Grex Coop10 Conference

Item 9: Can't we all just get along? Part II (joining the rpg conferences)

Entered by orinoco on Sun Jun 15 15:19:53 1997:

Recently, I and the fairwitnesses of several other conferences have been
discussing combining our conferences.  The greatring, rpg, videogame, and mud
conferences all discuss various angles on the same topic, and are all
suffering due to lack of membership.  While the individual conferences cover
slightly different areas--as wide a spread as stage combat and mud
programming--all relate to the same basic idea--games involving some sort of
imaginary character or setting.  It is my belief that they could be combined
succesfully, and one active conference is better than four dead conferences.

This would be a fairly major change, though, and requires the support of the
members of these conferences.  So, I will request that this item be linked
into all the relevant conferences, so this idea can be discussed.  If there
is a positive response, and when any bugs get worked out, I will ask cfadm
to create a new conference, link in any important (and still-active) items
from the old ones, and retire the old conferences.

Please post any comments, suggestions, threats, etcetera, here.
62 responses total.
#1 of 62 by orinoco on Sun Jun 15 15:21:03 1997:

<This item now linked to greatring>

#2 of 62 by bjorn on Sun Jun 15 16:04:38 1997:

I for one, have already agreed to the merger.  However, I do think that we
should come up for a name for the amalgomated conference.  Unfortunately, I
do not have any such proposals.

#3 of 62 by orinoco on Sun Jun 15 18:13:19 1997:

Yeah...I will think about that...
Another thing to consider--we need to work out a plan for how fw duties will
be split.

#4 of 62 by coyote on Sun Jun 15 21:22:48 1997:

Well, I agree with this idea: if some people really have some problems dealing
with the discussions they're not interested in, they can just ignore them,
instead of keeping all these seperate conferences.

#5 of 62 by valerie on Sun Jun 15 23:25:25 1997:

This response has been erased.


#6 of 62 by e4808mc on Mon Jun 16 00:23:42 1997:

I read mud, greatring, and rpg but not video games.  I also finally learned
to use .cflist.  Doesnt matter to me whether they merge or not.

However, for new people, it would be far more convenient to have them all in
one cf.  *Grin* took me 7-8 months to figure out unix and .cflist.  I figured
out the forget command in about 2 days.

#7 of 62 by pfv on Mon Jun 16 02:45:40 1997:

        Slow learner ;->
        Forget is a must..

        they don't need to merge unless you've a space problem. Merely
        crosslink the confs as required, *OR*

        just consolidate, make all the FW the new FW and lose the bs
        headers and trailers typical of any grexian conf.

        Think of it all as practice in typing:

         f-o-r-g-e-t and
        f-i-x-s-e-e-n

        <s-m-i-r-k>

#8 of 62 by bjorn on Mon Jun 16 03:59:17 1997:

The true purpose of the merger is that the conferences are all suffering from
lack of use.  If we band together, we won't necessarily get the kind of
traffic that each particular fw is looking for, but at least the conference
will thrive.

#9 of 62 by orinoco on Mon Jun 16 15:05:11 1997:

valerie--yeah, there is that.  I would be willing to step down as fairwitness
rather than see the conference sink in bickering, but I don't know how many
of the other fairwitnesses would want to lose their posts--and I'd like to
keep mine if at all possible.  But the 'spokesperson' idea is a good one...

#10 of 62 by albaugh on Mon Jun 16 16:42:10 1997:

If the conferences combine, couldn't the combined conference with a new name
or the name of one of the constituents have aliases for the names of the
[other] constituent conferences?

#11 of 62 by bjorn on Mon Jun 16 16:45:10 1997:

I suppose that is a sensible idea, albaugh.  Considering orinoco's edge on
things, I too, might step down as fairwitness and I too agree on a conference
spoke person as a good idea.

#12 of 62 by tsty on Mon Jun 16 16:58:17 1997:

mergng works

#13 of 62 by valerie on Tue Jun 17 02:20:24 1997:

This response has been erased.


#14 of 62 by jenna on Tue Jun 17 19:09:49 1997:

well i haven't heretofor read any of those conferences
and probably wouldn't read some of them anyway, I think
combining them to get a larger particpatory group is
probably a good idea sas hey do contain a common theme.
(and I have been meaning to look at the ones with the rpging going on)

#15 of 62 by orinoco on Wed Jun 18 01:06:07 1997:

Yes, jenna, please do....pleeeeeease....
<grovels>

#16 of 62 by dpc on Fri Jun 20 15:58:17 1997:

Combining these conferences is an excellent way to combat the "lack of
critical mass" problem.

#17 of 62 by jenna on Sun Jun 22 20:52:06 1997:

oummm.... *looks at orinoco and then the rest of the world* Is that a
BAD sign? I'm asking the peanut gallery. Just for a clue, are any of them
completely dead?

#18 of 62 by orinoco on Sun Jun 22 20:54:55 1997:

As of now, greatring has begun to twitch a little, and the others are more
or less dead.  This is the real reason we're joining them--hopefully, together
we can reach critical mass and hold onto members.  When we do, and activity
starts up, please join us.

#19 of 62 by bjorn on Mon Jun 23 03:36:57 1997:

That was beautiful.  I have nothing to add.

#20 of 62 by remmers on Mon Jun 23 14:01:42 1997:

If the fairwitnesses are all in agreement that they'd like to
merge the conferences, and you're not getting howls of protest
from participants, then I see no reason why the merger shouldn't
happen. 

On the principle that the way conferences conduct their business
is the business of those conferences, I don't really see a need
for a full-blown discussion in Coop either.

#21 of 62 by orinoco on Mon Jun 23 19:59:20 1997:

The reason I entered this item was so that it could be discussed, and we could
see if any howls of protest arise.  The idea was for it to be linked to all
the relevant conferences and we could see what the participants think.  THat
seems not to have happened.

#22 of 62 by remmers on Mon Jun 23 21:32:40 1997:

Oh? Where is it linked to at the moment?

#23 of 62 by bjorn on Tue Jun 24 03:37:29 1997:

I don't know.  That's orinoco's department.

#24 of 62 by orinoco on Wed Jun 25 13:46:11 1997:

coop and greatring.  The hope was that we could get rpg and videogames in on
the discussion, as they would also be affected.  Ideally also mud, but mud's
sole fw has been reaped...

#25 of 62 by bjorn on Wed Jun 25 15:07:32 1997:

Hmm . . . that *IS* a problem.

#26 of 62 by pfv on Wed Jun 25 17:46:15 1997:

        reaped for age or cause? Either seems to suggest something, but
        I'm not sure what, at the moment..

#27 of 62 by valerie on Wed Jun 25 20:16:38 1997:

This response has been erased.


#28 of 62 by coyote on Wed Jun 25 23:36:06 1997:

Who, brenda?  In which case the ascii conference is fw-less, too, but that
doesn't seem to be an issue right now, 'cause it's quite dead anyways.

#29 of 62 by valerie on Thu Jun 26 14:20:52 1997:

This response has been erased.


#30 of 62 by orinoco on Thu Jun 26 18:39:20 1997:

Well, kain gandalf and z0mbie all have unread mail - most likely including
the note I sent them to link this item.  They seem to be either on vacation
or not grexing for the time being...

#31 of 62 by valerie on Fri Jun 27 06:24:42 1997:

This response has been erased.


#32 of 62 by bjorn on Fri Jun 27 15:06:44 1997:

Hmm . . . some of those aren't as far back as orin's reports.

#33 of 62 by valerie on Fri Jun 27 22:10:07 1997:

This response has been erased.


#34 of 62 by bjorn on Sat Jun 28 03:12:19 1997:

.tnioP dooG

#35 of 62 by jenna on Sat Jun 28 03:43:30 1997:

ok. i'm joining great ring. i'll probably not look at it til
next week either... moving (arg)

#36 of 62 by bjorn on Sat Jun 28 15:29:13 1997:

Hmm.  That's nice to know.  It probably won't be changed much by then.  Due
to technical difficulties yesterday, I was unable to write the battlescript
and even if I had, I wouldn't have been able to upload it until late in the
day.  Well, thanks for joining jenna!!  Maybe I can get this show on the road
again soon (considering that I work a normal 8 hour shift today but have
tomorrow, Monday, and Wednesday off . . .)

#37 of 62 by mneme on Thu Jul 10 19:04:35 1997:

I certainly don't have a problem with the merger (hell, greatring and rpg are
almost synonymous, aside from CCG and CRPG discussion in RPG occasionally).
        Regarding names, why not just call the new conference "Gaming"?  I 
suppose I could also be called FRP, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to have the
board gaming traffic (the non-existent board gaming traffic, that is) there
as well, as it has at least as much to do with RPGs as Computer games do.

#38 of 62 by valerie on Fri Jul 11 06:45:21 1997:

This response has been erased.


#39 of 62 by bjorn on Fri Jul 11 12:44:40 1997:

I remember that all too well, says vidar.

#40 of 62 by tsty on Sat Jul 12 05:27:02 1997:

do it?

#41 of 62 by bjorn on Sat Jul 12 13:22:16 1997:

Aye.

#42 of 62 by bjorn on Mon Jul 14 14:40:45 1997:

So our current proposed conference merger names are:
Gaming
FRP

Are there any other suggestions, anyone?

#43 of 62 by orinoco on Mon Jul 14 14:51:55 1997:

Hmm...
One possible name I've been thinking of is Realms, being as most such games
involve an imaginary setting.  It's a bit less obvious what the conference
is about, though...

#44 of 62 by bjorn on Mon Jul 14 18:15:43 1997:

I've actually thought of some names, and then noticed (mostly) copyright
problems with a lot of them . . .

#45 of 62 by orinoco on Mon Jul 14 20:23:22 1997:

do elaborate...

#46 of 62 by bjorn on Mon Jul 14 20:41:44 1997:

Well, actually I thought of calling it somthing like Amalagam, but that's DC's
and Marvel's collectively . . .

#47 of 62 by coyote on Tue Jul 15 22:32:54 1997:

Do you really think that a big company like those would get upset just because
you're using a work that they happening to be using also?  It's not like
you're illegally selling their goods or anything.

#48 of 62 by e4808mc on Wed Jul 16 01:26:27 1997:

Amalgam is not a word that I would use in searching for a gaming conference.
Think about being on a new system.  What keywords would you use to find these
different topics?  Gaming or games is one of the first that comes to my mind.
role playing, rpg, rpgs, muds, board games, all of those are words that I
would try long before I got to amalgam.  (OK, I'll confess, that is not a word
I would *ever* use in trying to find this conference.).

#49 of 62 by bjorn on Wed Jul 16 01:48:02 1997:

Well, we could be TOTALLY ridiculous and combine those names into a word .
. .
or we could just search for more before we decide to take a vote.

#50 of 62 by orinoco on Wed Jul 16 02:10:54 1997:

Well, darksun, the name of an old incarnation of the gaming conference, was
neither a public domain word nor an immediate first choice of a word, but,
as I recall, rpg would get you to the same conference.  If we want to take
a name like realms or amalgam, but then set rpg, mud, and game to point to
the same conference, it would be fine with me.

Actually, I do kinda like amalgam...

#51 of 62 by bjorn on Wed Jul 16 02:12:26 1997:

<smiles NegaVersally>

#52 of 62 by e4808mc on Fri Jul 18 21:10:22 1997:

I vote for amalgam if we have all those other pointers too.  

But, If someone is scanning the list of conferences, wouldnt it be nice to
have a name that evoked "hey, games, lets check it out" instead of "hmm,
amalgam, I wonder what that's about, have to check it out sometime when Ihave
nothing better to do but look through all these conferences with peculiar
words for titles.

#53 of 62 by bjorn on Sat Jul 19 03:34:32 1997:

That is a good point.

#54 of 62 by valerie on Sun Jul 20 02:23:12 1997:

This response has been erased.


#55 of 62 by orinoco on Mon Aug 11 17:06:58 1997:

Well, I'm going to mail kain, gandalf, and z0mbie one more time, and hopefully
we can get this damn thing done...

#56 of 62 by bjorn on Tue Aug 12 01:03:36 1997:

Yup.  That wuld be good 'n' stuff.

#57 of 62 by orinoco on Tue Dec 16 01:51:15 1997:

<This item has been linked to amalgam by some mysterious and shadowy figure>

#58 of 62 by bjorn on Wed Dec 17 15:24:39 1997:

<The mysterious and shadowy figure bows>

#59 of 62 by orinoco on Wed Dec 17 23:24:35 1997:

<The non-mysterious and brightly lit announcer applauds>

#60 of 62 by sekari on Thu Dec 18 07:28:35 1997:

(blink)
this is gettting too much like the larp

#61 of 62 by orinoco on Thu Dec 18 17:49:21 1997:

<counter-blink>
The larp?  The one and only?

#62 of 62 by teflon on Fri Dec 19 02:37:47 1997:

There can be only One! (and two-thirds)
I am point three five with the Earth!
-Sorry, just random in jokes...

There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: