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.edu