|From:||Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>|
|Subject:||Re: Admin Discussion on ShadowTK|
|Date:||Wed, 5 Oct 1994 18:07:58 -0500|
>Would it be possible for all discussion about formats, writing style, spelling
>mistakes and other random drivel be moved to the plot-d or maybe create
>another list so it doesnt hose down the real shadowtk discussions?
In my opinion, this is unnecessary. Aside from the intermittent outbursts
of frustrated administrators/participants (of which I admit to have
authored a few), format discussion is usually so rare that devoting YET
ANOTHER list to it would be a colossal waste of cpu time.
>I dont know if you have noticed this but (at least it seems that way to me)
>the amount of character to character discussion has DECREASED since you have
>started bitching about formats and stuff.
Formats were created to reign in the insanity of the first several months
of varying formats on ShadowTalk. Standardized encryptions were adopted to
stop this sort of thing:
***** ENCRYPT: MIND OF GOD, Version Infinity
***** DEITY BLACK IC (with BIG, BAD option) set to <standby>
***** Scanning . . .
***** WARNING: Tampering Detected
***** BLACK IC set to <active>
***** Target Locked: Infidel Netrunner
***** Running: HAND OF GOD; SMITE
***** Target MPCP Destroyed
***** Scanning . . .
***** STATUS: No further tampering detected.
***** (BIG, BAD) DEITY BLACK IC set to <standby>
***** Message Received.
>>>>>[ So, we still on for the clam-bake, eh? ]<<<<<
-- MunchKing <a:god:in/my-own-mind>
Which, as time progressed, these sort of abominations became altogether
more frequent. If one generates character development through the
utilization of clever encryption schemes, then, yes, one's avenues for
expression have been narrowed somewhat. However, the majority of those
who frequent this node appear to be of the opinion that characterization
is to be conducted and fostered /within/ the body of the message.
>When people post in character it prompts others to post in character. When
>people start posting things that AREN'T in character, it, in turn, prompts
>others to press the big "r" key to respond. In doing so they send a
>mail message ... WHERE ... to the shadowTK list. That mail message goes
>out to people expecting to get a response to their "So, we gonna hit Aztech
>tonight or what?" message and they get something more akin to "You suck, you
>can't spell, change your date, your format sucks, I'm cute, vote for me."
A few of the identifiable messages to which you refer occured exclusively
within the purview of the Plot-D list. I shall vouchsafe the point that
there IS the odd non-public message on ShadowTalk, but I should submit that
the magnitude of this problem is not so prodigious as you portray it. These
are primarily observed on Plot-D.
Administrative messages regarding format are pertinent to the list, if not
to specific storylines, and as such should not be considered out of place.
>(group, mailing list, thang) and would like to continue but the amount of
>(whining, bitching, moaning, twapping, drivel, screaming) that is going on
>is really putting a damper on my fun. I dont know if this is affecting
>others as it is me but I needed to speak my peace.
Again, this occurs primarily on Plot-D. If Plot-D is hampering your fun,
then by all means, un-subscribe. Plot-D membership is hardly a requisite
condition to successful participation on ShadowTalk; however, its purpose
is to merely /facilitate/ coordination of dramatic threads between
participants. My plotline, "Fall of Ganz," was initiated, coordinated, and
discussed solely through private correspondence. Only the second to last
scene of the final act, namely, the particulars of the assault on Gallean's
stronghold, appear on Plot-D.
> Administrators -- You need to play and live by your own rules. I don't
>mean just the formatting stuff, I mean the rules about what should be posted
>where. Bob, a couple of weeks ago, while it was useful to me, it was an
>intrusion into the TK file, posted the information about FASA's stance on
>internet use of FASA material.
Not all members of ShadowTK participate upon Plot-D. Sometimes this is
motivated by a lack of interest, for others it is simply a matter of disk
space -- not all participants have quotas in the range of multiples of
megabytes, for them participation is impracticable.
As it the issue you mentioned is quite salient as to the legal status of
this cluster of lists, even those who participate exclusively on ShadowTK
should be made aware of it.
Furthermore, I /do/ adhere to my own stipulations. In fact, I handle my
particular administrative duties exclusively via private electronic mail.
I did commit one faux pas in this, I admit, but it had the benefit of
at least one other user's impression of the regulations being rectified
without direct action. Nevertheless, I did not continue the practice.
> The FAQ says no .sig files. I nuked mine because I didn't want to
>screw up and have it accidentally posted. There have been a couple of bending
>of this rule.
Aside from administrative messages, as they are not elements of the
storyline and hence are not governed by formatting regulations, .sig
files are not permitted on ShadowTalk postings. When they are seen,
the particular individual is informed of the error. Typically, this
is a one-time error and quickly amended.
> When someone posts something that you feel is incorrect, be it format,
>content, or attitude, you can send the offender a mail message directly. My
You proceed from a false assumption. The motus operandi which you
submit is standard contemporary administrative practice.
>If you want a good time/dae format -- WRITE A SCRIPT to help people with
An excellent suggestion in theory, but the implementation would require
quite an undertaking. Given the wide range of platforms for respective
participants mail utilities, composing a program for each respective one
is a demanding and daunting proposal.
Having a standard format and requiring that members adhere to it is a
solution less fraught with vicissitude.
>Any comments, please mail them directly to me. I just needed to vent my
>frustration at having to see / read the posting FAQ 3 times in the past week
>or so (I'm certain I wasnt the only one to notice that).
Perhaps, indeed, the posting of the FAQ thrice in the past week was
excessive; however, I am not eager to criticize my associate, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, for his actions as they were hardly indicative
normal procedure. What I speculate Herr Carter was attempting to do was
initiate a crack-down on rogue formats, and indicate this publicly.
Despite your request for private replies, since you have made this an
issue of administrative policies, I believe a public reply is imminently
________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden