tiresias@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Doug Ingram) (02/10/90)
At first, I supported the creation of the rec.games.mud newsgroup,
largely because I felt that it would be unfair to leave so many potential
users out just because they had no access to the alt hierarchy or alt.mud
newsgroup in particular to find out more about the topic. The argument
that has ensued, however, has changed my mind. It looks like there aren't
enough people who are campaigning for rec.games.mud, and any group that is
formed now in that hierarchy will mainly be read by alt.mud readers, who
already get this discussion anyway.
Also, with the small group of readers for alt.mud, it is unlikely
that rec.games.mud would pass, especially with the majority of those who
are posting to this discussion (if they are any indication of the general
sentiment) ready to cast "no" votes for a variety of reasons. Further,
it is probably a good idea to wait until the links are more well-established
and until mud technology (which is really racing along) develops to a point
where it can support the massive influx of new users that a newsgroup in
the rec heirarchy would bring in.
Until then, unless a LOT of rec.games.mud supporters come out of
the closet, agree on a name, and start campaigning vigorously to spread
the distribution from its current location in only alt.mud, there isn't
much reason to continue this discussion at this point in time, let alone
call for a vote. I'm sure that if someone within the alt.mud group of
readers were willing to publish a mailing list of articles to those few
(well, apparently, there are few) who don't get but would like to read
alt.mud, most every problem at this point would be solved. I don't have
the time to do it, but surely there is some big-hearted soul out there
who could be convinced by some avid rec.games.mud supporters....
-----------------
"Buy my book. Or just send me some money in a box."
-- Dave Barry
Doug Ingram dougi@astro.as.utexas.edu tiresias@ccwf.cc.utexas.edubee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (02/10/90)
Said tiresias@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Doug Ingram): (in article <24298@ut-emx.UUCP>) | | At first, I supported the creation of the rec.games.mud newsgroup, |largely because I felt that it would be unfair to leave so many potential |users out just because they had no access to the alt hierarchy or alt.mud |newsgroup in particular to find out more about the topic. The argument |that has ensued, however, has changed my mind. It looks like there aren't |enough people who are campaigning for rec.games.mud, and any group that is |formed now in that hierarchy will mainly be read by alt.mud readers, who |already get this discussion anyway. The reason that there hasn't been a lot of talk here about the proposed group is that a lot of discussion has been going on in the MUDs themselves. And doubling the distribution isn't going to increase the number of readers ??? | Also, with the small group of readers for alt.mud, it is unlikely |that rec.games.mud would pass, especially with the majority of those who |are posting to this discussion (if they are any indication of the general |sentiment) ready to cast "no" votes for a variety of reasons. Further, |it is probably a good idea to wait until the links are more well-established |and until mud technology (which is really racing along) develops to a point |where it can support the massive influx of new users that a newsgroup in |the rec heirarchy would bring in. Many MUDders have indicated to me that the name 'rec.games.mud' isn't a good name, and would vote against the group for that reason. The name rec.games.multi-user has been indicated as an alternative, and from here on should be considered the proposed name for the group. Delaying the creation of the group until 'mud technology develops' makes no sense at all; the whole purpose of the group is to have a place where MUDders can talk about how to develop MUDs! | Until then, unless a LOT of rec.games.mud supporters come out of |the closet, agree on a name, and start campaigning vigorously to spread |the distribution from its current location in only alt.mud, there isn't |much reason to continue this discussion at this point in time, let alone |call for a vote. I'm sure that if someone within the alt.mud group of |readers were willing to publish a mailing list of articles to those few |(well, apparently, there are few) who don't get but would like to read |alt.mud, most every problem at this point would be solved. I don't have |the time to do it, but surely there is some big-hearted soul out there |who could be convinced by some avid rec.games.mud supporters.... Making a mailing list would be appreciated by those of us who can't get alt.mud. However, I do intend to make a Call For Votes for rec.games.multi-user in a few days, after the 14-day discussion period runs out. Most likely I'll send it out from another account on a machine where alt.mud does exist (unfortunately, only articles that are crossposted into mainstream groups make it there). I would appreciate it if someone would post this article into alt.mud for me, since alt.mud doesn't exist on this machine (which is where I do almost all my newsreading). B.E.E. -- Z. Beeblebrox | I live with two people, I like both of them. (alias B. Elmore) | He likes both of me and I like both of him. bee@cs.purdue.edu | They're my alter egos and to them I'm wed, ..!purdue!bee | 'Cause I'm happy I live in a split-level head. -- Nap. XIV