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