reference>
(Actually, right at the moment, if this was going to be a cartoon, I'd
rather it be Koko's Earth Control than Bongo's Initiation. LEAVE MY
NEWSGROUP ALONE, or I'll turn the whole goddamn planet into slag!
Mwah-hah-hah-hah!)
Andrew D. Charlton
"devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>GSkip <gs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><5k8mue$l...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>
>> <G> As you once said to me, Phid, get on with it or quit whining. Want
>> to give it a shot?
>
>SImply put--I don't now enough about Usenet to try,
And yet you spend your time memorising country names and borders?
>and I would at least
>like to get out of high school so I don't look like some kid who popped in
>complaining and trying to change things...
So don't tell them :-)
>Besides, if they were interested in change it would be changed by now.
By that logic, nothing will ever change, because if it was going to, it
already would have.
--
____/\___ Erraticus
___/__\__) -==(UDIC)==-
(__/ \__ \\//
/ \ \/
devere1
james patrick hogan <j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<5k9an7$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> "devere1" <dev...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >Oh, BTW, they are in the proccess of updating the rules now, or so
someone
> >from news.groups told me. Is Matt trying to get his changes made before
it
> >becomes impossible do to new rules?
>
> Conspiracy theories again... *sigh*
>
Well, it is a rather obvious conclusion. Why WOULD you try to do something
just before a change in rules?
-Ophidian Dragon
devere1
>
> The new news.groups structure will do nothing to change this aspect
> of the proposal. In fact, it will hopefully contain a naming committee,
> with the power, by fiat, to rename bullshit like ultima-online.
That's not what the person in question told me.
> The reason we ignore you is because you have no clue. I'll see you again
> in three months, when you leave the killfileodoom.
>
Hmm. Killfile me for nothing. Oh well. I have no reason to associate
with this chump if he killfiles me for restating what one of his own group
told me. What an idiot.
-Ophidian Dragon
devere1
Matt Bandy <ha...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<5kb3l0$2...@arh0230.urh.uiuc.edu>...
> revise group creation rules will be introduced by Tale, but he himself
has
> said that his proposal will not be ready for several months. If you want
to
> see a change in Usenet policy now, you need to initiate it yourself.
Then we can wait a few months to do ANYTHING about this group. After all,
at *this* time, created a .series gorup will be meaningless. .online MIGHT
be meaningless, depending on whether or not this group will be inundated
with UO posts or not. But, again, we need to wait anyway.
-Ophidian Dragon
Robotech_Master
In article <5kb2ni$d...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
james patrick hogan <j-h...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Enlighten me... it's been so long since I've been in raa I didn't
> even know there had been a re-org. Why did it fail, and why is
> there opposition to changing it back?
Well, I wasn't a regular news.groups reader back when this all
happened, and my facts or opinions may be wrong, so I'll try to be as
general as possible.
The most recent r.a.a re-org included a rename of r.a.a. to
r.a.a.misc. It passed. Several people were rather vocally upset
about this, claiming that since there hadn't been very many pointers
to news.groups posted in r.a.a. while the RFD/CFV was on, many (some
said "most", I think) of the r.a.a. readers didn't know it was going
on, and were unhappy about the namechange.
A new RFD was put together to change r.a.a.misc back to r.a.a, after
the waiting period was over; tale made no response at all to the RFD
for several months, finally rejecting it just a few weeks ago. (I
forget the reasons given for the rejection, but there were reasons; he
didn't just reject it out of hand. AFAIK.) It is apparent that any
further attempts to demiscify r.a.a.misc will probably also be
rejected, so the idea seems to be pretty much dead.
Regardless of the outcome, both sides seem to agree that there should
have been more discussion of the re-org in rec.arts.anime itself prior
to and during the RFD and CVF. The r.a.a.*'ers have learned from the
mistake, as the ongoing pre-RFD discussion in r.a.a.misc for the next
re-org would seem to indicate.
At any rate, it seems to me that thinking "Oh, we can change it back
in six months" isn't a very productive attitude. But that's just
me. :)
Mark Maurer
Kender Dragon (rai...@gate.net) spewed forth this crap:
: Joshua Kramer wrote:
:
: > The new news.groups structure will do nothing to change this aspect
: > of the proposal. In fact, it will hopefully contain a naming committee,
: > with the power, by fiat, to rename bullshit like ultima-online.
: > The reason we ignore you is because you have no clue. I'll see you again
: > in three months, when you leave the killfileodoom.
: Congratulations. In six years online, that is the single most
: muleheaded, ignorant thing I have ever heard anyone say.
That, and I'm pretty sure that Ophidian doesn't really give a shit being
killfiled by some schmuck that he never heard from before. I know I
wouldn't.
Gee Joshie, can I be killfiled too?
Bruce Baugh
In article <33723e94...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) wrote:
>they are rather ill-equipped to deal with such proposals. It seems
>like taxation without representation, sort of.
It may become clearer if you remember that Usenet namespace (the "space"
defined by our naming conventions) functions as an index. news.groups
amounts to the equivalent of the gatherings that assign Dewey decimal
and Library of Congress catalog numbers.
The system works best when folks say "this is what we want to talk
about" and the people who understand the principles on which the index
is based say "great, if you can get the votes for it, your group should
carry this label". When proponents set in to _demand_ a particular name,
then things turn adversarial. As in the case of r.g.c.u-d.
I confess that I really don't understand why people form such strong
attachments to group names. When I think of the groups I really like and
spend a lot of time in, it's the _content_ I think of - the posters I
like, the wonderful exchanges, and so on. Most of the groups I read have
changed labels (once or more often) in the years I've been reading them,
and I never felt this to be a problem. The index has to adjust a bit
from time to time to accomodate ever-greater volumes of traffic. So? The
stuff I want is in the posts, not the name.
I'm not arrogant enough to demand everyone share my intuition on this
matter. Even though everyone should. :) Fine news.groups regulars don't
approach this the way I do, either. But I _do_ recommend a focus on
content over name; it'll breed less needless distraction and annoyance
over time.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.kenosis.com
Moderator, comp.os.ms-windows.win95.moderated
List manager, Christlib, Christian/libertarian mailing list
Host, new sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Bruce Baugh
In article <337846d6...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, mce...@cyberramp.net (Michael Cecil) wrote:
>That's it - we'll just take over news.groups with our dragonish
>posts...ahahahahhhahaaaaa....
Far better trollers than you folks will ever be have tried it. It didn't
work.
I note again that a non-adversarial approach would get you a lot more of
what you want a lot quicker.