Attn: Carly
Fortran Dragon
Where are you hiding at? :)
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=[MT]=- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/index.html>
rgcud FAQ: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/faq/rgcudfaq.html>
Christopher A Tew
great rock n' roll band:
>
> Where are you hiding at? :)
The U9 message boards, probably. With Garriott's attitude about
forums such as Usenet, I doubt that we'll see much of her here again.
:P
-Cat
--
Woof justice rules OK!
---tikicat at lvdi.net---
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> The U9 message boards, probably. With Garriott's attitude about
> forums such as Usenet, I doubt that we'll see much of her here again.
> :P
Well, I'm curious to see if she actually reads or skims this
newsgroup. If she doesn't then that says a lot about her interest in the
Dragons and any other Usenet-based Ultima fans.
Destrius
the entity named Fortran Dragon (for...@earthlink.net)
inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
-clip-
> Where are you hiding at? :)
-clip-
Did some nasty EA people kidnap you when they saw you found the source
code?
--
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | |
| Official Mad Mage | "Am I dreaming of the |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- | butterfly, or is the |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com/email.html | butterfly dreaming |
| Follow instructions to email me... | of me...?" |
| Website: | |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com | . o O (...) |
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
UDIC: d+++ e+ N++ T-- Om+ U1234567!8!AWS'! u++ uC++++ uF-
uG++++ uLB+ uA+++ nC+ nR nH+ nP++ nI++ nPT++++
nS++++ nT-- wM wC+ wS wI+ wN+ o- y a16
---| 庄心宇 |--Bait:--| ro...@127.0.0.1 |--| postm...@127.0.0.1 |--
Infinitron Dragon
Ophidian anytime soon. ;)
--
Infinitron Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
--------------
d++ e+ N+ T+ Om++ U1!24!56!7'!S'!8!KALW!M
u+ uC++ uF++ uG+++ uLB+ uA+ nC+ nR- nH nP+ nI++
nPT nS+++ nT-- wM++ wC+++ wS+ wI-- wN o oA y+ 16
--------------
"Zug!"
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
Infinitron Dragon
needed?
FEH! I hate webboards. They're just too clunky and slow.
--
Infinitron Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
--------------
d++ e+ N+ T+ Om++ U1!24!56!7'!S'!8!KALW!M
u+ uC++ uF++ uG+++ uLB+ uA+ nC+ nR- nH nP+ nI++
nPT nS+++ nT-- wM++ wC+++ wS+ wI-- wN o oA y+ 16
--------------
"Zug!"
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>
> Where are you hiding at? :)
>
Wouter Dijkslag
On 18 Nov 1998 15:06:27 GMT, u...@the.sig.addy (Destrius) wrote:
>...and it was written on the heavens that on Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:47:27 -0600,
> the entity named Fortran Dragon (for...@earthlink.net)
> inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
>
>-clip-
>> Where are you hiding at? :)
>-clip-
>
>Did some nasty EA people kidnap you when they saw you found the source
>code?
Unfortunatly, she didn't yet.. It's some sort of private quest for
her, and she's been really busy with stuff she's got to do for OSI.
Meaning the sourcecode got a little put back on her 'to-do' list.
Oh well.
Might as wel been kidnapped...
Greetings,
Wody Dragon
wo...@wody.demon.nl
--- You shouldn't read this you know ---
UDIC code: d++ e- N+ T+ Om+ U14567'S'8KLWM
u-- uC++ uF- uG+++ uLB+ uA++ nC+ nH+ nP nI nPT+ nS++ nT----
wM wC+ wS wI wN oA+ y a23
Lumina Dragon
Infinitron Dragon wrote:
> Eh heh. It's been said before, but I don't think Origin's gonna help
> Ophidian anytime soon. ;)
>
Heh. And heh again. Besides, Lady Moi and Origin would get a better audience
out of RGCUS than here. That's where our Ultima topics live.
-Lumina Dragon
Christopher A Tew
>[Snip]
>> The U9 message boards, probably. With Garriott's attitude about
>> forums such as Usenet, I doubt that we'll see much of her here again.
>> :P
>
> Well, I'm curious to see if she actually reads or skims this
>newsgroup. If she doesn't then that says a lot about her interest in the
>Dragons and any other Usenet-based Ultima fans.
Are you still operating under the delusion that Origin actually cares
about any fan or group of fans of Ultima? :P
Infinitron Dragon
Like an official UDIC spokesman who would react to all UIX news on Origin's
webboard!
This sounds a bit too orderly for us dragons, but still it's a good idea. :)
--
Infinitron Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
--------------
d++ e+ N+ T+ Om++ U1!24!56!7'!S'!8!KALW!M
u+ uC++ uF++ uG+++ uLB+ uA+ nC+ nR- nH nP+ nI++
nPT nS+++ nT-- wM++ wC+++ wS+ wI-- wN o oA y+ 16
--------------
"Zug!"
Christopher A Tew wrote in message <36537d00...@news3.lvdi.net>...
Infinitron Dragon
NGing is busy work. :)
--
Infinitron Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
--------------
d++ e+ N+ T+ Om++ U1!24!56!7'!S'!8!KALW!M
u+ uC++ uF++ uG+++ uLB+ uA+ nC+ nR- nH nP+ nI++
nPT nS+++ nT-- wM++ wC+++ wS+ wI-- wN o oA y+ 16
--------------
"Zug!"
Lumina Dragon wrote in message <365384C9...@indiana.edu>...
MdmeDis
says...
> > Well, I'm curious to see if she actually reads or skims this
> >newsgroup. If she doesn't then that says a lot about her interest in the
> >Dragons and any other Usenet-based Ultima fans.
>
> Are you still operating under the delusion that Origin actually cares
> about any fan or group of fans of Ultima? :P
Fortran? I'd hazard a guess he's *proving* they don't actually care...
--
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
D'ya ever have those days when you think
maybe its you, and not the rest of the world
that's fucked up?
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> about any fan or group of fans of Ultima? :P
No, I'm trying to see if Carly's attention was truly serious or
just a pacifier.
Infinitron Dragon
Heehee. It's time to post UA megarants to get her back! :)
Destrius
the entity named Infinitron Dragon (meln...@hotmail.com)
>Perhaps, now that they have their zuggy webboard, they think PR is longer
>needed?
>
>FEH! I hate webboards. They're just too clunky and slow.
-clip-
*nod*
The Webification of the Internet is disturbing. It's fortunate that Usenet
has a very strong (and almost cultish) following, or we may soon see the
demise of newsgroups.
Actually, I'd rather move everything more than a little interactive off the
web and into something separate. The web is meant for info, after all, not
online games and the like.
Well-Dressed
Time that I've heard you preach,
Why! I'd have wicked thoughts upon my brain.
>From the Void comes Christopher A Tew bearing this piece of Light...
>[Snip]
>> Are you still operating under the delusion that Origin actually cares
>> about any fan or group of fans of Ultima? :P
>
> No, I'm trying to see if Carly's attention was truly serious or
>just a pacifier.
Hmmm. I'd like the company to make games and not play them, but it
seems the exact other way around with OSI.
So, are we getting back to telling everyone U:A is going to suck? The
screen shots _do_ remind me of Tomb Raider somewhat. Very suspicious.
Well-Dressed Dragon -==UDIC==-
* Holder of one (1) Money Dragon Flame Point *
-----------------------------------------------------
"I do not mind what I excrete,
cause I fear it would make a buck.
And those that cannot take the heat,
can take a flying forgive-me-if-I-hesitate"
- Primus, The Air Is Getting Slippery
Infinitron Dragon
Hmm. I'm still more afraid of it being a Diablo-like game.
That means -
Minimal dialog
Simplistic interface
Action-like combat
Being a poetic soul, I'm most concerned about the dialog. :)
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> Hmmm. I'd like the company to make games and not play them, but it
> seems the exact other way around with OSI.
The 'net has changed the world for game companies and Origin is
trailing far behind instead of being cutting edge like it used to.
Richard Garriott needs to grasp that honest, uncensorable
communication with the fans of the Ultima series is a Good Thing.
> So, are we getting back to telling everyone U:A is going to suck?
At this point, no. Unless Origin releases more information...
> The
> screen shots _do_ remind me of Tomb Raider somewhat. Very suspicious.
Isn't it interesting how the next King's Quest and Ultima:
Ascension look exactly the same?
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> If it's the latter, then I'm one very upset Dragon. It isn't very nice
> playing with people's emotions like that.
So far it looks that way. Only Carly's ongoing presence will
change that.
MdmeDis
well_d...@hotmail.com says...
> Fortran Dragon, if I had a dime for each
> > No, I'm trying to see if Carly's attention was truly serious or
> >just a pacifier.
>
> Hmmm. I'd like the company to make games and not play them, but it
> seems the exact other way around with OSI.
>
> So, are we getting back to telling everyone U:A is going to suck? The
> screen shots _do_ remind me of Tomb Raider somewhat. Very suspicious.
You mean - its time for another united Dragon Tantrum? <eg>
Sned The Bold
>
> From the Void comes Christopher A Tew bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
> > Are you still operating under the delusion that Origin actually cares
> > about any fan or group of fans of Ultima? :P
>
> just a pacifier.
I thought it was already kind of obvious...
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> How much would all Ultima-related copyrights cost?
Lots. Many millions. Basically you would have to buy Origin from
EA and make sure the Ultima copyrights were included.
Mils
>about any fan or group of fans of Ultima? :P
And more important,
Are you still operating under the delusion that Origin actually cares
about Ultima?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
\||/ Moa Dragon =<UDIC>=
| @___oo Mils Michael
/\ /\ / (__,,,,| mi...@club-internet.fr ; ICQ: 11938373
) /^\) ^\/ _) http://perso.club-internet.fr/mils/main.html
"Vous allez finir par vous aimer les uns les autres, bordel de merde?"
(Jesus II : Le retour, bientot dans vos églises.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mils
Maybe she's been executed for 'passing infos to the enemy'...
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> No, you're stamping your foot and crying because you're not getting
> personalized, hand-holding attention.
>
> Origin has hardly closed itself off from the outside world. They have a
> Web-based board that you could use if you chose. (Yes, it's clumsy and
> awkward. It's still there, and if your questions about U:A are really
> pressing, I'm sure that you could put up with the awkwardness.) They
> still have that email address, as far as I know. And gee, if it really
> came down to it, you could just email Ms. Staehlin-Taylor directly.
>
> Apparently, that's not enough for you; you'll be satisfied with nothing
> less than Origin's direct and continuing presence in this forum, even if
> such a presence is redundant, time-consuming (I sure as hell wouldn't want
> to read this group on a regular basis with all of the tedious diversions
> that are present here), and unnecessary. You demand that Origin recognize
> the Incredible Importance of the UDIC and stay here to calm you down if
> you have another temper tantrum.
>
> Feh. If you really have serious concerns about U:A, ask about 'em on the
> Web board; if you want news, read Sith's excellent page; if you just want
> to be assured that yes, you are important after all, you'll probably want
> to look in alt.support.self-esteem.
>
> -Mike K., tactfully
<shrug> It doesn't seem to be a problem for Interplay...
Paul Ryan
Depths...
> Hey, yo. Survey time. Okay, who came here to see Mike Kozlowski?
No way.
> Yeah, yeah...now who came here to see me?
Far more likely, and a far more entertaining poster you are too.
--
Paulon Dragon d++ e- N T+ Om U1!23!4!5!6!7'!S'!8!K!A!L!W!M!
-==(UDIC)==- u++ uC+ uF uG uLB+ uA+ nC nH+ nI nPT nS+ nT+ y?
The Other Codex http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~paulryan/Ultima/Codex.htm
Settle for what you can get, but first ask for the World
Ka'a Orto'o, Gnomic Utterances, C IV
Negate the Spell to Wish Me Well
Paul Ryan
Depths...
> In article <MPG.10bdff176...@news.alt.net>,
> Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > No, I'm trying to see if Carly's attention was truly serious or
> >just a pacifier.
>
> personalized, hand-holding attention.
>
> Origin has hardly closed itself off from the outside world. They have a
> Web-based board that you could use if you chose. (Yes, it's clumsy and
> awkward. It's still there, and if your questions about U:A are really
> pressing, I'm sure that you could put up with the awkwardness.) They
> still have that email address, as far as I know. And gee, if it really
> came down to it, you could just email Ms. Staehlin-Taylor directly.
In other words crawl up to Origin and humbly beg for their attention? It
can't be that hard to at least keep a presence around a large gathering
of fans, least some of whom are still prepared to give them a chance
after U8 and UO?
> Apparently, that's not enough for you; you'll be satisfied with nothing
> less than Origin's direct and continuing presence in this forum, even if
> such a presence is redundant, time-consuming (I sure as hell wouldn't want
> to read this group on a regular basis with all of the tedious diversions
> that are present here), and unnecessary. You demand that Origin recognize
> the Incredible Importance of the UDIC and stay here to calm you down if
> you have another temper tantrum.
Surely it isn't too hard for a company to go even a little out of their
way to pass things on to fans who have supported them for years? Who go
out of their way to give support for their games? Gee, maybe they don't
want my money after all. After all if they don't want to pay attention to
their supporters, who can they expect to be supported when (if?) they
_finally_ release the game?
> Feh. If you really have serious concerns about U:A, ask about 'em on the
> Web board; if you want news, read Sith's excellent page;
I read Sith's page from time to time (every two to three days), and even
keep tabs on the boards at Horizons (Origin and Carly seem to have given
up on that one just like they have the newsgroups) and the new UA one. It
would be good public relations if they simply put out a digest of answers
to some of the questions that get answered by Origin staff over there,
but then public relations has not been Origin's strong point as far as I
can see.
> if you just want
> to be assured that yes, you are important after all, you'll probably want
> to look in alt.support.self-esteem.
Speaking from experience?
> -Mike K., tactfully
Accusations of whining hardly seem tactful. They seem more like someone
trying to stir up a flamewar.
Christopher A Tew
Except for the fact that the group does still exist on many servers,
and .dragons doesn't...but I'll crosspost to that group, and to the
CRPG group.
>If you have a question about a piece of software (or hardware), it only
>makes sense to contact the company through the channels it's set up to
>facilitate such communication.
But if the only channels that they will communicate in don't allow for
critical feedback, why bother? In a restricted environ such as
Origin's webboards, you can be sure that anything they see as
detrimental to U9 will be deleted, and that includes criticism of
announced game features. This is the reason why they set up the web
board and have restricted their activity to there, even Garriott has
said so.
>Origin has gone above and beyond the call of duty in this regard, and to
>claim that they don't care about their fans simply because they don't have
>an ongoing presence in this group -- a group which, I'll remind you, is
>not dedicated to discussion of the Ultima games -- evidences a particular
>sort of myopic self-centeredness.
They don't post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg or rcgus. And, there is
no "call of duty" in this regard. Companies don't have to say squat
about thier games. However, it does endear them to their customers
when they participate in disussions in public forums. I would venture
to say that Meghan Jenks' participation on Usenet has gone a long way
to make Interplay look better in the eyes of many gamers. When it
seemed that OSI was actually going to talk to Ultima fans *in a public
forum*, public opinion of OSI skyrocketed. Now that it has become
apparent that Carly Taylor's being here and on the Horizons webboard
was just a strange ploy of some sort, opinion of them has gone down
again. OSI, in the form of Carly Taylor and her particpation here and
in other public forums gave the impression that they were trying to be
more proactive in customer relations. For a while, they were. But
now, they've retreated into a less accessable forum. The webboard
is less accessable due to the inherent limitations of webboards, and
because you have to register in order to post. Having to register is
a bit sticky, since it leaves you open to spam from OSI and from any
company they decide to sell the registration information to. I highly
doubt that their guarentee has any legal bindings, and mailing list
sales are a bitch to trace...
By the way, RGCUD *is* dedicated to discussion of the Ultima games,
among other things. The reaction of RGCUS watered that down, as has
the fact that OSI can't be bothered to release a real Ultima game
every now and then...
>--
>Michael Kozlowski m...@cs.wisc.edu
>Recommended SF (Updated 10/9): http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/sfbooks.html
Wow, you managed to post something without insulting anybody. Maybe
you really are becoming a grown-up, Mikey! ;-)
Paul Ryan
Depths...
> [Crosspost to non-existent group removed.]
It's put there for a reason, thus is back. If it's truly non-existent,
then it shouldn't matter to you either way. As it unfortunately is still
in existence, you're just showing off your ignorance.
> In article <MPG.10c685cbe...@news.ihug.co.nz>,
> Paul Ryan <paul...@InVasAnSpam.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >The Earth Trembles, as the Words of Mike Kozlowski Arise from the
> >Depths...
>
> [There are, I point out, a plethora of ways to contact Origin if one so
> desired.]
>
> >In other words crawl up to Origin and humbly beg for their attention?
>
> If you have a question about a piece of software (or hardware), it only
> makes sense to contact the company through the channels it's set up to
> facilitate such communication.
So they ignore a wider forum (Usenet) in favour of one they have set up
which is slow and inconvenient to use. Good public relations there. Make
the potential customer jump through hoops to ask questions.
> That you want to turn this into an issue of pride is both telling and
> ridiculous.
Pride? If someone has supported them for years, surely it isn't too much
to expect something back. And I don't mean lawyers and threatened legal
action either. Now _that's_ what I call negative attention from the
company.
> >Surely it isn't too hard for a company to go even a little out of their
> >way to pass things on to fans who have supported them for years?
>
> Of course not. Which is why Origin's gone to the trouble of setting up
> their own Web-based forum where the developers themselves will answer your
> questions, and an email address where questions are guaranteed to be read
> by Mr. Garriott or Ms. Staehlin-Taylor.
Slow, censored, and damned hard to navigate. For all the cookies it
gives, it doesn't even remember where you've been unless you use it's own
links rather than the back button. I don't have the time to do much more
than skim it for interesting looking headers to follow up.
> Origin has gone above and beyond the call of duty in this regard, and to
> claim that they don't care about their fans simply because they don't have
> an ongoing presence in this group -- a group which, I'll remind you, is
> not dedicated to discussion of the Ultima games -- evidences a particular
> sort of myopic self-centeredness.
Why not say something in rec.games.computer.ultima.series then? That's
what the charter says it's for. There's also comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
where some info would be appropriate. Ultima _IS_ one of the purposes of
the rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons newsgroup though. Unfortunately
without any games for the last few years the topic has dried up a bit.
It's not as if Origin gives us much info here to discuss is it?
As for self-centeredness, if that's what you think of the people on this
newsgroup, why are you reading it, let alone posting to it? Wouldn't it
be a waste of time for a being with such a superior attitude that he
complains about the self-centeredness of a group he apparently dislikes
to pay attention to said inferior beings?
Unless you are just being a troll. Seems more likely somehow.
Certainly your own attitude seems unjustifiably self-centered if you
think that there is any good reason to berate others for being upset
about what seems to be yet another public relations blunder on the part
of Origin. I just hope that the programming skills of the UA team don't
aren't equivalent to the skills of the marketing and publicity people, or
we'll bet something buggier than Fallout 2 or Daggerfall are reputed to
be.
> >> Feh. If you really have serious concerns about U:A, ask about 'em on the
> >> Web board; if you want news, read Sith's excellent page;
> >
> >I read Sith's page from time to time (every two to three days), and even
> >keep tabs on the boards at Horizons (Origin and Carly seem to have given
> >up on that one just like they have the newsgroups) and the new UA one.
>
> So what's the problem, then? You have access to all the news you could
> want; you have access to the developers if you want to ask them questions;
> you have, in short, more insight and input into the development of U:A
> than that of any other Ultima, ever.
>
> That seems like it ought to be good enough.
And yet I've seen other companies going out of their way to provide info.
It comes down to good public relations. If Origin is only going to
provide information on a slow and inconvenient web-board, then they are
not going to have any particular awareness of their game in the minds of
the casual gamers. It only makes sense for them to cover a multitude of
forums in order to get as many people as possible interested in UA.
Unless of course they are afraid that too much attention would pop a
pretty illusion of a computer role-playing-game that they've put over a
Tomb-Raider clone. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I
honestly can think of _NO_ good reason to maintain the aloof stand that
Origin has. In the absence of adequate reasons from them, people are
going to start wondering just what they are trying to hide.
> >It
> >would be good public relations if they simply put out a digest of answers
> >to some of the questions that get answered by Origin staff over there,
>
> It would also be redundant, since that's precisely what Sith's page is.
So what's Sith getting paid by Origin? He is a fan, maintaining the site
in his own time. It's not as if Origin was going to do something like
that is it? Public relations has until recently been a total waste of
time to them. Until Sith shut down his site anyway. That seemed to shake
things up. Now we find that maintaining any contact in a neutral forum
(rgcu.series or csipg.rpg, rather than the at least semi-justifiably
semi-hostile rgcu.dragons) or even the friendly-to-Origin Horizons board
is too much for them. Are they afraid that they'll be immediately
attacked? When Carly started posting, she was met fairly, despite
warnings from within Origin that she was entering a hostile environment.
The only people damaged by their lack of contact with the largest group
of Ultima fans is Origin themselves. If they can't be bothered to reach
out to their old supporters, then why should their supporters continue to
be supporters? I suspect that is a growing attitude among some of those
here.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> doesn't seem to fit.
Given that the two are synonymous where you are concerned based on
your actions of the past couple of years I'm glad I called that one
right. At least you are honest.
Anyway, if you had bothered to inform yourself I have answered all
of your points before (though not as succinctly as Cat or Paulon) in
detail. You aren't worth my time to repeat them once again.
Blake Hyde
> Let's hope you stay in the Ivory Tower 'cause you'll suffer
Ivory Tower 1
Artifact
At the beginning of your upkeep, gain 1 life for
each card in your hand in excess of four.
"Valuing scholarship above all else, the
inhabitants of the Ivory Tower reward those
who sacrifice power for knowledge."
Rare in 4th Edition, Revised, Unlimited, and Antiquities. Value: $3.77.
--
Blake Hyde (ROT13: ou...@pbaarpgh.arg)
-==(UDIC)==-
Novan Dragon
--------------
d+ e- N+ T--- Om-- U1347'!S'8!K u uC++ uF uG++ uLB+ uA nC+ nR nH- nP nI--
nPT nS+ nT wM wC+ wS- wI++ wN- o oA++ y a666
--------------
MdmeDis
says...
<snip>
> Origin has gone above and beyond the call of duty in this regard, and to
> claim that they don't care about their fans simply because they don't have
> an ongoing presence in this group -- a group which, I'll remind you, is
> not dedicated to discussion of the Ultima games -- evidences a particular
> sort of myopic self-centeredness.
Well, you've been around long enough to know that's the way things are
around here, and these attitudes aren't exactly news - so what got your
knickers in a knot this time?
Christopher A Tew
Yeah, yeah...now who came here to see me?
> She's the PR flack for UA. It is her job, one that *she* stated
>she would do, to be here. But then, facts are your enemy, aren't they?
>
>> I bet it's not nearly as sinister as the motives you imagine; Ms.
>> Staehlin-Taylor struck me as a rather sincere individual.
>
> If she is she'll come back. If she doesn't, she wasn't.
I find it entirely within the realm of possiblity that due to
Garriott's attitude about forums not controlled by OSI, any person
working on UA is forbidden to post outside of the official boards.
That not only allows him to control what the fans say, but what his
own employees say.
> I'd suggest you stay out of software development...
I doubt that any company would have him.
Mike Kozlowski
MdmeDis <mdm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Well, you've been around long enough to know that's the way things are
>around here, and these attitudes aren't exactly news - so what got your
>knickers in a knot this time?
Because these attitudes _are_ new.
Before, the situation was that we had all heard a bunch of negative rumors
about U:A, and some people took them to heart and grew worried. They
wanted official word from Origin about these rumors.
And Origin gave the official word. They said, "No, that's not it; that's
not what we meant at all." And everyone relaxed, and admitted that they'd
wait until the game came out to judge it.
And Origin smiled with the contentment of a job well done, bid the group
adieu, and left the place rumor-free and cautiously optimistic.
Now, there aren't any new rumors, and there are plenty of available news
sources that we never had before. Now, crying out for Origin seems ...
needy and pointless. And the return to "Well, it looks like it'll be Tomb
Raider," is absolutely ridiculous. (Especially in the light of games like
Grim Fandango, Return to Krondor, and King's Quest VIII coming out. All
of them feature 3D third person protagonists, and none are Tomb Raider
clones.)
Mike Kozlowski
Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>From the Void comes Mike Kozlowski bearing this piece of Light...
>> I believe that "flame" was the word you were looking for there; "troll"
>> doesn't seem to fit.
>
> Given that the two are synonymous where you are concerned
You need to get a better dictionary. I may flame on occasion, but I don't
troll.
To assume that anyone who disagrees with you and says so vocally is
trolling is patently ridiculous.
Paul Ryan
Depths...
> In article <MPG.10c7e24e8...@news.ihug.co.nz>,
> Paul Ryan <paul...@InVasAnSpam.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >The Earth Trembles, as the Words of Mike Kozlowski Arise from the
> >Depths...
> >
> >> [Crosspost to non-existent group removed.]
> >
> >It's put there for a reason, thus is back. If it's truly non-existent,
> >then it shouldn't matter to you either way. As it unfortunately is still
> >in existence, you're just showing off your ignorance.
>
> I rather doubt it. The Big 8 isn't like the alt hierarchy; 'round these
> parts, groups exist or don't exist on an official basis. And on that
> basis, rgcu-d does not exist.
That may indeed be the ideal case, but as you should know, ideals don't
necessarily match the reality. Given that there _are_ people in a
position such that they only receive rgcu-dragons, continually cutting
out the crosspost just because reality doesn't match your view of it is
rather petty. If it doesn't hurt you, then just leave it there. After all
you can't be reading rgcu-d as it doesn't exist, hence crossposting there
doesn't hurt you any. Or are you just trying to limit the forums on which
you are seen to be a fool?
> If there are any newsservers that still don't carry rgcu.d and do carry
> rgcu-d, the admins are damn near criminally negligent and ought to be
> fired.
>
> (We had this discussion a year ago, I think. I was right then, and I'm
> indisputably right now.)
Then go and find out which they are and tell them so. It would be simpler
to post if that little problem was taken care of. Complaining when people
act to make sure those stuck with rgcu-d can see posts as you are doing
is not productive however, it is just making yourself out to be an even
larger fool than your posts were indicating previously.
If you reply to this, then leave the crosspost in, unless you are just
being a petty troll.
> >> If you have a question about a piece of software (or hardware), it only
> >> makes sense to contact the company through the channels it's set up to
> >> facilitate such communication.
> >
> >So they ignore a wider forum (Usenet) in favour of one they have set up
> >which is slow and inconvenient to use. Good public relations there. Make
> >the potential customer jump through hoops to ask questions.
>
> La. If I have a question about buying a Dell computer, what do I do: Go
> to Dell's Web site, or post to comp.sys.ibm.pc.dell? I think the answer
> is fairly obvious.
In the general sense, I look anywhere I think I should be able to find
information. In the example above, I'd likely do both. In the case of UA
I cover several sources of info, depending on available time. However the
only source Origin releases is a cumbersome and slow web-board, which
limits the time I can spend reading it, and has a very poor method of
keeping track of what's been read previously.
> >> Of course not. Which is why Origin's gone to the trouble of setting up
> >> their own Web-based forum where the developers themselves will answer your
> >> questions,
> >
> >Slow, censored, and damned hard to navigate.
>
> "Censored" as in "we'll remove obscenity and porn" or as in "we'll remove
> bad comments about Ultima"?
>
> If the former, that seems perfectly acceptable for a private forum.
>
> >links rather than the back button. I don't have the time to do much more
> >than skim it for interesting looking headers to follow up.
>
> Yet you expect Origin to have the time to wade through this group, where
> maybe 1 out of 20 posts are actually about Ultima, and an even smaller
> perfectage are about U:A?
And yet it seems too hard to watch for headers such as 'Attn: Carly', or
respond to them. Simply acknowledging the initial post shouldn't be too
hard, especially as Carly was going to keep a watch out for such posts. I
don't know the reasons, but it does add to the general perception of
Origin's aloofness towards the fans and public.
> >As for self-centeredness, if that's what you think of the people on this
> >newsgroup, why are you reading it, let alone posting to it?
>
> I do not hold certain individuals to be representative of the entire
> group, that's why.
>
> >> So what's the problem, then? You have access to all the news you could
> >> want; you have access to the developers if you want to ask them questions;
> >> you have, in short, more insight and input into the development of U:A
> >> than that of any other Ultima, ever.
> >
> >And yet I've seen other companies going out of their way to provide info.
> >It comes down to good public relations.
>
> So you want the symbolic involvement of Origin. You want them to assure
> you that they care about You, The Customer. I genuinely don't understand
> this impulse.
What is wrong with Origin spending a bit of time making sure those who
have supported them are given some support in return? If they want to
ignore a fan group then that's their privilege, but they are thus
generating bad publicity for themselves. Bad publicity means the games
are less likely to sell. Games not selling eventually means they go
broke. A broke Origin will likely be canned by EA and won't produce any
more Ultima games. That is a bad thing IMO. Wouldn't it be simpler to
make even a token effort to be seen on a forum they don't control? That
way they are going to get what amounts to free advertising as stuff is
discussed on another forum. Ignoring that possibility is rather stupid on
Origin's part. As you can thus see, even making a token effort would have
some benefit to Origin, even not taking into account the good-will of the
UDIC.
> >Unless of course they are afraid that too much attention would pop a
> >pretty illusion of a computer role-playing-game that they've put over a
> >Tomb-Raider clone.
>
> Christ. Origin quits reading this group for a few months, and already
> this tired canard is being dragged out?
A worst case scenario. But if they want to lay that rumour to rest, then
staying silent except on their own controlled forum is _not_ the way to
go about it. Simply providing some info to prove it wrong would settle
the problem for once and for all. However thing like the keys which are
used once then vanish, the comparison a detractor made was to Quake or
Doom. Not good.
> Apparently, there's not much point in them saying anything, if that's all
> the attention you're going to pay to the subject.
Origin provides information on an inconvenient and self-controlled forum,
while ignoring a wider and unmoderated group. The only summaries, while
excellent, are provided by a volunteer, who AFAIK does it in his own
time. If Origin want's UA to be an anticipated game, they're going to
have to come out of their shell and make sure that people know the game
is coming, _without_ making the public go to them to find things out. As
I said above, posting information on a forum like Usenet amounts to free
advertising, which shouldn't be ignored. Of course if information is
such that they know the fans and supporters won't accept it (it's going
to be like Tombraider for instance), then that seems a likely reason to
avoid said free publicity. Paranoid? Perhaps a little, but given the sort
of publicity we've had so far, there is definitely justification for it.
> >is too much for them. Are they afraid that they'll be immediately
> >attacked?
>
> If this bothers you so much, why don't you ask Origin? Email Ms.
> Staehlin-Taylor, and ask: "I've noticed that you've discontinued
> participation on Usenet. Could you tell me the reason for this?"
I intend to flip the second half of this post over that way. I'll clip
the bit about you and your gaffe with rgcu-d, as I wouldn't want you to
look too bad.
What the reply will be remains to be seen.
> I bet it's not nearly as sinister as the motives you imagine; Ms.
> Staehlin-Taylor struck me as a rather sincere individual.
Likewise. Which makes her complete vanishment much more distressing. It
seemed like the leopard had changed it's spots, now Origin seems to have
gone back to the 'who cares about the Dragons or Usenet' attitude that
helped earn them dislike in the first place.
> >When Carly started posting, she was met fairly, despite
> >warnings from within Origin that she was entering a hostile environment.
>
> Warnings from the Horizon board, rather.
Both from Horizons (I read them) and from within Origin itself, as she
stated.
> >of Ultima fans is Origin themselves. If they can't be bothered to reach
> >out to their old supporters, then why should their supporters continue to
> >be supporters?
>
> Because the game looks good, that's why. I'd much rather Origin devoted
> time to making a great game than to assuaging the troubled egos of their
> fans.
If Origin doesn't want to maintain it's fanbase, then why should the fans
wait and see? Making a good game is no longer enough. The old fans may
indeed buy UA on the strength of the name Ultima, but by not going out of
their way to distribute information, they are limiting the number of
people who see information about UA to those who already know about the
game and want to find more information. Usenet posts by Origin on the
subject, even just a digest of questions asked on the official boards and
the development teams responses, would spread information to those who
idly browse through threads with interesting headers or are just idly
curious. I purchased Fallout recently based on what I read on csip.rpg,
simply because the comments were positive. I would probably not have got
Fallout without those posts as my usual preferences tend towards fantasy
rather than Sci-Fi, so Interplay has made money from me on the strength
of Usenet info on it's product. Getting information on UA onto Usenet
should be somewhere on the priority list, simply to pick up more sales
from people who normally wouldn't look at it without first seeing
positive information. It isn't so much the Dragons who are important
here, although we _would_ like to see more info and feedback, but the
undecided readers of csip.rpg who can be influenced towards purchasing
the game when it comes out.
Simply put, it's no longer in today's world a case of just making a good
game. Hopefully Origin has done that. Nowadays the _presentation_ is at
least as important, and as far as general public relations are concerned,
Origin is perceived as doing a singularly bad job so far. Carly's
presence made quite a difference in opinion here, but now that contact
with Origin has been restricted to their notice boards, that opinion has
once more gone down among those here, and I suspect UA has faded out of
the minds of the casual newsgroup readers.
If Origin doesn't get up and start presenting UA to those who are not
already looking for information, to those who haven't seen anything and
might be interested if they saw something about it, then those people are
less likely to buy the game when it comes out.
Infinitron Dragon
Kozlowski) wrote:
>--
>Michael Kozlowski m...@cs.wisc.edu
>Recommended SF (Updated 10/9): http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/sfbooks.html
Bingo. They told us about the game...including some stuff we don't
like. Therefore, we want to consult with them about it, but they're
not around anymore!
Why are you so simplistic? :)
Fortran Dragon
> You need to get a better dictionary. I may flame on occasion, but I don't
> troll.
<snicker> Is our little Queen Bee forgetting that we've seen
those actions repeated several time over by now? Of course you are
trolling. You can't stand me and are trying to drag me into a fight
where you'll suddenly start acting all sweet and innocent whilst
pointing out how Big Bad Fortran is abusing you. Given that you picked
a post almost a week old, no, you were deliberately trolling.
> To assume that anyone who disagrees with you and says so vocally is
> trolling is patently ridiculous.
Yes, it would be. It is a good thing that I've shown over the
course of several years here that it isn't the case.
Michael Fleming
scribed into the Great Tome of Farnkarkling:
> From the Void comes Mike Kozlowski bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
> > parts, groups exist or don't exist on an official basis. And on that
> > basis, rgcu-d does not exist.
>
>
> Any news admin is quite in their rights to ignore or accept a news
> group creation message from Tale or anyone else for that matter.
True - I've seen a few folks discussing how to alias out control messages
from various people, including Tale.
>
> > If there are any newsservers that still don't carry rgcu.d and do carry
> > rgcu-d, the admins are damn near criminally negligent and ought to be
> > fired.
>
> Since the news admins own their machines, can do with their
> machine as they want, and the newsgroup creation process *recognizes*
> that fact your statements are laughably wrong.
True. A newgroup/rmgroup message is only worth what the recieving admin deems
it to be. By default, control messages from Tale or Russ will be acted on
automatically (saves time and they're considered trustworthy) but it's only
a couple of moments in the editor of choice and a server restart to change
that.
> As the news.groupies pointed out to us during reorg, the Big8
> newsgroups creation process is not a legally binding process, not a
> democracy, not anything but an interest poll. The news admins accept
> that Tale will have overseen this interest poll and that it will have
> been conducted in a fair, even-handed manner. The kicker is that when
> Tale sends out the news group creation message the news admins don't
> have to listen to him because they are the sole controllers of their
> domain. Like it or not, that is the system as it is today.
Exactly, and as it should be - for instance I take no-one's new/rmgroup
messages (I do pick up the checkgroups messages anyway for reference) as it's
just a waste of my time and space - I'm only serving a smallish LAN.
Remember kids, There Is No Cabal. ;-)
No machine on the internet is *obliged* to carry any traffic at all. I'd be
quite within my rights to drop any post/mail/packet on my own system, and
no legal threat / "law" can stop me.
Drop spam? Yep. HTML posts, misplaced binaries - gone. I've even aliased
out a few abusive sites.
> Of course, if you really want an argument go tell Tale or Russ
> Allbery that they are "damn near criminally negligent and ought to be
> fired" for running their news servers in their chosen manner. It would
> be amusing to see them dissect you.
(Just what news.admin.* needs - another troll.. ;-))
I think a few others might re-educate him further, a little more directly
and less tactfully than Russ might (Tale is rarely seen in those area I
frequent.)
>
> Saying that anything in the newsgroup process is near anything
> criminal further shows that A) you are a moron, or B) you are
> deliberately choosing to look totally stupid in trying to troll.
C) Both of the above.
Mike, if you're going to argue in that vein, do some legwork - you've done
yourself a huge disservice..
Contrapuntal.
--
Contrapuntal Dragon (Michael Fleming) -=(UDIC)=- <<SDAAS>>
mfle...@powerup.com.au http://www.powerup.com.au/~mfleming/ultima/
AWE FAQ Maintainer, Official RGCUD Troll/Spam Nemesis and Greybeard.
"Anyway, this is just an offical 'I'm stupid' post." - Twilight Dragon
Christopher A Tew
Yeah, yeah...now who came here to see me?
>a post almost a week old, no, you were deliberately trolling.
Isn't it interesting that trolls here are like whack-a-moles? Bonk
Aaron, Ranzer shows up. Bonk Ranzer, Timmycool shows up. Bonk that
one, and McCubbin rears his head. And bonk McCubbin, and up pops Koz.
I'm sure that when we bonk Koz again, F-15 will come back for another
round of abuse.
Fortunately, the whack-a-trolls here sometimes have very weak springs.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> (Just what news.admin.* needs - another troll.. ;-))
<chuckle> I doubt that he'll go so far as to educate himself at
the hands of the news.* people. Mr. K. just wants to sound all high,
mighty, and knowledgeable about Usenet to us 'peons'. (Remind you of
anyone else? ;))
> I think a few others might re-educate him further, a little more directly
> and less tactfully than Russ might (Tale is rarely seen in those area I
> frequent.)
I see he didn't argue with anything I said about how Usenet works
which leads me to think that he knew exactly what he was saying and
deliberately went into the net.all.knowing stance to try to rattle
people's cages.
Anyway, if he still thinks I'm wrong I'm willing to watch him
argue it with the experts.
Mike Kozlowski
Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>From the Void comes Mike Kozlowski bearing this piece of Light...
>> You need to get a better dictionary. I may flame on occasion, but I don't
>> troll.
>
> <snicker> Is our little Queen Bee forgetting that we've seen
>those actions repeated several time over by now? Of course you are
>trolling. You can't stand me and are trying to drag me into a fight
You're right that I can't stand you. I think you are a reprehensible,
despicable, slimy, self-important little prick (I normally try to make
some effort toward politeness, but I don't think it's really worth it in
your case any more.) Which is why what I wrote may have been a flame --
and why this almost certainly counts as such.
But I'm not trying to draw you into a fight. Quite the contrary. What
I'd like to see happen is for everyone to say, "Gee, Mike, you're right;
we really shouldn't think Origin is Eeevil for not reading rgcud. Thanks
for disputing Fortran's crazy-ass assertion!" Which is why I was not
trolling.
>pointing out how Big Bad Fortran is abusing you. Given that you picked
>a post almost a week old, no, you were deliberately trolling.
Or, more likely, maybe I just don't read this group that frequently.
(Obviously, I'm reading it frequently at the moment; but I don't normally
read it more than weekly.)
And, y'know, the real hell of it is that I _know_ that you piss me off and
incite me to flames, so I killfiled you long ago. I only read your post
via quotes in this thread, and it still pissed me off enough to post a
flame.
Mike Kozlowski
Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>From the Void comes Mike Kozlowski bearing this piece of Light...
>> Or, perhaps C) engaging in exaggeration for rhetorical effect.
>
> Someone else, perhaps, but not you. We've seen your trolling
>efforts over the course of several years now.
And, right on cue, the accusation of lying. Thanks for not disappointing,
Fortran.
Go ahead and call me an asshole if you wish -- from you, I'll take it as a
compliment -- but don't call me a liar. And before you start spouting off
about "years of precedent," I'll ask you to just trundle along to DejaNews
and find a single time when I've lied on rgcud. Good luck.
>> neither are they adminning their newsservers very well. While no admin
>> is required to carry all Big 8 groups those that don't -- and won't do so
>> on a customer request -- are incompetent, and people ought to refuse to
>> pay for such shoddy service.
>
> Ah, I still see you can't grasp the concept that an admin controls
>their own news server.
Like hell I can't. See that part above where I state that nobody is
required to carry all Big 8 groups?
> Anyway, if you don't like what the news admins do then start your
>own Usenet-like hierarchy.
No, what I'm saying here is, "If you don't like how your news admins are
adminning your news server, get a different ISP (or, at the least, a
different news server)."
This isn't a difficult concept, Fortran.
[Fortran claims that Origin censors their message board to remove content
that is critical of Ultima, and that Garriott has a message on the
opening page stating as much.]
>> Which would be where, exactly? I found nothing relevant on the opening
>> page or the "Welcome" page. On the FAQ page, I found the following
>> guidelines:
>
> I suggest you check out these words of Garriott: "wilds of the un-
>moderated World Wide Web" or "Origin employees have a safe, centralized
>place".
And that means "no criticism of Ultima allowed," eh?
You need to read more closely. A lot more closely. In fact, I was
looking at Origin's boards more closely, on on the "Rants and Raves"
forum, there are _explicit guidelines_ about what kind of posts will be
deleted. The moderator -- one Durham Dragon -- is very explicit in
stating that criticisms of U:A will _not, not, not_ be removed.
That you read as much as you did into those few words without doing any
further research is... well, about what I'd expect from you.
Christopher A Tew
Mikey is a frustrated young man. Nobody will give him a blow!
>You're right that I can't stand you. I think you are a reprehensible,
>despicable, slimy, self-important little prick (I normally try to make
>some effort toward politeness, but I don't think it's really worth it in
>your case any more.) Which is why what I wrote may have been a flame --
>and why this almost certainly counts as such.
Translation: I hate you because you don't suck my dick in public.
>
>But I'm not trying to draw you into a fight. Quite the contrary. What
>I'd like to see happen is for everyone to say, "Gee, Mike, you're right;
>we really shouldn't think Origin is Eeevil for not reading rgcud. Thanks
>for disputing Fortran's crazy-ass assertion!" Which is why I was not
>trolling.
Translation: I like having my dick sucked in public.
>Or, more likely, maybe I just don't read this group that frequently.
>(Obviously, I'm reading it frequently at the moment; but I don't normally
>read it more than weekly.)
Translation: When people in other Usenet groups refuse to suck my
dick in public, I come to RGCUD to see if there's anybody who'll suck
my dick.
>
>And, y'know, the real hell of it is that I _know_ that you piss me off and
>incite me to flames, so I killfiled you long ago. I only read your post
>via quotes in this thread, and it still pissed me off enough to post a
>flame.
Translation: I know that you won't suck my dick, but sometimes I
can't help but ask anyway.
-Cat, who really thinks that Mikey should just pay a crackwhore
instead of bothering RGCUD.
Fortran Dragon
> You're right that I can't stand you. I think you are a reprehensible,
> despicable, slimy, self-important little prick (I normally try to make
> some effort toward politeness, but I don't think it's really worth it in
> your case any more.) Which is why what I wrote may have been a flame --
> and why this almost certainly counts as such.
<yawn> Then I would suggest that you killfile me again and skip
all posts that either score with my name (assuming you have a newsreader
capable of decent scoring) or just ignore all posts that indicate that
they are replies to me.
> But I'm not trying to draw you into a fight. Quite the contrary. What
> I'd like to see happen is for everyone to say, "Gee, Mike, you're right;
> we really shouldn't think Origin is Eeevil for not reading rgcud. Thanks
> for disputing Fortran's crazy-ass assertion!" Which is why I was not
> trolling.
<snicker> In other words you are quite frustrated that the world
doesn't agree with you and that people here consistent think for
themselves and don't blindly follow your opinions.
Not surprising from a person that effectively called all of the
Dragons 'idiot children'.
[Snip]
> Or, more likely, maybe I just don't read this group that frequently.
> (Obviously, I'm reading it frequently at the moment; but I don't normally
> read it more than weekly.)
You might want to spare yourself since sparing others seems to be
a bit beyond your self-centeredness.
> And, y'know, the real hell of it is that I _know_ that you piss me off and
> incite me to flames, so I killfiled you long ago. I only read your post
> via quotes in this thread, and it still pissed me off enough to post a
> flame.
Yep, the typical Mike K. -- grossly uniformed. If you'd ever
bothered to inform yourself you might have noticed that I have
consistently stated that Origin should have a presence in *multiple*
forums, not just one.
And that doesn't even cover *Carly's* pledge to be here.
Sorry, Queen Bee, err, Mike K., your dog just won't hunt.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> Isn't it interesting that trolls here are like whack-a-moles? Bonk
> Aaron, Ranzer shows up. Bonk Ranzer, Timmycool shows up. Bonk that
> one, and McCubbin rears his head. And bonk McCubbin, and up pops Koz.
> I'm sure that when we bonk Koz again, F-15 will come back for another
> round of abuse.
>
> Fortunately, the whack-a-trolls here sometimes have very weak springs.
<rotflmao> I love the idea of a whack-a-troll.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> And, right on cue, the accusation of lying. Thanks for not disappointing,
> Fortran.
Thanks for imitating me. It is nice to know that you are still
the "Me Too!" follower you have always been.
> Go ahead and call me an asshole if you wish -- from you, I'll take it as a
> compliment -- but don't call me a liar. And before you start spouting off
> about "years of precedent," I'll ask you to just trundle along to DejaNews
> and find a single time when I've lied on rgcud. Good luck.
Given that I didn't call you a liar (just the troll that you are),
I think it will be amusing to see you come up with any proof that I
called you a liar.
Attempt of Mike K. to change subject? Failed.
[Snip]
> Like hell I can't. See that part above where I state that nobody is
> required to carry all Big 8 groups?
No, now that it has been pointed out to you by people with
superior knowledge of Usenet than you.
At least you learned faster this time than you did about
spammers...
[Snip]
> No, what I'm saying here is, "If you don't like how your news admins are
> adminning your news server, get a different ISP (or, at the least, a
> different news server)."
>
> This isn't a difficult concept, Fortran.
I'm glad I got it across to you. It usually takes a week or two
to get basic concepts across to you.
[Snip]
> And that means "no criticism of Ultima allowed," eh?
>
> You need to read more closely. A lot more closely. In fact, I was
> looking at Origin's boards more closely, on on the "Rants and Raves"
> forum, there are _explicit guidelines_ about what kind of posts will be
> deleted. The moderator -- one Durham Dragon -- is very explicit in
> stating that criticisms of U:A will _not, not, not_ be removed.
Gee, I didn't know that Durham Dragon has more pull than Richard
Garriott on the forum boards. I bet Durham Dragon will be happy to know
that.
Singing Dragon
(Christopher A Tew) wrote:
>-Cat, who really thinks that Mikey should just pay a crackwhore
>instead of bothering RGCUD.
Always straight to the point, aren't you.. :)
-Singing Dragon Jon-o Addleman
-=|UDIC|=-
"Youth is wasted on the young, stereos are wasted on old people."
Carly Staehlin-Taylor
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
<snip>
>.... I have
>consistently stated that Origin should have a presence in *multiple*
>forums, not just one.
>
> And that doesn't even cover *Carly's* pledge to be here.
<snip>
In the posts of this thread that I have read, this is the one thing I feel I
should respond to. It's true, I haven't been reading Usenet for a few
weeks. It began when our mail server crashed and I was told it would be up
in a few days. Since the level of activity in this group was actually quite
small (questions and so forth about Ascension or directed to me) I figured
it wouldn't be a big deal. Well, a few days turned into 2.5 weeks. The
mail server returned, but I was absorbed into other projects and the
"reading rhythm" was basically busted for me.
It is also become very obvious that there is more than enough work here at
Origin for one person with regards to the community. Not only do I try to
handle the Ascension community, but also Ultima Online to some degree, as
well as driving the project that will create an even stronger Ultima
community as a whole here at Origin. I don't mean this to be an excuse, but
simply an explanation. I also don't mean this to be a "passing of the buck"
because I don't intend that either. You should blame me soley for the lack
of attention on Usenet as of late. If it is anyone's job, it is mine. It
should be my task to figure out how to effectively attend to your needs
here, as well as the other aspects of my work. So, I will fully accept your
antagonistic feelings. I consider myself wholly responsible.
But I ask you to honestly consider emailing me. I freely give my email
address to everyone: cta...@origin.ea.com. Write to me. If you have a
question that requires immediate attention, I will do my best to get to it.
I will do my best to spend time here on Usenet. I will do my best to
structure my work at Origin so that it supports the community in many ways.
A simple mail that says, "We haven't seen you here in awhile" could be
enough. If we are a community, then the dialogue must be two way. It isn't
enough for me to shovel information out. I'd just be an organic webpage.
I noticed the whack a mole thread that started in this thread a bit....
well, it's funny because I feel the same way when it comes to community some
time. Everyone wants attention, and I'm running to and fro giving
everything a good whack while some other crisis is starting up elsewhere. I
don't say this so you will feel sorry for me... :) I don't need your pity.
Your money on the other hand... hahah.. just kiddin. :) Really, I just need
your patience. And if you are displeased with me, or feel I am not being
attentive enough... please send me an email. It's an unfortunate truth that
email will get my attention pretty quickly. I never like to have more than
40 unanswered mails in my box. :)
In any event... I will glady bear the burden of any blame you feel compelled
to dish out. I accept responsibility for the lack of presence on usenet.
I'll do my best to correct this. If I've missed questions, please feel free
to email them to me or to repost.
-Carly
cta...@origin.ea.com
Infinitron Dragon
<ctaylor.or...@nospam.figure.it.out.com> wrote:
>
>In any event... I will glady bear the burden of any blame you feel compelled
>to dish out. I accept responsibility for the lack of presence on usenet.
>I'll do my best to correct this. If I've missed questions, please feel free
>to email them to me or to repost.
>
>-Carly
>cta...@origin.ea.com
>
>
Hee. Thank god for Sent Messages folders. :)
I bombed the NG with rants and raves everytime something happened. ;)
Fortran Dragon
was sent to the cited author.]
[Note: I've made my comments to your post here. My other post is a
repost of questions that went unanswered.]
From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]
> It is also become very obvious that there is more than enough work here at
> Origin for one person with regards to the community. Not only do I try to
> handle the Ascension community, but also Ultima Online to some degree, as
> well as driving the project that will create an even stronger Ultima
> community as a whole here at Origin. I don't mean this to be an excuse, but
> simply an explanation. I also don't mean this to be a "passing of the buck"
> because I don't intend that either. You should blame me soley for the lack
> of attention on Usenet as of late. If it is anyone's job, it is mine. It
> should be my task to figure out how to effectively attend to your needs
> here, as well as the other aspects of my work. So, I will fully accept your
> antagonistic feelings. I consider myself wholly responsible.
I have no antagonistic feelings towards you. Towards Richard
Garriott's cretinous behavior, yes, but you, no. You've always treated
us fairly and honestly.
Many of us have screamed loudly and at length for Origin to have a
bigger presence here, hell for Origin to actually have a dialog with
their biggest fans and fan club. After all that effort we don't want to
lose you, especially when Richard Garriott makes negative statements
about the 'net.
> But I ask you to honestly consider emailing me.
I have, but that really defeats the purpose of you having a
presence here, doesn't it?
> I freely give my email
> address to everyone: cta...@origin.ea.com. Write to me. If you have a
> question that requires immediate attention, I will do my best to get to it.
> I will do my best to spend time here on Usenet.
Thanks. I believe that everyone here would like to see you pop in
now and then and join in the fun or simply answer questions. It is nice
to have proof positive that Origin continues to be committed to having a
dialogue with their fans where ever they are.
> I will do my best to
> structure my work at Origin so that it supports the community in many ways.
> A simple mail that says, "We haven't seen you here in awhile" could be
> enough. If we are a community, then the dialogue must be two way. It isn't
> enough for me to shovel information out. I'd just be an organic webpage.
Exactly. Your presence here would add to the community *already*
*built* *here* by the Dragons.
If you have the time, stick around, heck, become a Dragon if you
want. You might just get seduced by the community that is here or on IRC
or on the Weyr or on... ;)
> I noticed the whack a mole thread that started in this thread a bit....
> well, it's funny because I feel the same way when it comes to community some
> time. Everyone wants attention, and I'm running to and fro giving
> everything a good whack while some other crisis is starting up elsewhere. I
> don't say this so you will feel sorry for me... :) I don't need your pity.
> Your money on the other hand... hahah.. just kiddin. :)
Well, when I was a consultant I had the same situation so I
understand where you are coming from. All the problems seem to hit you
at once and none of the fires want to stay put out. Very frustrating.
You have my sympathies. I'm sure you'll do just fine though.
Then again, this what they pay us to do, isn't it? It is our
responsibility to handle all of these tasks. Perhaps it is time to go
back to management and ask to be relieved so the excess responsibilities
(such as the UO stuff), or for them to hire/shift another person to help
you out.
> Really, I just need
> your patience. And if you are displeased with me, or feel I am not being
> attentive enough... please send me an email. It's an unfortunate truth that
> email will get my attention pretty quickly. I never like to have more than
> 40 unanswered mails in my box. :)
I hear you, but again, sending you an email really doesn't deal
with the situation of Origin having an ongoing presence on Usenet does
it?
> In any event... I will glady bear the burden of any blame you feel compelled
> to dish out.
I have nothing to "dish out" except to ask you to continue to have
a presence here. You are basically the only person at Origin that has
any widespread credibility. Not even Richard Garriott has the
credibility for Origin that you have.
Fortran Dragon
was sent to the cited author.]
From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]
> If I've missed questions, please feel free
> to email them to me or to repost.
I've got one big question that hasn't been answered or dealt with
for several months now. Since this issue was brought up in public by
Richard Garriott I'd like to see a public resolution.
I'd like to see Richard Garriott put up or shut up with regards to
CGW and Mike McShaffry.If they singly or jointly have maligned him let us
see him provide us the details. Especially in the light of Origin's
retaliation against CGW by the pulling of its advertising.
Let's see him point out exactly which things in CGW have made up
the "... pattern of negative attitude towards Ultima ...". He says it
"... has gone on for years...". Well, I have read CGW for years and I
haven't noticed that pattern (except to name UO "Coaster of the Year" --
deservedly so for the initial, buggy release), but perhaps I simply
missed the subtexts. I'd like to know what Richard Garriott considers
years of negative attitudes.
Let's see him detail for us what was wrong with Mike McShaffry's
interview. I don't know anyone (other than Jonric) that thought Mr.
Mike's interview was particulary negative towards Origin (especially
after seeing uncut version), just fairly honest about what happens in a
corporation. So, just what in the interview was wrong?
Actual examples would help us see Richard Garriott's side of the
story. Most of us have the experience to know that there are multiple
sides to any conflict. We've heard lots from the other side, most of it
quite reasonable, but all we continue to hear from Garriott is a childish
'They're being mean to me'.
The Dragons are fair as are most of the folks on the 'net. Let us
see the facts, see exactly which items his complaints stem from.
He's made the accusations so let us see his evidence. If he won't
provide the evidence then it is incumbent on him to retract his
statements if he wants to have any credibility at all. I know he wants
us to take him at his word alone, but he spent that credit long ago --
and we are no longer children to be wowed by Richard Garriott's say so.
Carly Staehlin-Taylor
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>was sent to the cited author.]
> I'd like to see Richard Garriott put up or shut up with regards to
>CGW and Mike McShaffry.If they singly or jointly have maligned him let us
>see him provide us the details. Especially in the light of Origin's
>retaliation against CGW by the pulling of its advertising.
First, a little fact clarification. To my knowledge (and those I have
asked) OSI has *not* pulled any advertising from CGW. Ads may be dropped or
replaced as marketing strategies change, but there hasn't been any
advertising dollar retaliation made by OSI against CGW. It's only a
coincidence that we've not had any ads at this time.
> Let's see him point out exactly which things in CGW have made up
>the "... pattern of negative attitude towards Ultima ...". He says it
>"... has gone on for years...". Well, I have read CGW for years and I
>haven't noticed that pattern (except to name UO "Coaster of the Year" --
>deservedly so for the initial, buggy release), but perhaps I simply
>missed the subtexts. I'd like to know what Richard Garriott considers
>years of negative attitudes.
Well, I asked RG if he'd be interested in doing a point by point proof....
or talking at any length about this issue.. (I actually asked him when you
first posted the comment.. just never posted the response.) RG says he's
uninterested in pursuing the debate. In fact, the whole controversy has
very much died down around here ... and no one seems to talk about it
anymore.
> He's made the accusations so let us see his evidence. If he won't
>provide the evidence then it is incumbent on him to retract his
>statements if he wants to have any credibility at all. I know he wants
>us to take him at his word alone, but he spent that credit long ago --
>and we are no longer children to be wowed by Richard Garriott's say so.
So, according to your words, since he won't spell out his points for you,
then you believe he should retract his statements. He won't do that either.
You can interpret that as you will, but whatever your choice, it won't
change RG's mind. Perhaps you can wait till Ascension releases, and judge
the game on its own merits or faults, without regard to your personal
feelings about Richard himself.
-Carly
Carly Staehlin-Taylor
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
I guess I first should have stated that when speaking the word "you", I was
speaking to all those who have felt disappointed in my recent performance
here. :) Forgive me for singling you out with my word choice. Wheeee!
>> But I ask you to honestly consider emailing me.
>
> I have, but that really defeats the purpose of you having a
>presence here, doesn't it?
I can see why you would think so. But, on the other hand... an email now
and again stimulates a feedback loop that can be more encompassing. And if
I am being slack in my usenet upkeep, a reminder via email slapping me on
the wrist can keep the presence alive. In fact, my first appearance at
Usenet came at the request of a usenet participant to whom I'm very
grateful. :)
<snip>
> Then again, this what they pay us to do, isn't it? It is our
>responsibility to handle all of these tasks. Perhaps it is time to go
>back to management and ask to be relieved so the excess responsibilities
>(such as the UO stuff), or for them to hire/shift another person to help
>you out.
Certainly.. which is why I absolutely accept the responsibility of what has
happened here at usenet, and why I don't attempt to blame management or
anyone else at OSI for "oh woe is me" my issues. At the same time, I don't
feel comfortable sharing with you all my endeavors (or lack there of) at OSI
for additional manpower, or for relief of responsibility, or for any
proposals I may make with regards to my job in particular. I feel that is
best left to within the company and private to myself and my boss. And if
I'm not doing an adequate job in your eyes, I hope that you tell me. If
directly, if on usenet, if in email to RG, however... just tell me.
Because, if I'm doing the best I can be doing, and working as hard as
possible, then I can use those comments to suppliment my requests and
proposals here. And if I'm doing a slack-ass job, then my superiors can use
those comments to replace me with someone more suited to the task at hand.
>> Really, I just need
>> your patience. And if you are displeased with me, or feel I am not being
>> attentive enough... please send me an email. It's an unfortunate truth
that
>> email will get my attention pretty quickly. I never like to have more
than
>> 40 unanswered mails in my box. :)
>
> I hear you, but again, sending you an email really doesn't deal
>with the situation of Origin having an ongoing presence on Usenet does
>it?
Well, hypothetically... I'm sure you've heard the phrase "the squeaky wheel
gets the grease"...so, if you send me an email, railing me for not answering
the questions on usenet, and let's say for the sake of the hypothetical,
that I'm actually fairly decent at what I do, and I'm not a slack-ass... and
I happen to be in the middle of debate, trying to describe how many real
hours a day it takes to complete the tasks on my agenda and how they are
prioritized... I can use that email as a potential bit of proof that helps
me win my debate. Just a hypothetical. <:) So, that email is now the
lynchpin in a new hire who gets to focus solely on the bulletin boards and
usenet groups of the universe. Does that help the situation of Origin
having an onoing presence on Usenet?
> I have nothing to "dish out" except to ask you to continue to have
>a presence here.
Well, I will do my best. And when I fail to meet expectations, I ask you to
point it out to me. >:)
-Carly
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> asked) OSI has *not* pulled any advertising from CGW. Ads may be dropped or
> replaced as marketing strategies change, but there hasn't been any
> advertising dollar retaliation made by OSI against CGW. It's only a
> coincidence that we've not had any ads at this time.
Uh huh. Origin's advertised on the back cover for a long, long
time and all of a sudden right after Richard Garriott rants about CGW
Origin coincidentally stops advertising on the back cover?
Please understand why I'm a tad bit skeptical, especially in the
light of Origin releasing UO:T2A and WC:P Gold during the same time
frame.
[Snip]
> Well, I asked RG if he'd be interested in doing a point by point proof....
> or talking at any length about this issue.. (I actually asked him when you
> first posted the comment.. just never posted the response.)
So what was the response?
> RG says he's
> uninterested in pursuing the debate. In fact, the whole controversy has
> very much died down around here ... and no one seems to talk about it
> anymore.
Then he destroys any lingering bits of credibility that he might
still have. He has made accusations about people without a shred of
evidence to back him up or specific point to ponder and he expects
people to still take him seriously when he says *anything*?
I'm not trying to start a RG vs CGW flame war, but from where we
sit Richard Garriott has done far worse to CGW and Mike McShaffry than
anything they may have said about him. If CGW or Mike MCShaffry did do
something wrong then put it out in the light of day for everyone to see
and let the truth prevail. By doing nothing but make apparently
(apparently because we have no evidence to look at) baseless allegations
about other people.
Not the actions I would like to have to defend.
[Snip]
> So, according to your words, since he won't spell out his points for you,
> then you believe he should retract his statements.
Yes, that would be the ethical thing to do. A retraction isn't
necessarily an apology or a admission of being wrong on the matter,
though.
Is it so hard to say "I shouldn't have said this in a public
place. It was inappropriate."?
> He won't do that either.
As is his right.
However, it is the right of others to think very much less of him
for his childish actions.
> You can interpret that as you will, but whatever your choice, it won't
> change RG's mind. Perhaps you can wait till Ascension releases, and judge
> the game on its own merits or faults, without regard to your personal
> feelings about Richard himself.
Since Garriott associates himself with Ultima so much it would be
impossible to separate his actions from the game.
If he wants us to treat his words about the game with respect then
he needs to treat us with respect. Respect, after all, is a two way
street.
Fortran Dragon
copy was sent to the cited author.]
From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]
> I guess I first should have stated that when speaking the word "you", I was
> speaking to all those who have felt disappointed in my recent performance
> here. :) Forgive me for singling you out with my word choice. Wheeee!
That's ok. I don't mind being singled out. My scales are pretty
tough. ;)
[Snip]
> I can see why you would think so. But, on the other hand... an email now
> and again stimulates a feedback loop that can be more encompassing. And if
> I am being slack in my usenet upkeep, a reminder via email slapping me on
> the wrist can keep the presence alive. In fact, my first appearance at
> Usenet came at the request of a usenet participant to whom I'm very
> grateful. :)
I don't want to go 'round and 'round this to the point of nausea,
but why should we have to prompt you? Other companies are in multiple
locations without being prompted (such as, ahem, Janes :), Interplay,
Activision, Sierra, etc.).
If you had to 'go get' a representative, wouldn't that tell you
that they really didn't have a presence in that particular forum?
Hmm. Is there anything these other companies have that Origin
doesn't (given that Origin is owned by EA)? Are we seeing a culture
change at Origin with folks realizing that direct 'rubbing-shoulders'
contact with their customers will result in better products which
results in more profits?
[Snip]
> Certainly.. which is why I absolutely accept the responsibility of what has
> happened here at usenet, and why I don't attempt to blame management or
> anyone else at OSI for "oh woe is me" my issues.
Nor is anyone asking you to grovel or commit hari-kari here. We
just want to know that you are still around to answer questions and talk
to us (now watch there not be any questions nor anydragon have anything
to say to you <sigh>). We've fought hard for this interaction, so we
don't want it to weaken and die. That doesn't do any of us any good.
> At the same time, I don't
> feel comfortable sharing with you all my endeavors (or lack there of) at OSI
> for additional manpower, or for relief of responsibility, or for any
> proposals I may make with regards to my job in particular. I feel that is
> best left to within the company and private to myself and my boss.
I understand. I was just pointing out that many of us have as
much or much more experience than you do in the corporate world. We
understand what happens in the business world and won't wilt or fly of
the handle when faced by those realities. (For some reason past Origin
representatives acted as if we were all 14 year olds.)
> And if
> I'm not doing an adequate job in your eyes, I hope that you tell me. If
> directly, if on usenet, if in email to RG, however... just tell me.
If I thought you weren't doing your job I would say something. I
know the Dragons would email you most definitely.
> Because, if I'm doing the best I can be doing, and working as hard as
> possible, then I can use those comments to suppliment my requests and
> proposals here. And if I'm doing a slack-ass job, then my superiors can use
> those comments to replace me with someone more suited to the task at hand.
You've done a wonderful job so far. I personally don't wish to
lose that interaction and rapport that has been establish by taking
things for granted.
[We've already had one clueless person state in this thread that
they think all Origin has to do is come in and pat all of the silly
little Dragons on the head and then Origin can go away. Some people
just don't get it.]
As both of us know it takes time and effort to maintain that
relationship. Both Origin and the Dragons benefit from a strong, mutual
relationship. The Dragons get more games in the series they love and
Origin gets a solid core of fans that will actively proselytize their
games because they love the series. Money can't buy that kind of great
PR.
> Well, hypothetically... I'm sure you've heard the phrase "the squeaky wheel
> gets the grease"...so, if you send me an email, railing me for not answering
> the questions on usenet, and let's say for the sake of the hypothetical,
> that I'm actually fairly decent at what I do, and I'm not a slack-ass... and
> I happen to be in the middle of debate, trying to describe how many real
> hours a day it takes to complete the tasks on my agenda and how they are
> prioritized... I can use that email as a potential bit of proof that helps
> me win my debate. Just a hypothetical. <:)
You could also point out the effect you've had on Usenet with your
presence. The raging anger towards Origin has died down considerably
since you've come here and established your credibility.
If was amusing to see all of the Dragons critics get silenced when
the Dragons listened to you, saw that you were being honest and started
working with you.
Anyway, as I said before, as far as I can tell, you are the *sole*
person from Origin that has any online credibility, especially here on
Usenet. It would be a dumb decision for Origin to throw all that away
by assuming that things won't change again.
The Dragons are a group of very, very bright people. I imagine
the average IQ is at least 140. That works for you because the Dragons
will understand what is going on at a very high level. On the other
claw, the normal marketing crud will get torn to shreds. And since you
saw that up front and treated us with respect and didn't feed us any
marketing crud...
[Also, I might point out the ongoing situation in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg with regards to Interplay's representatives.
Fallout 2 was buggy as released, but the good will built up by Interplay
will carry the day because the fans believe Interplay will make things
right.
Also, that same interaction is helping Baldur's Gate survive
delays because of bugs and such. By being open about where the game is
in the testing process Interplay informs and educates their customers
about the game development process. The customers expectations are then
based on reasonable things. By being so honest Interplay keeps their
customers excited about the game because of the efforts being made to
release a bug-free game. There are no unpleasant surprises.
Origin could learn a hell of a lot from Interplay in this case.]
> So, that email is now the
> lynchpin in a new hire who gets to focus solely on the bulletin boards and
> usenet groups of the universe. Does that help the situation of Origin
> having an onoing presence on Usenet?
Definitely.
Hypothetically speaking, of course. <chuckle>
[Snip]
> Well, I will do my best. And when I fail to meet expectations, I ask you to
> point it out to me. >:)
Will do. Thanks for talking with us.
MdmeDis
mkoz...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu says...
>
> But I'm not trying to draw you into a fight. Quite the contrary. What
> I'd like to see happen is for everyone to say, "Gee, Mike, you're right;
> we really shouldn't think Origin is Eeevil for not reading rgcud. Thanks
> for disputing Fortran's crazy-ass assertion!" Which is why I was not
> trolling.
The chances of that happening would've been a lot greater had you
responded to the assertions, instead of launching a personal attack.
>
> >pointing out how Big Bad Fortran is abusing you. Given that you picked
> >a post almost a week old, no, you were deliberately trolling.
>
> Or, more likely, maybe I just don't read this group that frequently.
> (Obviously, I'm reading it frequently at the moment; but I don't normally
> read it more than weekly.)
So. After an absence of a couple of months, all you can find to respond
to is one person you detest? In a group that posts a couple of hundred
messages a day? If that is all rgcud has for you that elicits a
response, one has to wonder why the hell you bother. Unless....
>
> And, y'know, the real hell of it is that I _know_ that you piss me off and
> incite me to flames, so I killfiled you long ago. I only read your post
> via quotes in this thread, and it still pissed me off enough to post a
> flame.
That doesn't have too great a ring of truth. You've been around usenet
far too long not to know you don't get pulled in that-a-way. If you
wanted to refute *what* he was saying, you could have done it through
one of those other posts - or to one of the others essentially agreeing
with him with whom you have no problem. You didn't do any of those. You
instead went to a week old post, made a personal attack - immediately
calling him a liar. You subsequently removed the cross post to -dragons,
fully expecting that to irritate him. And you wonder why people think
you might be trolling?
Mike Kozlowski
Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of Light...
>> First, a little fact clarification. To my knowledge (and those I have
>> asked) OSI has *not* pulled any advertising from CGW.
>
> Uh huh. Origin's advertised on the back cover for a long, long
>time and all of a sudden right after Richard Garriott rants about CGW
>Origin coincidentally stops advertising on the back cover?
That's what she said, yeah. And unless you're prepared to say that she's
either lying or clueless, believe her.
(And consider that Garriott probably has nothing at all to do with
Marketing. Even if he wanted to pull ads from CGW, he probably couldn't
without approval from higher-ups.)
> Please understand why I'm a tad bit skeptical, especially in the
>light of Origin releasing UO:T2A and WC:P Gold during the same time
>frame.
Prophecy Gold isn't a product that would get a large ad campaign; it is,
after all, merely a "Gold" update to an already-extant game.
I don't know how major UO:T2A is, but it doesn't seem to have had a huge
marketing campaign.
>> RG says he's
>> uninterested in pursuing the debate. In fact, the whole controversy has
>> very much died down around here .
In the World of Fortran, of course, no controversy ever dies down, and an
uninterest in pursuing a tedious debate is viewed as concession.
>> You can interpret that as you will, but whatever your choice, it won't
>> change RG's mind. Perhaps you can wait till Ascension releases, and judge
>> the game on its own merits or faults, without regard to your personal
>> feelings about Richard himself.
>
> Since Garriott associates himself with Ultima so much it would be
>impossible to separate his actions from the game.
That's an interesting -- and by "interesting" I mean "fucking insane" --
position. I don't know a damn thing about Sid Meier, Shigeru Miyamoto,
Jane Jensen, or Brian Moriarty other than that they all make great games.
If I suddenly found out that one of them was an ax murderer, it wouldn't
change that fact.
(And I can hear you already firing up your newsreader, all ready to point
out that Ultima Is Different, and the existence of the Virtues in the
games makes Garriott's actions relevant. They don't, of course.)
Mike Kozlowski
MdmeDis <mdm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>mkoz...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu says...
>> I'd like to see happen is for everyone to say, "Gee, Mike, you're right;
>> we really shouldn't think Origin is Eeevil for not reading rgcud. Thanks
>> for disputing Fortran's crazy-ass assertion!" Which is why I was not
>> trolling.
>
>The chances of that happening would've been a lot greater had you
>responded to the assertions, instead of launching a personal attack.
Probably, but I was disgusted at the sense of rampant entitlement than ran
through Fortran's post.
>> Or, more likely, maybe I just don't read this group that frequently.
>> (Obviously, I'm reading it frequently at the moment; but I don't normally
>> read it more than weekly.)
>
>So. After an absence of a couple of months, all you can find to respond
>to is one person you detest?
Yep, because I had had this group on my "lurking" list; I read it
sparingly, but wasn't posting. It took my getting pissed off to lure me
into posting.
In fact, to be more explicit, I was mostly just reading posts from a few
people. (I do the same thing in a few other groups, too; in
alt.fan.pratchett, for instance, I (mostly) only read posts by Terry
Pratchett, and almost never post; in comp.lang.perl.misc, I read stuff
from Randal Schwartz and Tom Christensen, but rarely post.)
>messages a day? If that is all rgcud has for you that elicits a
>response, one has to wonder why the hell you bother.
For those few interesting posts.
(And don't get me wrong; I'm not in any way flaming rgcud for failing to
be of more general interest to me. Although I have absolutely no interest
whatsoever in Ophidian's love life, it's apparent that a lot of people
here do. I don't have a problem with that; to each his own, and all
that.)
>> And, y'know, the real hell of it is that I _know_ that you piss me off and
>> incite me to flames, so I killfiled you long ago. I only read your post
>> via quotes in this thread, and it still pissed me off enough to post a
>> flame.
>
>That doesn't have too great a ring of truth. You've been around usenet
>far too long not to know you don't get pulled in that-a-way.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
>If you
>wanted to refute *what* he was saying, you could have done it through
>one of those other posts - or to one of the others essentially agreeing
>with him with whom you have no problem. You didn't do any of those. You
>instead went to a week old post, made a personal attack
To the extent that my first post was a personal attack, it was because
I was attacking Fortran's attitude. What he was saying -- "It'd be nice
if Origin were here" -- wasn't objectionable; what was objectionable was
his "Woe! Woe! The Devil Origin has betrayed us yet again!" tone.
And I don't know of a way to say, "You're acting like an asshole," without
it coming off as a personal attack (especially against Fortran, who
manages to turn just about anything into a "troll"). And I'll confess that
I didn't try too hard to avoid attacking Monsieur Fortran.
>- immediately
>calling him a liar.
(I don't, however, think I called him a liar. I accused him of calling me
a liar, though...)
>You subsequently removed the cross post to -dragons,
>fully expecting that to irritate him.
The cross-post irritated me; I removed it on principle.
>And you wonder why people think
>you might be trolling?
Oh, I realize that attacking Established Regulars of a newsgroup is not a
strategy designed to garner widespread love, which is why I generally
avoid it. Like I say, though, Fortran often manages to anger me to the
point where I'd like to put a fist through the monitor; that I disregard
my judgment in such circumstances does not surprise me.
But in all honesty, do _you_ think I'm trolling? Do you really think that
I'm just in this for the reaction, or do you think that I actually,
sincerely believe what I'm saying and am espousing an honest viewpoint
(even if that viewpoint is only "Fortran's an asshole")?
Well-Dressed
> The Dragons are a group of very, very bright people. I imagine
>the average IQ is at least 140.
I've seen this claim pop up a few times already during my short stay
here. From the outside, it'd strike me as ridiculous. From the inside,
it worries me.
This is actually the first time I see it not being used in a 'we are
intellectually superior to alt.games.diablo'-like fashion. Even _if_
we make the 140 mark (which I frankly believe we don't -- I am not
sure I do, anyway), priding ourselves on it would leave us
under-average if individual worth were measured differently.
This is not a flame, nor would I appreciate being flamed for speaking
my concerns. I see this alleged superiority everywhere in the society
I live in. I think the truly superior wouldn't see themselves as such.
Well-Dressed Dragon -==UDIC==-
* Holder of one (1) Money Dragon Flame Point *
"La vida total es un porqueria."
- The Pixies
psz
Mike Kozlowski <mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu> wrote in article
<73voos$134i$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
> In article <MPG.10cd29432...@news.alt.net>,
> MdmeDis <mdm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >mkoz...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu says...
<SNIP>
> >You subsequently removed the cross post to -dragons,
> >fully expecting that to irritate him.
>
> The cross-post irritated me; I removed it on principle.
What principle? Why eliminate a valid newsgroup from the circulation?
Is it because Fortran(and others) read both? Or is it that you wanted as
FEW people as possible to comment?
Or is it because you feel that since YOU can't get -dragons, it isn't
worthy enough for your posts?
>
> >And you wonder why people think
> >you might be trolling?
>
> Oh, I realize that attacking Established Regulars of a newsgroup is not a
> strategy designed to garner widespread love, which is why I generally
> avoid it. Like I say, though, Fortran often manages to anger me to the
> point where I'd like to put a fist through the monitor; that I disregard
> my judgment in such circumstances does not surprise me.
Fortran has pissed off alot of people. He's pissed me off more than once.
Guess what? I LIVED WITH IT WITHOUT SINKING TO TROLLING DEPTHS!
>
> But in all honesty, do _you_ think I'm trolling? Do you really think
that
> I'm just in this for the reaction, or do you think that I actually,
> sincerely believe what I'm saying and am espousing an honest viewpoint
> (even if that viewpoint is only "Fortran's an asshole")?
I don't think you're a troll for calling Fotran an Asshole. I just find it
funny that this sort of thing keeps happening.
>
> --
> Michael Kozlowski m...@cs.wisc.edu
> Recommended SF (Updated 10/9): http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/sfbooks.html
>
Besides, Fortran's been called wores by better :->
--
--------------------------------------
Darkling Dragon --==(UDIC)==-- --==(unSPLUT)==--
Phillip Zibilich \/
ps...@gnofn.org ps...@bellsouth.net
Plingiest Dragon and 6-2 on Othello on Weyrmount 2
* Holder of one (1) Money Dragon Flame Point *
"Time is a play thing. But when
it breaks, you're fucked." -- psz
--------------------------------------
Infinitron Dragon
wrote:
>
>That's an interesting -- and by "interesting" I mean "fucking insane" --
>position. I don't know a damn thing about Sid Meier, Shigeru Miyamoto,
>Jane Jensen, or Brian Moriarty other than that they all make great games.
>If I suddenly found out that one of them was an ax murderer, it wouldn't
>change that fact.
>
>(And I can hear you already firing up your newsreader, all ready to point
>out that Ultima Is Different, and the existence of the Virtues in the
>games makes Garriott's actions relevant. They don't, of course.)
>
>--
>Michael Kozlowski m...@cs.wisc.edu
>Recommended SF (Updated 10/9): http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/sfbooks.html
Oh, stop spoiling a perfectly good and polite debate. :)
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> That's what she said, yeah. And unless you're prepared to say that she's
> either lying or clueless, believe her.
<snicker> You look so... tacky when you hide behind Carly's
skirts, shout "What she said!", and stick out your tongue.
You really shouldn't us Carly as an excuse to attack me. Everyone
loses when you do that.
As you've admitted you are irrational when it comes to me might I
suggest this would be a good time for you reacquaint yourself with how to
use a killfile? Your admitted "axe to grind" concerning me basically
undermines any point that you might make concerning what I say. I'm sure
you'd be much happier pretending that I and my inconvenient opinions
don't exist.
> (And consider that Garriott probably has nothing at all to do with
> Marketing. Even if he wanted to pull ads from CGW, he probably couldn't
> without approval from higher-ups.)
And of course it is inconceivable to you that one of the Founders
of Origin might just have some pull in the company...
[Snip]
> Prophecy Gold isn't a product that would get a large ad campaign; it is,
> after all, merely a "Gold" update to an already-extant game.
>
> I don't know how major UO:T2A is, but it doesn't seem to have had a huge
> marketing campaign.
Given that these are the only two games that Origin will release
this year...
[Snip]
> In the World of Fortran, of course, no controversy ever dies down, and an
> uninterest in pursuing a tedious debate is viewed as concession.
<quote>
From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]
> If I've missed questions, please feel free
> to email them to me or to repost.
I've got one big question that hasn't been answered or dealt with
for several months now. Since this issue was brought up in public by
Richard Garriott I'd like to see a public resolution.
</quote>
Once again, you seem unwilling to take the time to inform yourself
as what has actually been said. As you can see able, Carly invited
people to re-ask questions that she hadn't answered.
[Snip]
> That's an interesting -- and by "interesting" I mean "fucking insane" --
> position.
Yes, yes, we know that you can't comprehend any viewpoint outside
your own at the present time, but we wish you would mature enough to ask
"I don't understand you, would you please explain yourself?" instead of
frothing about things.
It won't hurt you to consider other viewpoints. I promise. :)
> I don't know a damn thing about Sid Meier, Shigeru Miyamoto,
> Jane Jensen, or Brian Moriarty other than that they all make great games.
> If I suddenly found out that one of them was an ax murderer, it wouldn't
> change that fact.
That's fine for you. What you don't want to accept is that others
think differently. (It comes from thinking for themselves instead of
letting you think for them.)
> (And I can hear you already firing up your newsreader, all ready to point
> out that Ultima Is Different, and the existence of the Virtues in the
> games makes Garriott's actions relevant. They don't, of course.)
Why should I play with your little strawman?
Anyway, if you had thought for a bit you might of considered
things like RG's alter egos in Ultima (Lord British, Shamino), the cult
of personality knowingly or accidentally fostered around him, or the
hiring of Del Castillo, subsequent destruction of the existing design
team by him and Del Castillo, and the jettisoning of Del Castillo after
the E3 debacle. Then, yes, you might have realized that Richard
Garriott's actions have an impact on UA and that he is indelibly
intermixed with it -- whether he or anyone likes it or not.
But I guess the concept of the *creator* of the series and current
designer of the latest release being associated with his creation is a
bit beyond you.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
Did I say that you were lying? I don't believe so, but if you can
show me where I did call you a liar I *will* apologize. If it is a
misunderstanding I will attempt to clarify.
Never the less, I did say I was skeptical. That meant the
situation looks 'funny/odd', but I am willing to listen to any additional
information you have to offer.
> I cannot
> discuss the details of our marketing plans/strategies, but it should become
> obvious soon enough that the relationship between Origin and CGW is still
> there.
That's cool. It would be nice to write this off as incredible bad
timing on everyone's part.
> RE: UO:T2A.. again, I cannot discuss the specifics of the marketing
> strategies for that title (and to be perfectly frank, I really only know the
> most basic details myself), but if there really were some kind of
> advertising retaliation, then you would expect to see large ads in other
> magazines, would you not?
Perhaps. It isn't too difficult to see a company pulling its ads
from one magazine and continuing its ads in the other magazines at the
existing levels until it figure out what it was going to do. Then again,
I actually seen that happen so I may be biased. :)
> If I'm not mistaken, there were no other ads. I
> haven't any real association with the WC title, so I cannot speak to that at
> all.
I understand, and I do realize that you can't talk about marketing
campaigns under development.
[Snip]
> His response then was the same as now. He's not interested.
Thanks. Pity that, though.
[Snip]
> I don't feel it is appropriate for me to express my own personal opinions on
> this subject.
I understand. I didn't think you would reply anyway unless you
wanted to conduct a spectacular CLM.
> I feel more like a medium for the choices the team makes, and
> I will do my best to convey their sentiments to the best of my ability.
That's all we can ask. That you convey _all_ of the sentiments
expressed here.
> But
> I cannot help myself from saying this... Richard Garriott is truly one of
> the most even-tempered, kind, generous, and respectful people I have ever
> known. It has been my experience that he treats everyone with a great deal
> of dignity, respect, and kindess. I've only ever seen him have negative
> feelings towards any people twice, and each time, I completely understood
> his position. If it is his decision to not carry on a particular debate,
> then I choose to respect that of him and do my best to see it ended.
Unfortunately your experience is not the same as the impression he
has given.
[Snip]
> We all make assumptions based on our accessibility to the experience, or the
> situation. I understand your need to make this assumption, and don't hold
> it against you.
<chuckle> Given that when a situation looks like a particular
duck and quacks like particular duck and that duck has bitten people a
number of times over, people should understand why someone puts up a sign
"Beware of Duck". Then again, some of us may simply have had more
experience seeing the bad side of the business world.
The only thing that will stop these misunderstandings coming up is
either restraint in not making unsupported public statements or an
openness about exactly what the perceived problem is. Communications is
a Good Thing (tm). But I digress.
[Snip]
> I agree completely that respect is a two-way street. And I just remembered
> something from your earlier post... you said you didn't want to lose me
> after all the effort to get me here, and after RG's disparaging remarks
> about the net. It was very much an effort by RG that lead to my employment
> here in the first place. If it hadn't been for his fervent desire to see
> the community's needs attended to, I would not have been hired for this
> position at all.
Then that is to his credit.
> It's his welcome post on the boards? I think that's what I read... the
> unmoderated world wide web, and etc and so forth? Safe place to post? Just
> FYI: I totally signed off on that post and thought it was accurate.
Bluntly, I think it was a stupid comment.
On one claw it says that Origin doesn't find any of the existing
communities on the 'net (web, Usenet, IRC, etc.) good enough for them.
Not a good move when you are interesting in community building.
On the other claw it says something about a company when they are
confident enough in their products and their people to interact in a
public, unmoderated place. Let's face it, all companies get flack. Some
deserved, some not, but how the company handles all of the flack says a
lot about them.
Being willing to exist in a place without anywhere to hide shows
that the company has the courage of its convictions in a way words can
not equal.
> In
> fact, in my first post to usenet, I described that I would, for the while,
> be responsible for facilitating the information to the net, while
> simultaneously finding mechanisms for the developers to do it themselves.
Might I suggest internal net access and newsreaders for the
developers? ;)
> The bulletin boards (the elegance of the technology, I understand, is under
> debate. :)
They suck little green toads. Big time. They are awkward to use,
have a small audience, you can't easily filter out the bozos, and usually
don't provide a decent way to view the history of a thread.
It is also a question of perception. Company based bulletin
boards also never escape the suspicion of censorship and the fact they
usually collect email address the irritation of being unwilling spammed
by the company (or whoever the company sells it email lists to).
[Side note: Origin would be a much better netizen if they didn't
automatically collect email addresses for marketing spamming purposes. I
suggest that the default be to *not* collect the email address. That way
you don't alienate those people that don't want the mailing, but didn't
catch the fact that they needed to actively say "No, I don't want to be
spammed".
If Origin does want to send out email for different things why not
do what more net-savvy companies do and let the individuals pick what
they want to receive, for example let a potential customer select whether
or not they want to be on a Wing Commander mailing list or an Ultima
mailing list, or both.]
> are that mechanism, and now many developers post on a regular
> basis. It was my goal from the beginning. I stated as much from the
> starting gate.
Yes, I remember.
> But, that's really starting a different topic, which I'd be happy to discuss
> if it is of interest to you. :)
Certainly. I'm interested.
Alex Beckers
: critical feedback, why bother? In a restricted environ such as
: Origin's webboards, you can be sure that anything they see as
: detrimental to U9 will be deleted, and that includes criticism of
: announced game features. This is the reason why they set up the web
: board and have restricted their activity to there, even Garriott has
: said so.
Cat, that is 100% unadulterated BULLSHIT.
"criticism of announced game features" is why the Rants and Raves
forum EXISTS. Only two people have the power to remove posts from there
-- Carly and Uranium. The primary authority for removing posts is
Uranium's, and he isn't a full-time OSI employee. I've received the same
instructions he has (I have to fill-in instantly if he's unavailable) and
the ONLY reasons posts should be "scribbled" is for personal attacks
and/or foul language.
You are so fucking clueless sometimes.
Pariah Dragon
Official r.g.u.d. Wanker
!! Check out the UA Rants and Raves Forum at boards.owo.com !!
UDIC d+ e+ N+ T-- Om++ U1!2!3!4!5!6!A!W!M!7'!L!S'!8! u+ uC uF uG
uLB+ uA+ nC+ nR++ nH nP++ nI nPT- nS nT-- wM wC+ wS- wI--
wN- o- oA+ oE++++(----) y a22
Alex Beckers
: Garriott's attitude about forums not controlled by OSI, any person
: working on UA is forbidden to post outside of the official boards.
: That not only allows him to control what the fans say, but what his
: own employees say.
I don't know if this counts, but I am technically an unpaid,
non-benefits receiving part-time employee of OSI.
No one has told me not to come here.
If you would like Carly to start hanging out here more often,
maybe you could email her? I'll relay your message, at any rate.
Mike Kozlowski
>> The cross-post irritated me; I removed it on principle.
>
>What principle? Why eliminate a valid newsgroup from the circulation?
^^^^^
YM "invalid." And given that slight modification, the answer becomes
obvious.
>Fortran has pissed off alot of people. He's pissed me off more than once.
>Guess what? I LIVED WITH IT WITHOUT SINKING TO TROLLING DEPTHS!
Flaming, son, flaming.
Carly Staehlin-Taylor
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
<snip>
> Did I say that you were lying? I don't believe so, but if you can
>show me where I did call you a liar I *will* apologize. If it is a
>misunderstanding I will attempt to clarify.
Nope nope nope.. you didn't say I was lying. By using the language ".. but
I'm not lying to you." I was making an explicit statement to further ensure,
to the satisfaction of all who might be reading, that I'm standing by my
words. Consider: silence in the face of an incriminating question is an
implied admission of guilt. I just took it to the other extreme.
> Never the less, I did say I was skeptical. That meant the
>situation looks 'funny/odd', but I am willing to listen to any additional
>information you have to offer.
Fair enough. I'll file that away for future reference. :)
<snip>
> Perhaps. It isn't too difficult to see a company pulling its ads
>from one magazine and continuing its ads in the other magazines at the
>existing levels until it figure out what it was going to do. Then again,
>I actually seen that happen so I may be biased. :)
Sure. Personal experience has a way of coloring most everything. (thank
goodness for that, I'd say)
<snip>
> <chuckle> Given that when a situation looks like a particular
>duck and quacks like particular duck and that duck has bitten people a
>number of times over, people should understand why someone puts up a sign
>"Beware of Duck". Then again, some of us may simply have had more
>experience seeing the bad side of the business world.
I got a kick out of this description. <:) Thanks for that.
<snip>
> On one claw it says that Origin doesn't find any of the existing
>communities on the 'net (web, Usenet, IRC, etc.) good enough for them.
>Not a good move when you are interesting in community building.
Okay, so here's the post: "Greetings friends and citizens of Britannia, as
part of our plans to provide you better and better service and information
we have created these message forums. Herein, you will be able to find more
accurate information than might be found in the wilds of the un-moderated
World Wide Web. Here, Origin employees have a safe, centralized place to
visit and search for your questions and feedback."
So, if I'm hearing you correctly (and please correct me where I'm not), then
by stating that having discussion forums where one can find "more accurate
information" at Origin, there is an implication that there is no value to
*all* the rest of the net? Or that the information in those other areas is
innacurate?
> On the other claw it says something about a company when they are
>confident enough in their products and their people to interact in a
>public, unmoderated place. Let's face it, all companies get flack. Some
>deserved, some not, but how the company handles all of the flack says a
>lot about them.
Okay, so then by said implication (no value to rest of the net/or bad
information in those places), then by having "moderated" forums to provide a
"safe", "centralized" place for developers to post, Origin is avoiding
criticism (flack)?
> Being willing to exist in a place without anywhere to hide shows
>that the company has the courage of its convictions in a way words can
>not equal.
And just to make sure I'm following this: "moderated" OSI forums means to
you that Origin can "hide"?
Okay, what I'm doing here is just trying to follow your interpretation of
the comments. So if I've missed something, please feel free to point it
out. But I will respond to what I think I see. :) (hahaha)
First: the comment about finding accurate information on our site stems
from the fact that this is the one place that developers can post freely.
Why only have one place, then? Why not have people on all the places on the
net? The answer is simple: time. Would you rather the developers spend 2
hours a week scouring the net for questions to answer, from Usenet to the
various Bulletin Boards, to mailing lists, to fan sites, to the OSI site...
or spend those 2 hours a week concentrating on a forum designed specifically
for questions from the public and answers from the dev team. One place, a
solid committment to be there, and the people making the game answering.
Okay, depending on your experiences (whether as a fan, as a developer, as an
executive) you may answer that question differently. The one place theory
seems to hold up under the most scrutiny from any angle. As far as I can
derive, in any case.
If you are willing to concede to the fact (whether you agree with the
philosophy or not) that the OSI boards are the one place where the
developers are going to be posting; and you are willing to buy into the fact
that the developers are an honest bunch of people, then suggesting that
"more accurate information" can be found there is reasonable.
"More accurate" than what? Than ex-employees who haven't seen the project
in months or years? Than journalists who have had one or two looks at the
project? I think that is reasonable, too. Not suggesting anyone is "bad"
or "spreading lies", but just that how can someone who isn't intimately
involved with the project *today* have any real understanding of it, and
then how can they describe it correctly in the media? Granted, being
intimately involved with a project doesn't ensure the ability, or talent, to
accurately describe it.. but at least there's the advantage of extreme
familiarity... hence a statement like "more accurate."
Okay, next we have the idea of the "wilds of the unmoderated world wide
web"... our boards are moderated for 1. being on topic, 2. having profanity,
3. attacking a *person* (as opposed to the product), 4. solicitations. The
moderation is done fully by unpaid volunteers who consult with other hosts
and me when making decisions about difficult situations on the boards. As
long as you are on topic, don't curse, don't attack anyone personally, and
don't try to sell anything.. you can say what you care to on the boards. If
you don't like Ascension, we've provided a place for you to say so. The
host of that board is Uranium and he loves a good debate.
And a "safe, centralized place to visit": Safe, as in, we have
authenticated user accounts with persistent, unique identity. When someone
from Origin posts, you know they are from Origin and that they speak on
behalf of the project (unless otherwise noted). Also, the developers and
other members of staff can feel comfortable that people aren't *pretending*
to be from Origin and speaking on behalf of the project. If there was
posting free for all, all over the net, having that sense of authority and
security would be near impossible. But even more important than the safe
part.. and of highest priority in my opinion... is the collection of the
community's questions into a centralized place. I want each of the
developers to post on the net. And with the forums in place, I can read the
boards, see who's posting, who's not.. I can forward questions to particular
developers who haven't posted in awhile, I have more control over the
management of the team's activity on the net. Not the content, mind you,
just the participation.
>> In
>> fact, in my first post to usenet, I described that I would, for the
while,
>> be responsible for facilitating the information to the net, while
>> simultaneously finding mechanisms for the developers to do it themselves.
>
> Might I suggest internal net access and newsreaders for the
>developers? ;)
Okay, to "finding mechanisms for the developers to do it themselves" I
should have added "that fits within the comfort zone of all parties
involved". Some of the developers read usenet and other forums, as well..
but they don't post there.
>> The bulletin boards (the elegance of the technology, I understand, is
under
>> debate. :)
>
> They suck little green toads. Big time. They are awkward to use,
>have a small audience, you can't easily filter out the bozos, and usually
>don't provide a decent way to view the history of a thread.
Well, I just passed on your feedback to the makers of the software. I'll
let you know how they respond. ;)
<snip>
> [Side note: Origin would be a much better netizen if they didn't
>automatically collect email addresses for marketing spamming purposes. I
>suggest that the default be to *not* collect the email address. That way
>you don't alienate those people that don't want the mailing, but didn't
>catch the fact that they needed to actively say "No, I don't want to be
>spammed".
> If Origin does want to send out email for different things why not
>do what more net-savvy companies do and let the individuals pick what
>they want to receive, for example let a potential customer select whether
>or not they want to be on a Wing Commander mailing list or an Ultima
>mailing list, or both.]
I'll pass on this suggestion to the guy who created that page. I'll let you
know how it comes out.
<snip>
>> But, that's really starting a different topic, which I'd be happy to
discuss
>> if it is of interest to you. :)
>
> Certainly. I'm interested.
Well.. lay some questions on me! Hoohoo!
-Carly
<snip>
Carly Staehlin-Taylor
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
<snip>
> I don't want to go 'round and 'round this to the point of nausea,
>but why should we have to prompt you? Other companies are in multiple
>locations without being prompted (such as, ahem, Janes :), Interplay,
>Activision, Sierra, etc.).
"the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? Don't you want to be a squeaky wheel?
(Heehee j/k).
Really, in all seriousness... I understand your point, and take it to heart.
<snip>
> Hmm. Is there anything these other companies have that Origin
>doesn't (given that Origin is owned by EA)? Are we seeing a culture
>change at Origin with folks realizing that direct 'rubbing-shoulders'
>contact with their customers will result in better products which
>results in more profits?
Actually, if you have market research that backs up that statement... direct
'rubbing shoulders' leading to more profits stuff... I'd appreciate having a
look at it. I actually have been interested in looking for some kind of
facts and figures that support these ideas.
<snip>
> Nor is anyone asking you to grovel or commit hari-kari here.
No? Are you sure? :( Yer no fun! I just polished up my blade any
everything. ;)
>We
>just want to know that you are still around to answer questions and talk
>to us (now watch there not be any questions nor anydragon have anything
>to say to you <sigh>).
Actually, that's basically what happened before, too.. so I started posting
the Q & A from other boards here... but since the official forums went up,
Sith has been the man of the hour on that front with his site. And as
Pariah Dragon states down the thread a bit... one of the other hosts wrote a
cool proggy that grabs up all the originites Q&A... neat stuff.
<snip>
>(For some reason past Origin
>representatives acted as if we were all 14 year olds.)
I will act as if you are all individuals, and base my interactions with you
accordingly. :)
<snip>
> You've done a wonderful job so far. I personally don't wish to
>lose that interaction and rapport that has been establish by taking
>things for granted.
Thanks. And fair enough.
<snip>
> You could also point out the effect you've had on Usenet with your
>presence. The raging anger towards Origin has died down considerably
>since you've come here and established your credibility.
Yes, that's true. And the team is glad to know of it, too.
> Anyway, as I said before, as far as I can tell, you are the *sole*
>person from Origin that has any online credibility, especially here on
>Usenet. It would be a dumb decision for Origin to throw all that away
>by assuming that things won't change again.
I don't think anyone truly assumes that I can waltz in here, spout a few
words, calm everyone down and then leave never to return. However, just
about everyone makes innaccurate assumptions about the time it takes to
maintain consistently in several different directions. And people make
innaccurate assumptions about what "good" it does to the bottom line. So,
the more data I can collect that can accurately describe both time required
and effect to the bottom line, the more likely such ideas will be fully
supported.
<snip>
> [Also, I might point out the ongoing situation in
>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg with regards to Interplay's representatives.
>Fallout 2 was buggy as released, but the good will built up by Interplay
>will carry the day because the fans believe Interplay will make things
>right.
I'm very impressed with Interplay. All my interactions with that
organization and its employees have been positive.
<snip>
>> Well, I will do my best. And when I fail to meet expectations, I ask you
to
>> point it out to me. >:)
>
> Will do. Thanks for talking with us.
My pleasure!
-Carly
Allan Olley
(Well-Dressed) wrote:
>Fortran Dragon, you'll always be a star.
>>the average IQ is at least 140.
>here. From the outside, it'd strike me as ridiculous. From the inside,
>it worries me.
>This is actually the first time I see it not being used in a 'we are
>intellectually superior to alt.games.diablo'-like fashion. Even _if_
>we make the 140 mark (which I frankly believe we don't -- I am not
>sure I do, anyway), priding ourselves on it would leave us
>under-average if individual worth were measured differently.
>This is not a flame, nor would I appreciate being flamed for speaking
>my concerns. I see this alleged superiority everywhere in the society
>I live in. I think the truly superior wouldn't see themselves as such.
I have to agree, I find Fortran's comment rather questionable. I
suppose that the average intellegence of the posting Dragons on this
group might be higher than the average of the general population, but
I doubt the difference is as large as he claims. Also, while we may
be more intellegent as a group I doubt our level of stupidity is that
much less than the general population.
Looking at where this quote was taken from I have to disagree that we
are a better sounding board for Origin's ideas and marketeting because
I suspect we are a resticted and non-uniform sample of Ultima and
potential Ultima fans.
I also, see defining ourself as somehow superior (which I do not think
Fortran was doing) as a rather troubling idea and certainly nothing to
be particularly happy about. If the group is a good thing it does not
have to be better than any other, the attitude that our group has to
be better than others smacks of insecurity to me.
The UDIC and this newsgroup are supposed to be about allowing Ultima
fans to meet each other, both to help each other with Ultima and to do
fun stuff (like exchange ideas, plot threads ect.). I do not think
their is any intellegence required or indicated in that membership.
If their is a higher intellegence that is not really important. What
is important is that we are ultima fans (to some extent) and that we
are having fun. Therefore we should feel proud of the fun factor and
Ultima factor of this group, which are both pretty good IMO.
--
d e- N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!6A78! u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP nI+
nPT nS+ nT- y- a19
Member of the Cinnaguard
Blue Bow [B><B]
-----------
Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
-----------
"Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription."
William Lyon Mackenzie King.
Mike Kozlowski
Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>From the Void comes Mike Kozlowski bearing this piece of Light...
>> I don't know a damn thing about Sid Meier, Shigeru Miyamoto,
>> Jane Jensen, or Brian Moriarty other than that they all make great games.
>> If I suddenly found out that one of them was an ax murderer, it wouldn't
>> change that fact.
>
> Anyway, if you had thought for a bit you might of considered
>things like RG's alter egos in Ultima (Lord British, Shamino),
Irrelevant. LB and Shamino are characters; even if Garriott were evil,
it doesn't mean that they would be.
>the cult
>of personality knowingly or accidentally fostered around him,
I don't really understand what you mean by this. If you mean that
Garriott's achieved something of a celebrity status, well yeah, that's
true; but I still don't see how that affects his games.
Look, you presumably thought that at least some previous Ultimas were
Damn Fine Games, and you apparently think that Garriott is a slimy
rat-bastard. Does that mean that the old Ultimas now suck retroactively?
If not, why does it mean that future Ultimas will suck?
>or the
>hiring of Del Castillo, subsequent destruction of the existing design
>team by him and Del Castillo, and the jettisoning of Del Castillo after
>the E3 debacle.
That's different, because that's stuff that's directly related to the
game. To say that Garriott's actions matter to the game where his
actions directly concern the game is obvious. The contention at hand
here was that Garriott's actions matter when they don't concern the game
-- i.e., in his dealings with critics and fans.
(And I'll point out that there is a long history of artists -- yes, yes,
Dis, I know -- vocally disagreeing with their critics. The most recent
example I can think of is the award-winning SF writer Robert Sawyer suing
a Canadian newspaper for some comments it made. Harlan Ellison, of
course, is notorious for being rude to the press and fans. None of that
changes the goodness/badness of their works.)
Now maybe you don't want to buy a game that's associated with someone you
dislike. That's fine. Kind of strange to my way of thinking, like not
buying Nikes because you dislike Jordan, but whatever. But if the game
is good, it's good, regardless of its creator.
Christopher A Tew
Yeah, yeah...now who came here to see me?
> Cat, that is 100% unadulterated BULLSHIT.
>
> "criticism of announced game features" is why the Rants and Raves
>forum EXISTS. Only two people have the power to remove posts from there
>-- Carly and Uranium. The primary authority for removing posts is
>Uranium's, and he isn't a full-time OSI employee. I've received the same
>instructions he has (I have to fill-in instantly if he's unavailable) and
>the ONLY reasons posts should be "scribbled" is for personal attacks
>and/or foul language.
>
> You are so fucking clueless sometimes.
You know, without the flames, I'd have responded to your post in a
mature, evenhanded fashion by saying that I was wrong. But since you
decided to act like a child, as I suppose could have been expected, I
have one other thing to say. You are in what could basically be
called a PR position for OSI, regardless of your status as a primary
or backup webboard operator. As such, when pointing out mistaken
impessions of corporate policy to potential customers or in a forum
where potential customers exist, tact is at a premium. Thus, using a
term such as "You are so fucking clueless" can reflect poorly on the
company and on the product.
In other words, Alex, grow up.
-Cat
--
Woof justice rules OK!
---tikicat at lvdi dot net---
Carly Staehlin-Taylor
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
<snip>
> [Side note: Origin would be a much better netizen if they didn't
>automatically collect email addresses for marketing spamming purposes. I
>suggest that the default be to *not* collect the email address. That way
>you don't alienate those people that don't want the mailing, but didn't
>catch the fact that they needed to actively say "No, I don't want to be
>spammed".
> If Origin does want to send out email for different things why not
>do what more net-savvy companies do and let the individuals pick what
>they want to receive, for example let a potential customer select whether
>or not they want to be on a Wing Commander mailing list or an Ultima
>mailing list, or both.]
Looks like the web group is going to make this change pretty soon. :)
-Carly
<snip>
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> I've seen this claim pop up a few times already during my short stay
> here. From the outside, it'd strike me as ridiculous. From the inside,
> it worries me.
Take as a way of saying that there are a lot of bright, sharp,
and/or experienced people here.
> This is actually the first time I see it not being used in a 'we are
> intellectually superior to alt.games.diablo'-like fashion. Even _if_
> we make the 140 mark (which I frankly believe we don't -- I am not
> sure I do, anyway), priding ourselves on it would leave us
> under-average if individual worth were measured differently.
>
> This is not a flame, nor would I appreciate being flamed for speaking
> my concerns. I see this alleged superiority everywhere in the society
> I live in. I think the truly superior wouldn't see themselves as such.
Are we superior? That depends on how you slice superiority.
Are we different? Most definitely.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> 'rubbing shoulders' leading to more profits stuff... I'd appreciate having a
> look at it. I actually have been interested in looking for some kind of
> facts and figures that support these ideas.
<boggles>
Um, have you heard of Tom Peters? Japan Inc., perhaps? You know,
all those lesson we learned during the eighties?
I'm just caught out flat that you need to justify this concept to
anyone at Origin. Is Origin stuck in the late 1970's?
I'll take a gander at my Economists and other stuff and see what I
can do.
Oh, here's an anecdotal thing to pass on to people to ponder:
have you ever talked to a Saturn owner? Ever noticed how happy they
are? Ever wonder how they got to be a successful car company starting
from scratch working against the Japanese at their best while no one
remembers Chrysler's Eagle line? One guess. :)
[Snip]
> Actually, that's basically what happened before, too.. so I started posting
> the Q & A from other boards here... but since the official forums went up,
> Sith has been the man of the hour on that front with his site. And as
> Pariah Dragon states down the thread a bit... one of the other hosts wrote a
> cool proggy that grabs up all the originites Q&A... neat stuff.
Which is nice for the board, but it is reinventing the wheel.
Dejanews gives you all that, plus the ability to post to Usenet via the
web.
[Snip]
> I don't think anyone truly assumes that I can waltz in here, spout a few
> words, calm everyone down and then leave never to return.
Truly? I don't know. For some reason one person
trol^H^H^H^Hsprings to mind. ;)
> However, just
> about everyone makes innaccurate assumptions about the time it takes to
> maintain consistently in several different directions. And people make
> innaccurate assumptions about what "good" it does to the bottom line. So,
> the more data I can collect that can accurately describe both time required
> and effect to the bottom line, the more likely such ideas will be fully
> supported.
Have you tried talking informally to the other company
representatives?
[Snip]
> I'm very impressed with Interplay. All my interactions with that
> organization and its employees have been positive.
I personally think they are a damned good model to look at. I've
been very impressed at what they've done and well as Laird Malamed's
activities for Activision (he's the Director of Zork: Grand Inquisitor
among other things).
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> -Carly
Thanks Carly. You've made a lot of spam fighters happy tonight.
MdmeDis
well_d...@hotmail.com says...
> Fortran Dragon, you'll always be a star.
>
> >the average IQ is at least 140.
>
> here. From the outside, it'd strike me as ridiculous. From the inside,
> it worries me.
Couple of summers ago a number of the current frequent posters gave
their IQs - assuming everyone was telling the truth- it did indeed
average around 140.
>
> This is actually the first time I see it not being used in a 'we are
> intellectually superior to alt.games.diablo'-like fashion. Even _if_
> we make the 140 mark (which I frankly believe we don't -- I am not
> sure I do, anyway), priding ourselves on it would leave us
> under-average if individual worth were measured differently.
My perception was that Fortran was stating it as a matter of fact, not
of superiority. Treat us as we are, fully capable of understanding all
the factors and problems involved in releasing a game and don't expect
us to (a)swallow a lot of marketing bilge and (b)accept blatant
contradictions and not question the veracity of people who make them.
>
> This is not a flame, nor would I appreciate being flamed for speaking
> my concerns. I see this alleged superiority everywhere in the society
> I live in. I think the truly superior wouldn't see themselves as such.
Hee. If you doubt my concerns on that issue, see my last but one
flamewar with Daer.
MdmeDis
aol...@accglobal.it.might.help.if.you.remove.this.phrase.net says...
> >>the average IQ is at least 140.
> >here. From the outside, it'd strike me as ridiculous. From the inside,
> >it worries me.
> >intellectually superior to alt.games.diablo'-like fashion. Even _if_
> >we make the 140 mark (which I frankly believe we don't -- I am not
> >sure I do, anyway), priding ourselves on it would leave us
> >under-average if individual worth were measured differently.
> >my concerns. I see this alleged superiority everywhere in the society
> >I live in. I think the truly superior wouldn't see themselves as such.
>
> suppose that the average intellegence of the posting Dragons on this
> group might be higher than the average of the general population, but
> I doubt the difference is as large as he claims. Also, while we may
> be more intellegent as a group I doubt our level of stupidity is that
> much less than the general population.
>
> Looking at where this quote was taken from I have to disagree that we
> are a better sounding board for Origin's ideas and marketeting because
> I suspect we are a resticted and non-uniform sample of Ultima and
> potential Ultima fans.
>
> I also, see defining ourself as somehow superior (which I do not think
> Fortran was doing) as a rather troubling idea and certainly nothing to
> be particularly happy about.
As no-one did define us as superior, there isn't anything to worry
about, now is there? And where were y'all when I was screaming at Daer
over this very thing - no-one seemed terribly concerned then - only that
I was being Bad and keeping a flame-war alive (which I was)
> If the group is a good thing it does not
> have to be better than any other, the attitude that our group has to
> be better than others smacks of insecurity to me.
So - who said it was intellectually superior? Who has that attitude? I
am inclined to agree we are a better forum of critics, but because we
know Ultima inside out and back to front. If Origin is indeed releasing
a traditional Ultima, as they would now have us believe, then who better
than a group with the greatest pool of topical knowledge. Has fuck-all
to do with intellect, and no-one suggested it did.
I will go so far as to say though - if I am going to buy a computer game
it has to offer something of an intellectual challenge. But thats just
me.
>
> The UDIC and this newsgroup are supposed to be about allowing Ultima
> fans to meet each other, both to help each other with Ultima and to do
> fun stuff (like exchange ideas, plot threads ect.). I do not think
> their is any intellegence required or indicated in that membership.
> If their is a higher intellegence that is not really important. What
> is important is that we are ultima fans (to some extent) and that we
> are having fun. Therefore we should feel proud of the fun factor and
> Ultima factor of this group, which are both pretty good IMO.
Dammit - this is making me VERY ANGRY. No one said we were superior
intellectually. Fortran quoted a number I gave him, based as I said on
something we did a couple of summers ago. As no-one has stated, inferred
or even thought it besides possibly yourself or Ibn, why all the fuss?
rant (not flame)
IQ is a matter of fact, an accident of birth. Saying "I have an IQ of
140 - it is higher than most" is like saying "I am 6'6" tall. I am
taller than most" Along with you, I disagree strongly with people who
prance around saying "I have an IQ of 140 - that makes me superior"
But I also consider *not* stating such facts as a brand of political
correctness and a teeny bit hypocritical.
/rant
MdmeDis
says...
> : Origin's webboards, you can be sure that anything they see as
> : detrimental to U9 will be deleted, and that includes criticism of
> : announced game features. This is the reason why they set up the web
> : board and have restricted their activity to there, even Garriott has
> : said so.
>
>
> "criticism of announced game features" is why the Rants and Raves
> forum EXISTS. Only two people have the power to remove posts from there
> -- Carly and Uranium. The primary authority for removing posts is
> Uranium's, and he isn't a full-time OSI employee. I've received the same
> instructions he has (I have to fill-in instantly if he's unavailable) and
> the ONLY reasons posts should be "scribbled" is for personal attacks
> and/or foul language.
>
> You are so fucking clueless sometimes.
And this is the approach Origin likes its volunteers to adopt toward
its potential customers? Interesting. Different.
MdmeDis
ctaylor.or...@nospam.figure.it.out.com says...
> <snip>
>
> > Hmm. Is there anything these other companies have that Origin
> >doesn't (given that Origin is owned by EA)? Are we seeing a culture
> >change at Origin with folks realizing that direct 'rubbing-shoulders'
> >contact with their customers will result in better products which
> >results in more profits?
>
>
> Actually, if you have market research that backs up that statement... direct
> 'rubbing shoulders' leading to more profits stuff... I'd appreciate having a
> look at it. I actually have been interested in looking for some kind of
> facts and figures that support these ideas.
Bah - Market Research is something marketing departments do to justify
their existence. Seriously - if a company waits for MR to prove
something works, they are so far behind on the cutting edge it won't do
them any good competitively. The ones who blaze the trail are the ones
who will reap the benefits
Live dangerously - try it without market research. What is there to
lose? (I'm not suggesting there is none - just too lazy to find it) This
is how companies get the edge.
<snip>
> > Anyway, as I said before, as far as I can tell, you are the *sole*
> >person from Origin that has any online credibility, especially here on
> >Usenet. It would be a dumb decision for Origin to throw all that away
> >by assuming that things won't change again.
>
>
> I don't think anyone truly assumes that I can waltz in here, spout a few
> words, calm everyone down and then leave never to return. However, just
> about everyone makes innaccurate assumptions about the time it takes to
> maintain consistently in several different directions. And people make
> innaccurate assumptions about what "good" it does to the bottom line. So,
> the more data I can collect that can accurately describe both time required
> and effect to the bottom line, the more likely such ideas will be fully
> supported.
Trust me - time spent trying to justify your job is time not spent doing
it. As you say, Origin was aware of the need to improve public relations
and provided you - if you spend your time away from your target market,
it will evaporate. That is what this thread is all about.
Matthew T. Linehan
Every time I begin to have faith that the general populace of the
world does indeed have a brain, some moron at McDonalds can't figure
out how to operate the damn soda machine, or some nit-wit customer
calls me to explain that they applied 440 VAC to a logic input (but
converting the $1000 circuit board into a small pile of ash via the
application of massive amounts of electrical energy is covered under
the warranty... right?)
Face it, the general populace is dumb, ignorant, and barely qualified
to breath! Why do you think what web browser is pre-installed on the
PC is such a big deal. It's simple, the marketing people at MS and NS
both know that the vast majority of users are not capable of changing
it themselves. So if they are going to win the browser wars, said
product must be pre-installed BEFORE the machine leaves the factory.
*Sweeps arms in a grand gesture*
Behold..., we are witnessing the conversion of the home PC from a tool
for use by hobbyists, into an appliance. Anything more complex than
the typical VCR is not going to fly. Ideally the PC should be as easy
to use as the toaster! At that point America will be ready for the
computer revolution.
Sorry, I'm just a bit hostile at it all. I liked things better when
computers were just for geeks, and grandma was not interested in
E-mail.
- -
|ZZzz +------------------------------------------------+
|Zzz | |Zzz | Quantum Void Dragon -=(UDIC)=- |
/_\ /\ | /\ /_\ | http://quantum.detour.net |
|*|_||/_\||_|*| | Signature Version 1.2 |
|.....|*|.....| |Error: EARTH.INI is corrupt, reboot planet(Y/N)?|
|____!~!____| +------------------------------------------------+
Mike Kozlowski
MdmeDis <mdm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Couple of summers ago a number of the current frequent posters gave
>their IQs - assuming everyone was telling the truth- it did indeed
>average around 140.
Of course, that has all the makings of a skewed sample set -- nobody's
going to volunteer that they've got an 80 IQ.
Still, it's quite likely that the average participant in any Usenet group
does have a higher IQ than the average; people who have both the technical
knowledge to access Usenet, and the interest in reading and writing this
much verbiage for fun are almost certainly going to be a cut above the
norm.
(And then, there's always the fun matter of what IQ actually measures, to
which the most true answer is "an ability to take IQ tests." Gould's
_Mismeasure of Man_ treats the subject in some detail.)
Destrius
the entity named Matthew T. Linehan (mlin...@columbus.rr.com)
inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
-clip-
>Sorry, I'm just a bit hostile at it all. I liked things better when
>computers were just for geeks, and grandma was not interested in
>E-mail.
-clip-
The problem is: does anybody want to learn anymore? Do people feel curious
and ask questions like "How do my speakers work?" or "Why does my hard
drive make noises when it's being used?"?
Humans in general seem to become less and less curious, esp. once they exit
the realm of childhood. This is worrying indeed.
--
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- |
| Official Mad Mage | Web: http://destrius.simplenet.com |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- | Email: d e s t r i u s @ g e o c i t i e s . c o m |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| "Am I dreaming of a butterfly, or is the butterfly dreaming of me...?" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mike Kozlowski
Destrius <u...@the.sig.addy> wrote:
> the entity named Matthew T. Linehan (mlin...@columbus.rr.com)
>
>>computers were just for geeks, and grandma was not interested in
>>E-mail.
Mourning for a Golden Age that never was? I don't miss it at all. I
think it's great that I can email my grandma if I want; I think it's
superb that there are so many computer owners that software can sell
relatively cheaply; I think it's awe-inspiringly wonderful that there are
enough people connected to the Internet that so many companies put up
information on, and stores for, their products.
There is a certain joy to be had in elitist exclusivity, but it is a cold
and sterile one.
>The problem is: does anybody want to learn anymore? Do people feel curious
>and ask questions like "How do my speakers work?" or "Why does my hard
>drive make noises when it's being used?"?
Maybe not. And? Different people have different interests; some people
are interested in computers, and some in other things. I find nothing
wrong with someone who uses a computer every day but has no curiosity at
all about its inner workings. After all, I do the same thing myself every
time I sit in a car.
The Renaissance is over; we live in a world of specialization. Nobody can
know everything about everything; and everybody is going to have a very
large class of something about which they know nothing. That I'm wholly
ignorant when it comes to fixing my car is no more a strike against me
than someone's ignorance about computers is against them.
>Humans in general seem to become less and less curious, esp. once they exit
>the realm of childhood. This is worrying indeed.
Like most laments for a lost utopia, this one has its base more in
nostalgia than truth.
We're in the midst of one of the largest expansions of knowledge the world
has ever known. Science is giving us more information faster than ever
before, and technology is advancing at an ever-accelerating pace. By any
standard you can measure, we are more curious than anyone ever was.
The Golden Age, if we must have one, is now.
Sned The Bold
>
> In article <741gml$f8o$3...@paperboy.ids.net>, ori...@conan.ids.net
> says...
> > Christopher A Tew (tik...@lv-nospam-di.net) wrote:
> > : critical feedback, why bother? In a restricted environ such as
> > : Origin's webboards, you can be sure that anything they see as
> > : detrimental to U9 will be deleted, and that includes criticism of
> > : announced game features. This is the reason why they set up the web
> > : board and have restricted their activity to there, even Garriott has
> > : said so.
> >
> > Cat, that is 100% unadulterated BULLSHIT.
> >
> > "criticism of announced game features" is why the Rants and Raves
> > forum EXISTS. Only two people have the power to remove posts from there
> > -- Carly and Uranium. The primary authority for removing posts is
> > Uranium's, and he isn't a full-time OSI employee. I've received the same
> > instructions he has (I have to fill-in instantly if he's unavailable) and
> > the ONLY reasons posts should be "scribbled" is for personal attacks
> > and/or foul language.
> >
> > You are so fucking clueless sometimes.
>
> And this is the approach Origin likes its volunteers to adopt toward
> its potential customers? Interesting. Different.
>
Hey, whatever makes money, right?
Sven de Ridder
MdmeDis wrote in message ...
Ask the 'average' rgcud'er what he/she thinks about
rec.games.computer.ultima.online, alt.games.quake, alt.games.diablo etc.
Outside of this thread (because, of course, everyone will act very PC here
;)) you'll most likely get a haughty 'Pah! They're morons'.
>> If the group is a good thing it does not
>> have to be better than any other, the attitude that our group has to
>> be better than others smacks of insecurity to me.
>
>So - who said it was intellectually superior? Who has that attitude? I
>am inclined to agree we are a better forum of critics, but because we
>know Ultima inside out and back to front.
Better critics than... the folks visiting the Origin web boards? I don't
think they averagely have less knowledge of the Ultimas than I do; I've only
played them from Ultima VI and up (6, 2x7, 8, UW1, UW2). There are
undoubtedly Dragons around who have played even less. That we enjoy the
games doesn't mean that we're experts - the reason I joined the Dragons
actually had little to do with Ultima at all. I enjoy the people here.
>If Origin is indeed releasing
>a traditional Ultima, as they would now have us believe, then who better
>than a group with the greatest pool of topical knowledge. Has fuck-all
>to do with intellect, and no-one suggested it did.
I was originally going to write a response to Fortran along the lines of
'Are you sure we average 140 IQ?' because that was just what it was about.
Then I added the part that I didn't agree with the typical allusion of
superiority among intellectuals - and that I saw it everywhere in society.
>I will go so far as to say though - if I am going to buy a computer game
>it has to offer something of an intellectual challenge. But thats just
>me.
And I usually don't enjoy puzzle games like Myst, or The 7th Guest. Give me
a nice network to play Quake on (along with a couple of fellow human beings)
and I'm set. Away from work, university and my programming hobby, I can
really use a mindless bash now and then. Or I'll play a game I can really
get into, like Fallout or the Ultimas. That's me :)
>> The UDIC and this newsgroup are supposed to be about allowing Ultima
>> fans to meet each other, both to help each other with Ultima and to do
>> fun stuff (like exchange ideas, plot threads ect.). I do not think
>> their is any intellegence required or indicated in that membership.
>> If their is a higher intellegence that is not really important. What
>> is important is that we are ultima fans (to some extent) and that we
>> are having fun. Therefore we should feel proud of the fun factor and
>> Ultima factor of this group, which are both pretty good IMO.
>
>Dammit - this is making me VERY ANGRY.
*hugs Dis* Calm down, girl :)
>No one said we were superior
>intellectually. Fortran quoted a number I gave him, based as I said on
>something we did a couple of summers ago. As no-one has stated, inferred
>or even thought it besides possibly yourself or Ibn, why all the fuss?
(Er... Ibn?)
>rant (not flame)
>
>IQ is a matter of fact, an accident of birth. Saying "I have an IQ of
>140 - it is higher than most" is like saying "I am 6'6" tall. I am
>taller than most" Along with you, I disagree strongly with people who
>prance around saying "I have an IQ of 140 - that makes me superior"
>But I also consider *not* stating such facts as a brand of political
>correctness and a teeny bit hypocritical.
>
>/rant
I've never disagreed with the stating of such facts - I merely wondered
whether Fortran's 140 wasn't a bit high. I disagree with labeling anyone who
does not meet your IQ as morons, which was more of on a tangent with
Fortran's post.
I won't believe you if you say you haven't seen this thing happening here
frequently - you've already observed in this thread how some here think of
people who don't know anything about computers other than how to use them
for their purposes. Why should they know about, I dunno, the CPU instruction
set, or even how to plug in a HDD? They can ask people who do know about
that.
As Koz mentioned, this isn't the renaissance anymore. Those people who know
nothing about computers are going to need your help when they have a
computer problem. Which you'll get rewarded for. You're going to need their
help when you want financial advice, or when your car just won't start, or
when the toilet won't flush. Which they'll get rewarded for. And that's why
you need those people, why we call it a 'society'.
Sure, I know a lot (relatively) about computers, and I'm learning more
daily. But have you ever seen me try to get a nail into the wall? Straight,
that is? ;)
WD
Sven de Ridder
Matthew T. Linehan wrote in message <36658b8c.6314265@news-server>...
>Just one quick note:
>
>Every time I begin to have faith that the general populace of the
>world does indeed have a brain, some moron at McDonalds can't figure
>out how to operate the damn soda machine, or some nit-wit customer
>calls me to explain that they applied 440 VAC to a logic input (but
>converting the $1000 circuit board into a small pile of ash via the
>application of massive amounts of electrical energy is covered under
>the warranty... right?)
And would you have your job if everyone could figure it out for themselves?
(I'm assuming you're doing helpdesk work)
>Face it, the general populace is dumb, ignorant, and barely qualified
>to breath! Why do you think what web browser is pre-installed on the
>PC is such a big deal. It's simple, the marketing people at MS and NS
>both know that the vast majority of users are not capable of changing
>it themselves. So if they are going to win the browser wars, said
>product must be pre-installed BEFORE the machine leaves the factory.
Oh, I installed Netscape only recently, after having used IE ever since I
formatted my harddisk on one of my computers (about 8 months ago, I guess),
because both programs basically serve my needs. I have both running
concurrently now, because I don't notice that much of a difference - NN
seems to initialize a bit faster, is all (to someone who's more interested
in programming than becoming an Internet wizz).
The deal with MS vs. NS is that people won't bother downloading Netscape (12
megs, about?) when IE is doing everything they want it to do, and so give
Microsoft an unfair advantage. I agree with the charges against MS and I
hope Netscape will win the case.
>*Sweeps arms in a grand gesture*
>Behold..., we are witnessing the conversion of the home PC from a tool
>for use by hobbyists, into an appliance. Anything more complex than
>the typical VCR is not going to fly. Ideally the PC should be as easy
>to use as the toaster! At that point America will be ready for the
>computer revolution.
Technosnobism, to coin a phrase.
>Sorry, I'm just a bit hostile at it all. I liked things better when
>computers were just for geeks, and grandma was not interested in
>E-mail.
Interesting... When I lived in America, back in Holland my grandfather was
struggling with his health. I'm glad I could keep in touch with my
grandmother over email, because phone calls to Holland would've just been
too expensive. But you're probably all against grandma using the telephone,
too?
Oh, and of course there were the eighties, when just admitting you were
interested in computers put you in the same category of pale, skinny social
disasters with faces you could play Connect The Zits on. Back then computers
were just for geeks, yeah. A wonderful time that was.
WD
Infinitron Dragon
(Well-Dressed) wrote:
>Fortran Dragon, you'll always be a star.
>
>> The Dragons are a group of very, very bright people. I imagine
>>the average IQ is at least 140.
>
>I've seen this claim pop up a few times already during my short stay
>here. From the outside, it'd strike me as ridiculous. From the inside,
>it worries me.
>
>This is actually the first time I see it not being used in a 'we are
>intellectually superior to alt.games.diablo'-like fashion. Even _if_
>we make the 140 mark (which I frankly believe we don't -- I am not
>sure I do, anyway), priding ourselves on it would leave us
>under-average if individual worth were measured differently.
>
>This is not a flame, nor would I appreciate being flamed for speaking
>my concerns. I see this alleged superiority everywhere in the society
>I live in. I think the truly superior wouldn't see themselves as such.
>
>
>Well-Dressed Dragon -==UDIC==-
>* Holder of one (1) Money Dragon Flame Point *
>"La vida total es un porqueria."
>- The Pixies
Hmm. Yeah, that message was a bit on the arrogant side ( though I
believe I clear the mark ;) ).
Still, we have to portray a united front for intelligent gaming here
on RGCUD. It's important for the Ultima series. :)
Infinitron Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
--------------
d++ e+ N+ T+ Om++ U1!24!56!7'!S'!8!KALW!M
u+ uC++ uF++ uG+++ uLB+ uA+ nC+ nR- nH nP+ nI++
nPT nS+++ nT-- wM++ wC+++ wS+ wI-- wN o oA y+ 16
--------------
"Zug!"
Alex Beckers
: > I don't know if this counts, but I am technically an unpaid,
: > non-benefits receiving part-time employee of OSI.
: I think the word you are searching for is "volunteer". ;)
The point is that I am actually an employee. I had to sign a form
waiving benefits and pay.
Alex Beckers
: In other words, Alex, grow up.
It kills me to say this, but you're absolutely right. I apologize
for flipping out. I shouldn't let my distaste for you personally affect my
judgment like that.
Rephrased:
Your statements about Origin's censorship of the bulletin boards
are baseless and without merit. I hope that in the future you will
check your facts before making potentially damaging statements like
that.
MdmeDis
> <snip>
>
>
> >but why should we have to prompt you? Other companies are in multiple
> >locations without being prompted (such as, ahem, Janes :), Interplay,
> >Activision, Sierra, etc.).
>
>
> "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? Don't you want to be a squeaky wheel?
> (Heehee j/k).
Seriously, though. My much earlier response to this thread was "time for
another tantrum". A squeaky potential customer in marketing terms is Not
a Good Thing. It means they are pissed off before the product gets out
there - which in this case is a given, but there shouldn't be a need for
anyone to be telling a marketing dept. these elementary facts.
MdmeDis
mkoz...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu says...
> In article <MPG.10c7fd9a...@news.alt.net>,
> MdmeDis <mdm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Well, you've been around long enough to know that's the way things are
> >around here, and these attitudes aren't exactly news - so what got your
> >knickers in a knot this time?
>
> Because these attitudes _are_ new.
Nope - is about marketing; it was then, it is now. For a traditional
Ultima, this newsgroup hosts its fan-club. Pissing off its denizens by
ignoring them in marketing terms is Bad. Coming in, doing the job, and
then disappearing where people feel they've been handed a pacifier is
Not Good - it gives the malcontents like myself the opportunity to
bitch.
>
> Before, the situation was that we had all heard a bunch of negative rumors
> about U:A, and some people took them to heart and grew worried. They
> wanted official word from Origin about these rumors.
>
> And Origin gave the official word. They said, "No, that's not it; that's
> not what we meant at all." And everyone relaxed, and admitted that they'd
> wait until the game came out to judge it.
>
> And Origin smiled with the contentment of a job well done, bid the group
> adieu, and left the place rumor-free and cautiously optimistic.
>
> Now, there aren't any new rumors, and there are plenty of available news
> sources that we never had before. Now, crying out for Origin seems ...
> needy and pointless. And the return to "Well, it looks like it'll be Tomb
> Raider," is absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, but that is not what this is about - this thread wasn't addressing
the game, per se. This is about keeping your potential customers happy,
not about game information. Keeping the Dragons happy would've meant
they didn't scream negative things all over the place and get the gaming
press to listen, and they wouldn't have had to hire a Special person in
the first place.
This is the most interesting phenomenon I've seen. You have a group of
customers ready willing and able to help a company market its product -
but the company would really rather be left alone to go to hell in a
handbasket. The customers have to repeatedly knock it over the head with
a sledgehammer to get it to do its job. The interesting thing is, we
keep doing it. I suppose that deep in our little souls we feel that only
Origin under the patronage of His Lordship can give us our fix.
And what you came into the middle of was the Mule Training process,
which experience has taught us in Origin's case works. So it is nothing
new.
Alex Beckers
: > And this is the approach Origin likes its volunteers to adopt toward
: > its potential customers? Interesting. Different.
(Above lines double-quoted from Dis)
Actually, if I were them, I would be pissed at me right now.
: Hey, whatever makes money, right?
Is this a "there's no such thing as bad publicity" comment?
Hmmm... ah! Here we go!
If you don't like the way that U:A personnel or reps have been
dealing with interaction with the fans, come to the Rants and Raves forum
and complain!!
Destrius
the entity named Mike Kozlowski (mkoz...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu)
-clip-
>Maybe not. And? Different people have different interests; some people
>are interested in computers, and some in other things. I find nothing
>wrong with someone who uses a computer every day but has no curiosity at
>all about its inner workings. After all, I do the same thing myself every
>time I sit in a car.
-clip-
But do you sometimes wonder how it works? Not knowing is one thing. Not
wondering is another. I don't know how a car works. I'm not really
interested in cars either. But if somebody cared to explain to me, I
wouldn't mind listening and learning something new, and not say "Oh, come
on, I don't need to know that, all I want to do is drive the car."
-clip-
>The Renaissance is over; we live in a world of specialization. Nobody can
>know everything about everything; and everybody is going to have a very
>large class of something about which they know nothing. That I'm wholly
>ignorant when it comes to fixing my car is no more a strike against me
>than someone's ignorance about computers is against them.
-clip-
As in above, you may not know how to fix your car because you never
attended lessons, nor purposely attempted to educate yourself in this
field. But if your mechanic happened to explain what's gone wrong, do you
listen? And remember that so the next time this happens you can solve the
problem? What I'm against is rejecting knowledge. You cannot possibly seek
to know everything there is to learn, but you should always try to learn
what you can.
-clip-
>Like most laments for a lost utopia, this one has its base more in
>nostalgia than truth.
-clip-
Well, seeing that I'm only 16, nostalgia is a bit off. :)
Mike Kozlowski
Destrius <u...@the.sig.addy> wrote:
> the entity named Mike Kozlowski (mkoz...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu)
> inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
>>Maybe not. And? Different people have different interests; some people
>>are interested in computers, and some in other things. I find nothing
>>wrong with someone who uses a computer every day but has no curiosity at
>>all about its inner workings. After all, I do the same thing myself every
>>time I sit in a car.
>
>But do you sometimes wonder how it works?
Only in the most vague sense imaginable. But not in any way that would
actually inspire me to take action to find out, no. Nor do I wonder
about how buildings are constructed, how Pepsi is made at the factory,
how the book-binding process works, how various medicines work, how ...
You get the point, I imagine? There's _a lot_ of information out there;
far too much for any one person to ever even begin to take it all in.
The only way to get by in this world is to realize that you're going to
remain forever ignorant in all but a few areas.
>As in above, you may not know how to fix your car because you never
>attended lessons, nor purposely attempted to educate yourself in this
>field. But if your mechanic happened to explain what's gone wrong, do you
>listen?
I'd pretend to, so he doesn't overcharge me; but I doubt I'd be able to
understand what he was saying.
>And remember that so the next time this happens you can solve the
>problem?
No. I wouldn't bother; if I had the same problem again, I'd take it back
to the mechanic again. Just like if my VCR broke, I wouldn't try to see
how to fix it. Or if my plumbing got messed up, I wouldn't stand over
the plumber's shoulder trying to watch him so I could do it myself next
time.
I have a finite amount of time in my day, and learning how to fix
everything -- never mind all the other kinds of information available --
is well beyond me.
What I'm against is rejecting knowledge. You cannot possibly seek
>to know everything there is to learn, but you should always try to learn
>what you can.
>
>>Like most laments for a lost utopia, this one has its base more in
>>nostalgia than truth.
>
>Well, seeing that I'm only 16, nostalgia is a bit off. :)
Ah. In that case, the utopian past you imagine is wholly the stuff of
imagination.
Mike Kozlowski
Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>From the Void comes Mike Kozlowski bearing this piece of Light...
>> actions directly concern the game is obvious. The contention at hand
>> here was that Garriott's actions matter when they don't concern the game
>> -- i.e., in his dealings with critics and fans.
>
> That may be the point you were making, but it isn't what I was
>talking about.
Wasn't it? I thought we were talking about Garriott's rant about CGW and
his alleged "lies."
> Oh, and Ellison is wrong. He does owe the fans something. He
>owes them what Robert Heinlein said writers owe their fans: the best
>work they are capable of doing.
I like that, and it's more or less what I've been saying all along. If
Garriott gives us a good game, I don't much care if he rants and raves at
CGW, if he picks up bizarre affectations, and even if he ignores his fans
completely.
>And I'm sure you have problems with people boycotting clothing companies
>for the abuses they promote in third world countries to maintain their
>profits.
Absolutely, I do, because such people are short-sighted and foolish. In
the end, such protests only hurt the third-world workers who, after all,
want these jobs, as bad as we think they are.
Fortran Dragon
> Wasn't it? I thought we were talking about Garriott's rant about CGW
I was with Carly. The point in that discussion that you chose to
address was intertwining of Garriott and Ultima.
> and
> his alleged "lies."
Since you chose to directly quote me, mind pointing out where I
said that Garriott "lies".
[Snip]
> I like that, and it's more or less what I've been saying all along. If
> Garriott gives us a good game, I don't much care if he rants and raves at
> CGW, if he picks up bizarre affectations, and even if he ignores his fans
> completely.
At this point Garriott has demonstratively not been doing his
best.
[Snip]
> Absolutely, I do, because such people are short-sighted and foolish. In
> the end, such protests only hurt the third-world workers who, after all,
> want these jobs, as bad as we think they are.
So you don't care who suffers so long as you aren't bothered and
you can enrich the coffers of companies. Ok.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> I have to agree, though I wish free agent had support for multiple
> servers.... grr.... even so, it'd be easier to just keep 2 copies of
> the program around - one for each server - rather than use the web
> board (though I haven't tried this one, admittedly... I have tried
> many others and was always disappointed.)
I know Agent has a work around for multiple servers in the help
file. I can send that to you to see if it works with Free Agent, if you
would like.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> But here's the key point: Origin could use newsgroups without being on
> Usenet. If they set up their own private news server with a few moderated
> groups (origin.ultima.rants, origin.ultima.qanda, and so forth), they'd
> get the benefits of moderation, authentication, and on-topicness while
> retaining the wonderful usability of newsreaders.
If they can do that they might as well carry the existing
newsgroups. It would be make it much easier for Origin to check what's
is being said by their fans.
If they really had to have their own newsgroups then they should
make them public (like the public Microsoft newsgroup) so that other news
servers could carry them, thus making them much more accessible. Heck,
Dejanews and the like might carry them making Origin's newsgroups
accessible to someone that just had a web browser.
This solution (Origin carrying the existing newsgroups on their
news server and providing an public Origin hierarchy) would allow the
developers at Origin the easiest way possible to check on things. Just
point their news readers to Origin's news server and subscribe to all of
the newsgroups.
Carly Staehlin-Taylor
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
<snip>
:)
> Um, have you heard of Tom Peters? Japan Inc., perhaps? You know,
>all those lesson we learned during the eighties?
Just because I ask a question doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, or that
my opinion hasn't developed over time from experiences I've had or
information I've read. I'm an info hunter-gatherer. :)
"The root of Japanese success lay in three things:
1. Quality doesn't cost, it pays.
2. Process improvement never ends.
3. Get close to your customers and stick like glue.
"Technology was important to Japanese success, but only insofar as it
contributed to those three principles." ("Making Technology Pay: Lessons
from History", R. Cook)
> I'm just caught out flat that you need to justify this concept to
>anyone at Origin. Is Origin stuck in the late 1970's?
Interesting question.. based on what you've experienced, what do you think?
> I'll take a gander at my Economists and other stuff and see what I
>can do.
Cool.. I look forward to it.
> Oh, here's an anecdotal thing to pass on to people to ponder:
>have you ever talked to a Saturn owner? Ever noticed how happy they
>are? Ever wonder how they got to be a successful car company starting
>from scratch working against the Japanese at their best while no one
>remembers Chrysler's Eagle line? One guess. :)
Good anecdote. Course, my personal (admittedly limited) experience differs.
But I've always enjoyed the stories that Saturn likes to publish. ;)
<snip>
> Have you tried talking informally to the other company
>representatives?
Well.. I can tell you it's on the task list.
-Carly