(Preliminary RFD) - rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds
Radnor
before it's sent off to the proper channels. This was written in response
to MANY messages regarding the SBR guild-- it would seem that guilds
should obtain their own newsgroup to post guild matters in, aside from the
main RCGUO newsgroup.
================================
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup
rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds.
This is not a Call For Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details follow.
NEWSGROUPS LINE:
rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds Guilds of Ultima Online.
RATIONALE: rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds
Traffic: The newsgroup rec.games.computer.ultima.online has maintained a
consistent high level of activity for the period monitored. Over a period
of three days, an average of 500 messages related specifically to the
Skara Brae Rangers (SBR) guild.
The group rec.games.computer.ultima.online receives an average of 400 new
messages per 24 hour period. The inference is that the topic of guilds
is perhaps too specific to suite this segment of the online Ultima Online
community.
Messaging information was collected manually, but the information is
easily verifiable through use of archived messages.
Guilds play an integral part of the Ultima Online gaming community. As of
this writing, there are currently 11,354 active guilds within the Ultima
Online community. The establishment of a worldwide rec.* group for this
community will enhance the free flow of information, aiding online
discussions relating to guild matters.
CHARTER: rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds
The purpose of this newsgroup shall be to establish and maintain a
forum for the open discussion of topics of interest to members of
guilds within the Ultima Online community.
The discussion is intended to include the sharing of information,
opinion, and ideas between members of Ultima Online guilds. Specific
discussions will include, but are not limited to guild warfare tactics,
membership qualifications and specific guild events.
The discussion shall specifically exclude any and all unsolicited
advertisement of products or services; Posts containing large binary
attachments; material that cannot be considered to be of interest to
the Ultima Online community as a whole; and obvious flames, trolls, or
other messages of an abusive or combative nature designed to draw
readers into unproductive off-topic discussion.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
This is a Request For Discussion (RFD), not a Call For Votes. In this
phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed
newsgroups should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will
continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD
for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which
a Call For Votes may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the
discussion warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this
happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
rec.games.computer.ultima.online
and the following mailing list:
[Insert the UO mailing list's address here!]
Proponent: Kevin Lo <k...@bigfoot.com>
================================
--
___ ___________________________________________________
(___| Kevin Lo |___UO: Radnor (Catskills)_______Callsign: KF4JXF___)
"You are in a twisty little maze of URL's, all different."
PGP: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9E0CF7F5
The Philosopher Primus
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds
I suggest we consider taking it farther, and add a sub to that, making
rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds.SBR
that way when the bUtTpHuQiNmUtHaS want to run their guild discussions there,
they don't get tangled up with ours.
Mat [Ranger, SBR]
Yes, this would be great if it worked..
(i do think it will be hard to get the permission to do that group though..)
--
Mat [Ranger, SBR]
http://www.tackman.finland.net
m a t r i m < a t > t a c k m a n < d o t > f i n l a n d < d o t > n e t
Erinn
>The Philosopher Primus <He...@Fight.SPAM> wrote in message
news:3677A9AF...@Fight.SPAM...
>>Radnor wrote:
>>
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> unmoderated group rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds
>>
>>I suggest we consider taking it farther, and add a sub to that, making
>>
>>rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds.SBR
>>
>>that way when the bUtTpHuQiNmUtHaS want to run their guild discussions
there,
>>they don't get tangled up with ours.
>
>Yes, this would be great if it worked..
>
>(i do think it will be hard to get the permission to do that group
though..)
Yes, I'm afraid so:( The original RFD for *this* group included a .guilds
but it was dropped as being too chancy... might hurt the chances of
getting the .online created. Consider that you'll have anywhere from 100
to 300 people voting on the creation of the newsgroup that have *no*
interest in UO. All they're concerned about is usenet itself. I really
think you'll have a better chance at getting .guilds than .guilds.SBR.
You can always subdivide later when you can show (by posting history) the
subdivision is truly needed.
Erinnyes Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
Atlantic, Moonglow
Jaquar
wrote:
>damn, someone is actually listening out there! The problem I see with
>a new newsgroup is that it may not be picked up by everyone's server,
>and the overflow will <still> be posted in this group... not to
>mention the number of crossposts between the two groups that <will>
>occur.... definitely worth a shot though.
>However, I'm sure <someone> will still chastise you for it, thinking
>5/600 messages a day for their personal business is OK... as long as
>it's <their> personal business.
>I still think that the message board added to the web page would work
>out good... and also forces members to actually <go> to the Ranger
>webpage for announcements if they intend to use it.
>Anything has to be better than the way it is now. Thanks for taking
>the initiative.
The vast majority of isps are very receptive to adding groups like the
one proposed. The just don't want
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.one-eyed-lefthand-blonds
=-]
Jaquar of DS
Grandmaster Mage
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> CHARTER: rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds
[Snip]
> The discussion shall specifically exclude any and all unsolicited
> advertisement of products or services; Posts containing large binary
> attachments; material that cannot be considered to be of interest to
> the Ultima Online community as a whole; and obvious flames, trolls, or
> other messages of an abusive or combative nature designed to draw
> readers into unproductive off-topic discussion.
Unless you are going to propose
rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds.moderated, the last bit about
flames, trolls, etc., is unenforceable. If it isn't moderated once the
group is created *everybody* will be on equal footing. There are no
special breaks or powers for the creators of a newsgroup.
You'll simply have too many people that have differing ideas on
what is a troll or a flame for your anti-flame/troll provision to
successfully work. In fact I bet that someone will misuse this
provision to try to squelch any posts that they don't like by citing
this section of the charter and complaining to the poster's ISP.
I think it is better to develop a community to that adheres to
these unwritten rules than to put something in your charter that will be
ignored, thus weakening the other provisions of the charter.
I believe the best way to go is to figure out how you think most
people will use the charter and how some jerk will try to abuse it.
Between the two you should be ok.
--
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>
Radnor
> From the Void comes Radnor bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
> > CHARTER: rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds
> [Snip]
> > The discussion shall specifically exclude any and all unsolicited
> > advertisement of products or services; Posts containing large binary
> > attachments; material that cannot be considered to be of interest to
> > the Ultima Online community as a whole; and obvious flames, trolls, or
> > other messages of an abusive or combative nature designed to draw
> > readers into unproductive off-topic discussion.
>
> Unless you are going to propose
> rec.games.computer.ultima.online.guilds.moderated, the last bit about
> flames, trolls, etc., is unenforceable. If it isn't moderated once the
> group is created *everybody* will be on equal footing. There are no
> special breaks or powers for the creators of a newsgroup.
The charter, as I see it, is more of a guide for posters, not something
you have to adhere to verbatim. Of course, there are going to be trolls,
flames, and off-topic messages-- ANY unmoderated group will have them. :)
It's just nice to know that it's frowned upon by the general public.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> you have to adhere to verbatim. Of course, there are going to be trolls,
> flames, and off-topic messages-- ANY unmoderated group will have them. :)
> It's just nice to know that it's frowned upon by the general public.
Then you might want to define by example of what is a flame, a
troll, etc. and what isn't (such as something that is 'merely'
controversial).
Otherwise you'll end up with arguments about whether or not a post
is against the charter or not. You might even end up with a thread about
the charter that becomes the very thing that part of the charter is
against (a flamewar about what is a flame, a troll, etc.)...
Dundee
(Radnor) wrote:
>[Insert the UO mailing list's address here!]
Which one?
I'm on ult...@onelist.com but I think there may be another UO mailing
list (or two)...
--
Dundee of Lake Superior - Skep...@SPAMISantisocial.com
The Town of Skara Brae: http://members.xoom.com/skara/
UO related stuff: http://dundee.uong.com
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> Give it a break. You're doing it right now....
<chuckle> Thanks for proving my point.
Jaquar
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 18:50:42 GMT, no...@nope.com (Jaquar) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>The vast majority of isps are very receptive to adding groups like the
>>one proposed. The just don't want
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.one-eyed-lefthand-blonds
>>
>>=-]
>>Jaquar of DS
>>Grandmaster Mage
>
>Oh, that's for sure, but there could be a lag of several weeks before
>they are picked up... web pages are NOW.
>Also, having two ISPs myself, I'll tell ya that there is a <real> big
>difference in what gets picked up. I use Netcom and Pacbell, there's
>even <automotive> newsgroups that you can find on one and not the
>other. On Pacbell, I can't get the "other" UO newsgroup (at least I
>still couldn't a few weeks ago), but I can with Netcom. So it isn't
>just one eyed left-handed blondes....
>God forbid that someone using AOL starts telling us <their> tales of
>grief....
I agree with you biz. A msg board is simple to make.
Radnor
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:10:42 -0500, k...@bigstinkyfoot.nostinky.com
> (Radnor) wrote:
>
> >[Insert the UO mailing list's address here!]
>
> Which one?
>
> I'm on ult...@onelist.com but I think there may be another UO mailing
> list (or two)...
Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of. Thanks!
Brian Flynn
> From the Void comes Radnor bearing this piece of Light...
> > The charter, as I see it, is more of a guide for posters, not something
> > you have to adhere to verbatim. Of course, there are going to be trolls,
> > flames, and off-topic messages-- ANY unmoderated group will have them. :)
> > It's just nice to know that it's frowned upon by the general public.
>
> Then you might want to define by example of what is a flame, a
> troll, etc. and what isn't (such as something that is 'merely'
> controversial).
> Otherwise you'll end up with arguments about whether or not a post
> is against the charter or not. You might even end up with a thread about
> the charter that becomes the very thing that part of the charter is
> against (a flamewar about what is a flame, a troll, etc.)...
In a UO group everything is possible. But I think everyone knows what a
flame is. And a troll.
You're just still upset over the reorg, aren't you?
<hint - that was a troll> ;-|
Uther
Carolina Dragon
--------------
d++ e+ N T+ Om++ U123!4!5!6!7'!S'!8KA!L!W!M!
u+++ uC++++ uF uG+++ uLB-- uA++++ nC+ nR---- nH+ nP nI++ nPT- nS++ nT
wM wC-- wS wI++ o- oA++ y+ a31
--------------
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> In a UO group everything is possible.
No, that is rec.games.computer.ultima[-.]dragons. :p
> But I think everyone knows what a
> flame is. And a troll.
No, everyone has their own definition what a troll is, what a
flame is, but those definitions can be seriously different between
people and between times.
Personally, I think it is futile to tell people not to flame, not
to troll. That type of restraint has to come from within.
Now if you want to have a prohibition then a common definition
that everyone can use as a touchstone would help immensely. At least
everybody would be on the same page in the book, so to speak.
> You're just still upset over the reorg, aren't you?
>
> <hint - that was a troll> ;-|
<shrug> Some people prefer pretend they've done something useful,
while the rest of us like to do something that actually works.
Now, you tell me if that was a flame, a troll, or if I was
honestly serious and trying to help make your charter the best it can
be.
Guess what? You're going to get different answers depending on
how you view me. And perhaps, just perhaps only one person is going to
know the truth.
So you think my comments aren't relevant. What do you suggest the
charter should be like then or is it just perfect as it stands?