BTECH - no new group?
Bruce Harper
on other games, but I suppose it couldn't hurt. There's a clear need for
such a group and no one objected, as far as I saw. What happened to that
idea? I hope someone is pursuing it!
Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex
___
|he person who initiated discussion of a rec.games.rpg[frp].board
group hasn't sent in a CFV on any groupname, yet. I'm waiting to see
what they do, if anything, and whether it passes or not. Depending
on what happens with that, I may submit an RFD on rec.games.mecha,
myself.
_
(_
__)o yes, at least two people (the poster of the rec.games.rpg[frp].
board RFD, and myself) are persuing it. Others may be persuing it, as
well, but it's not a good idea to have multiple RFDs/CFVs current for
similar groups. The confusion generated is likely to result in none
of them geting passed.
--
_______________________________________________________
/ -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex (: /
/ lun...@netcom.com GEnie: LUNATIC CI$: 76170,672 /
/______________________________________________________/
Bruce Harper
split this group, saying the overall volume doesn't justify the procedure.
Phil
} In article <16...@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
writes:
} >I don't know whether a separate group for BattleTech would encourage
postings
} >on other games, but I suppose it couldn't hurt. There's a clear need for
} >such a group and no one objected, as far as I saw. What happened to that
} >idea? I hope someone is pursuing it!
}
} ___
} |he person who initiated discussion of a rec.games.rpg[frp].board
} group hasn't sent in a CFV on any groupname, yet. I'm waiting to see
} what they do, if anything, and whether it passes or not. Depending
} on what happens with that, I may submit an RFD on rec.games.mecha,
} myself.
} _
} (_
} __)o yes, at least two people (the poster of the rec.games.rpg[frp].
} board RFD, and myself) are persuing it. Others may be persuing it, as
} well, but it's not a good idea to have multiple RFDs/CFVs current for
} similar groups. The confusion generated is likely to result in none
} of them geting passed.
}
There is a CFV for rec.games.abstract out there right now. BattleTech does
fall within the group's charter, which means that you should vote for the
group!!! Here is a copy of the post, but note that you should direct replies
to the name in the article (ne...@scs.leeds.ac.uk), and ***NOT*** to me, as it
will disqualify your vote!!!
Begin copied message:
This is the SECOND Call For Votes (CFV) on the creation of usenet newsgroup
rec.games.abstract. During the 30 day discussion period there were
no serious objections to the group, or the proposed name. I have
appended the charter.
To cast your vote, send email to ne...@scs.leeds.ac.uk (you can reply
to this message ***NOT THIS ONE - MAIL DIRECT!!!***).
To vote against the group, send a message containing the line:
I vote NO for rec.games.abstract as proposed
To vote for the group, send a message containing the line:
I vote YES for rec.games.abstract as proposed
The voting will close at midnight, 27th October.
Follow-ups directed to news.groups
Neil Bowers
ne...@scs.leeds.ac.uk
---===---
Group Name
----------
rec.games.abstract
Status
------
Unmoderated
Rationale
---------
Abstract Strategic and Tactical games are an acknowledged genre,
but there is no obvious group for discussion of this topic.
The more popular games (eg chess and go) have their own group,
but these are not the correct place to discuss games such as
reversi. As rec.games.board has been accepted as a forum for
war- and other commercial board games, discussion of the
topics listed below would interrupt the flow of that group.
rec.games.abstract would provide a focus for discussion which
currently appears in a number of groups, often to the annoyance
of readers. It is not intended to replace or detract from any
existing groups, but to complement them.
The design and implementation of programs to play such games is
another topic with no group. rec.games.programmer is too general.
The creation of rec.games.abstract was partly prompted by the
proposal for comp.games.research.
Charter
-------
The newsgroup would be for discussion of abstract games where
strategy, tactics and player skill are paramount. This includes
the major category of perfect information, pure-strategy
(deterministic) games, i.e. those with no element of chance (e.g.
no dice), and where all information is available (unlike card games
and Scrabble, for example, where players' hands are hidden). The
games under consideration are characterised by a simple board and
pieces, with a small number of rules. The cliche `a minute to
learn, a lifetime to master' is often applied.
o discussion of less mainstream abstract games,
which do not warrant a group of their own.
o design and implementation issues for computer players.
o develop generic code for computer programs,
such as board widgets, alpha-beta and other algorithms.
o introduce each other to new games, thus finding new
opponents.
o discuss strategy & tactics for human players.
o what makes a {good,fun,hard,popular} abstract game?
Will playing X be detrimental/beneficial to my Y playing? etc.
o ask `experts' for rule clarification.
o catalogue known abstract games, variations, genealogy,
sources of equipment, literature, clubs.
o maintain a list of email opponents for various games.
o catalogue available computer programs for these games.
o maintain a FAQ, outriggers could be posted to other groups,
get a mention in appropriate FAQs.
o propose and discuss new games or mechanisms
o puzzles for games other than chess et al.
o organise tournaments for various (obscure) games.
o organise an ftp archive, where useful information and games
programs can be held.
o vote for the best and the worst abstract game of the year
(or month or ever!)
o generally have fun in a decent way
end copied message.
Loki
> There is a CFV for rec.games.abstract out there right now. BattleTech does
> fall within the group's charter, which means that you should vote for the
> group!!! Here is a copy of the post, but note that you should direct replies
> to the name in the article (ne...@scs.leeds.ac.uk), and ***NOT*** to me, as it
> will disqualify your vote!!!
BattleTech does not fall in the proposed charter of rec.games.abstract; see
later in this message for why
> Charter
> -------
>
> The newsgroup would be for discussion of abstract games where
> strategy, tactics and player skill are paramount. This includes
> the major category of perfect information, pure-strategy
> (deterministic) games, i.e. those with no element of chance (e.g.
> no dice), and where all information is available (unlike card games
> and Scrabble, for example, where players' hands are hidden). The
> games under consideration are characterised by a simple board and
> pieces, with a small number of rules. The cliche `a minute to
> learn, a lifetime to master' is often applied.
Battletech is not a perfect information, diceless game. :) I seem to
remember rolling 2d6 a whole lot of times... ;) And - in most player
groups, a player hides his 'Mech heat levels from his opponent. *Plus* it
has rules for hidden movement.
It does not have a simple board. What's more, it doesn't even have a fixed
board.
It does not have simple pieces. What's more, it doesn't even have fixed
pieces... 'Mech design is possible.
It does not have a small number of rules. The BattleTech Compendium is a
pretty thick book.
IE: BattleTech is a tactical simulation game. Not an abstract game. :)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Most commonly known as Loki, occasionally sysop of TWWOL |
|SCA: Brynjolfr Myrkjartanarson, founder of the Compaignie Mercurie, in the|
|Canton of Seashire, Barony of Ruantallan, Laurel Kingdom of the East |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Net: cs34...@husky1.stmarys.ca, cs34...@stmarys.bitnet |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Random Quote of the Day:
I am running for governor of the United States.
--- Richard Nixon, running for governor of California
Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex
>In article <1992Oct7.0...@netcom.com> writes:
>} In article <16...@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
>writes:
>
>There is a CFV for rec.games.abstract out there right now. BattleTech does
>fall within the group's charter,
/-\bsolutely not!!! This is specifically the reason that
the proposed group was renamed rec.games.abstract instead of
rec.games.strategic. The group rec.games.abstract is not for
discussion of "war" games/etc. such as BattleTech.
\_/
|ou included the charter of rec.games.abstract. I suggest
you re-read it yourself.
]-[ere are the relevant sections:
>Rationale
>---------
>
> Abstract Strategic and Tactical games are an acknowledged genre,
> but there is no obvious group for discussion of this topic.
> The more popular games (eg chess and go) have their own group,
> but these are not the correct place to discuss games such as
> reversi. As rec.games.board has been accepted as a forum for
> war- and other commercial board games, discussion of the
> topics listed below would interrupt the flow of that group.
>
[...]
>
>Charter
>-------
>
> The newsgroup would be for discussion of abstract games where
> strategy, tactics and player skill are paramount. This includes
> the major category of perfect information, pure-strategy
> (deterministic) games, i.e. those with no element of chance (e.g.
> no dice), and where all information is available (unlike card games
> and Scrabble, for example, where players' hands are hidden). The
> games under consideration are characterised by a simple board and
> pieces, with a small number of rules. The cliche `a minute to
> learn, a lifetime to master' is often applied.
>
|)
|\egardless, I have already voted YES to the creation of
rec.games.abstract
Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex
>split this group, saying the overall volume doesn't justify the procedure.
\/\/ho informed you, and who are these "powers that be?" Official
discussion of the creation/etc. of newsgroups is held on news.groups.
There has been no "official veto" of a new group. The ways that new
groups fail are: the original poster of the RFD doesn't follow up
with a CFV, and the group doesn't get the necessary votes to be
created. The moderator of news.announce.newgroups may also choose
not to allow an RFD or CFV to be posted, due to similarities with an
existing group/etc.
][ urge you, and anyone else who is interested, to go over to
news.announce.newgroups and news.groups and check out the process
of how groups are created. It's very educational. (:
Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex
][ have just exchanged messages with the person who posted the
Request For Discussion (RFD) for rec.games.frp.board, and it turns out
that she is not pursuing a Call For Votes (CFV) for the creation of that
group. As a result, I will be posting an RFD for the creation of a group
named rec.games.mecha in the relevant newsgroups shortly.
Bruce Harper
Chris Meadows
I do NOT support rec.games.abstract, and will send in a message saying
so. The reason: it's TOO abstract. By looking at the name, you wouldn't
know what the heck it was talking about. In addition, lumping BattleTech
in with all those other games is just as bad as it is now, lumped in with
rec.games.board.
As I have said elsewhere, I would prefer rec.games.mecha. It's much
less...well...abstract. The name tells exactly what it's talking about.
Let's face it, the term "abstract" could mean almost anything.
--
---Chris Meadows CHM173S@SMSVMA or CMEA...@NYX.CS.DU.EDU
"Wish in one hand and do something else in the other, then
squeeze them both and see which one comes true."
---Corwin, NINE PRINCES IN AMBER by Roger Zelazny
Tim Dunn
>
>I do NOT support rec.games.abstract, and will send in a message saying
>so. The reason: it's TOO abstract. By looking at the name, you wouldn't
>know what the heck it was talking about. In addition, lumping BattleTech
>in with all those other games is just as bad as it is now, lumped in with
>rec.games.board.
Two points:
First: Battletech does *not* fit under the charter of rec.games.abstract.
There have been many posts to that effect already. I don't know
where that idea came from, but it's wrong.
Second: The classification of this sort of game (I've had to list it in
my hobbies a few times now, but it's not an everyday thing by no
means) I use is "abstract strategy" and that seems to work well.
This may require us to agree to disagree, but I think the name
suits what is being discussed adequately.
I must confess I don't understand your objection about the name, but
now that you have been illuminated about the status of Battletech and
r.g.abstract, do you still have an objection? If so, care you clarify
your points of difference with the name?
Follow ups set to news.groups.
--
Putt's Law:
Technology is dominated by two types of people:
Those who understand what they do not manage.
Those who manage what they do not understand.