home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Toolkit for DOOM
/
DOOMTOOL.ISO
/
news
/
1800
/
1857
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-08-31
|
3KB
|
77 lines
Newsgroups: alt.games.doom
Path: oz.cdrom.com!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!ddsw1!chinet!dhartung
From: dhartung@chinet.chinet.com (Daniel A. Hartung)
Subject: Re: SPLIT DOOM GROUP: proposal
Message-ID: <CvF4GI.Mp1@chinet.chinet.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 21:17:05 GMT
References: <33t2k0$9p7@tadpole.fc.hp.com> <33t83k$l31@panix2.panix.com>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Lines: 66
Tom Neff <tneff@panix.com> wrote:
>Brian Atkins <atkins@cnd.hp.com> wrote:
>>At well over 100+ THREADS a day, this group is ready to be split.
>
>And what's just as important, the threads break down into a few stable types.
[...]
>>alt.games.doom.author Discussions related to WAD authorship, etc.
>
>Let's say alt.games.doom.editing, it's a lot clearer. You need to make
>subgroup names crystal clear (as the rest of yours are) or people won't
>use them.
100% agreement. And even then you have the newbies and plain idiots
who botch their postings ....
>==============
>
>Now, would you at least consider the following split? I'd accept yours,
>but I think this is closer to what people are actually posting.
>
> alt.games.doom.announce - for announcements (already exists?)
Yes -- it's here.
> alt.games.doom.editing - for WAD/EXE designers/hackers
Although .editing is better than .authors, I'm still not sure it's
the best name. What about a.g.d.design or a.g.d.tech? (see below)
> alt.games.doom.matches - for Deathmatch challenges, results
Perhaps a.g.d.wanted for at least part of the above?
> alt.games.doom.questions - for user questions
What about:
alt.games.doom.tech - how to set up a modoom, best equipment,
figuring fram rates, etc.
alt.games.doom.newusers - how do I get doom, what is doom, is
doom avail for my box, etc.
My theory is that there are two levels of questions that are being
discussed. Of course, in real life, can we separate them?
> alt.games.doom.reviews - for add-on reviews, but note that the
> ".reviews" subgroup is often moderated.
> Would that make sense for us?
>
>I think if you did it this way you could even eliminate the ".misc"
>group, always a good sign. What do you think?
I like your group names better, but I think we still need a .misc
group. There's discussion on things like similar games, Quake,
the ethics of violent games, etc. This doesn't fit anywhere
above.
(Note that I don't think it's time for an alt.games.quake group yet!)
I'm certainly not suggesting overly fine splits, here, I just want
to throw some ideas out.
--
Daniel A. Hartung | I believe we can fly
Birch Grove Software | on the wings that we create
dhartung@chinet.chinet.com | -- Melissa Etheridge