| From: | "Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: The FAQ and a few questions |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Oct 1996 03:04:10 +0100 |
<petesims@********.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hello everybody.
>Sorry if I tread on a few toes, I don't intend to but I'm bound to upset
>someone.
>In an effort to find out a little more about what is actually supposed
>to be going on here, I have used the FAQ to point out and clarify my
>questions. I apologise if this is taken in the wrong way but I have
>read the FAQ several times and have a number of questions for everyone
>here.
>
>I would just like to remind the "gang" here that are arbitrarily
>attacking anyone who visits these lists, that they are
Arbitrarily attacking people? Me? :(
>e:) Nowhere in the FAQ does it state that "permission" must be gained to
>to post in Shadowtk via PlotD. Nowhere in the FAQ does it state that
>anyone posting in Shadowtk, must discuss the nature of their posts first
>in PlotD
True. However, it's usually wise to explore any controversial ideas
before proceeding, especially if you're new (Brian Angliss and I had a
moderately spectacular falling out in January - long since amended -
over the style in which I leapt, feet first, into the list and his plot:
I'd like to spare others that inconvenience).
Throw an outline of what you intend to do up on plot-D. It's worth
doing, believe me: people will, generally, be glad to help develop side
aspects, offer new ideas you hadn't considered, may ask to use sidelines
as plot threads of their own, and so on.
It also lets you cover things you missed. For instance, I want to use
the battleship Iowa in a plot, probably in the New Year, so I asked on
Plot-D if there was any canon information on her fate. Since the answer
was "no", I could freely make up my own version :)
>The questions start from here.
>A. What is ShadowTK?
<snip quote>
>Where in this part of the FAQ does it state that Shadowtk is *just* for
>a:) Ongoing plot/game lines/threads
>b:) That it's not for the purposes of *in character* discussion of
>Shadowrun
In character discussion is fine, done right.
>>>>>[Hey, everyone, I might have some work the other side of the
Atlantic Toilet coming up. Anyone got any advice, warnings, or general
head-ups about pulling a run in Britain?]<<<<<
-- Blaze <now/today>
And off you go with a debate thread, like the ones about the Containment
Zone and how to handle insect spirits at the moment.
><quote>
>Posting to the ShadowTk list without following the GUIDELINES FOR
>POSTING will result
>in your immediate removal from the list, accompanied by a message
>requesting that you
>refamiliarize yourself with the ShadowTk FAQ. Once you have
>refamiliarized yourself
>with the FAQ, you are free to rejoin the list.
><unquote>
>
>OK this warning is quite plain, and shows no tolerance for newcomers.
>Mistakes *will* be made by people, this is an unavoidable part of
>everyday life. I am one of the offenders of this , so if you don't like
>it, unsub me, I can live with that. Of course, *all* of the current
>people posted perfectly in their first attempts, didn't they ????
>Also how do you determine that a person has *familiarised themselves*
>What is this 20 questions? An examination. ???
Basically, "don't do it again". Leaving your .sig file in is a common
mistake: I noticed I did it today, for instance :( Once in a while your
mailer burps or you hit "post" instead of "abandon" and you send out a
load of crap to ShadowTK, followed by a cringing apology to Plot-D when
you realise your error. Accidents happen.
Nobody's asking for perfection from newcomers, just an initial sign that
they've lurked a little and seen the formants, coupled to a willingness
to learn when mistakes are pointed out. It seems that some among us are
too keen to throw stones from inside their glass houses, from which I
apologise.
>One suggestion that the regulars may want to consider, is the
>possibility of a "Newcomers Guide to Posting" Handbook. During the time
>of the newcomers posting on Shadowtk, there have been a number of
>contradictory suggestions regarding posting formats, which seems to
>indicate that even the old timers don't agree or know all the answers.
:) Actually, this is less so that it might appear: there is a general
consensus, differing in detail. The handbook is a pretty good idea, I'll
see what I can come up with: if others do likewise we might get
something workable.
>We are exploring new territory, and are having to do so blindly.
Is it heresy to suggest lurking a while? :)
<snip>
>Now the above mentions that Shadowtk is to provide an *illusion of a
>Shadowrun BBS*, it says nothing here about games, or ongoing plotlines.
>My thoughts on the illusions of a SR BBS are an area where people *Talk*
>to each other. This seems to be backed up by the types of posts in the
>FASA sourcebooks. That is what we wanted to do. But when it is
>attempted, the post is invariably ignored. If it's not ignored, the
>guilty person posting a new thread, is politely *and* rudely told to
> "go away, this is an area for an ongoing game, and you're not
>invited."
>A bit drastic I feel.
A little strong, methinks. We've had in-character discussion of Jen and
Gabe, the assassination of Dunkelzahn, mercenaries versus samurai, are
currently working over tactics for fighting insect spirits... Even we
"old-timers" (sheesh, I only joined in January, the list ran for four
years before I arrived) often have posts go "plop" into nothingness
because nobody has time or is interested in them.
>Now as far as I can see it's for
>****Members of the list post as characters in genre, and by responding
>to each other's posts "in character", stories are developed. These
>stories may then be used by players and GMs alike as a basis for
>contacts, NPCs, and adventure plots in their own campaigns. ****
>
>OK, this implies that we are forming a story, but stories are a
>difficult thing to do, and do not allow for versatility of posting,
>again I would like to use FASA source material here, where the posters
>the Shadowland BBS, are commenting on current affairs, material
>available to them, and discussing this material, they are communicating,
>not telling stories. OK, it says in the FAQ, *stories,* but that is for
>the GM and players alike to create, the nature of the In Character
>discussion on certain subjects would provide enough examples of
>information, references to experience and data acquired to create that
>story, without the illusion of a *game* in progress.
....Again, I find the challenge of exploring a story within the limits
of the format quite enjoyable. There are a lot of ways to use the
available message formats, if you check the logs.
><quote>
>The first type of encryption is the "Private" message.
<snip>
><unquote>
>I did have a number of questions about the comments that have been made
>about the traffic through the list that we have been creating. These
>have been deleted, as we have sorted the problem amongst ourselves
>internally. However, I would still like to bring this part of the FAQ
>to your attention. It isn't clear here that *only Deckers* may post.
>Before I or any of the other newcomers make the mistake of mentioning
>tortoise computers, Shadowland is a difficult place to find, and
>requires a certain amount of skill on the part of a Decker to get there,
>this is one of the things we are confused about.
How your character has access should be in the back of your mind. Lilith
and Lynch post via SIGA. Quinn pays a Matrix Science geek at the
University of Washington to get her access. It might never surface, but
you should have an idea. After all, a lot of the comments in published
FASA material are from non-deckers - Hatchetman springs to mind, for
instance, as does most of the commentary appended to Fields of Fire.
>If this is a
>Shadowland, then it shouldn't be used for ongoing plots at all, or for
>that matter for games, but is (IMHO) a "cybercafe", where Deckers meet
>to talk and swap information news etc... Yet, to be perfectly honest
>there is very little of this type of traffic anywhere on Shadowtk.
It's more of a BBS. Not as hard to reach as Shadowland, but still
something you probably need a reasonably competent decker friend or
other reason to find and communicate with. Members of the public _do_
wander in from time to time by accident, though.
><quote>
>The third type of encryption, which isn't really an
>encrypt in the same sense as PRIVATE and NOT-TO is the
>INTERNAL message.
<snip>
><unquote>
>
>As regards the INTERNAL style of encryption, some people have suggested
>that *this* should be used, as if it were a telephone call between us,
>others have said that NO the PRIVATE tag is the correct one, and some
>have admitted to not knowing. Again there seems to be some confusion
>regarding the actual interpretation of some of the different forms of
>communication and how best to portray it. This is *really* something
>that needs to be sorted out.
>
>As you can see from the above. Internal is used for *insight* into a
>plot, so if a character is posting a question about something, he can
>include an "internal" line and explain what is being seen etc. Not for
>general chit chat.
INTERNAL is for material that would not credibly go over ShadowTK, yet
would exist on a computer somewhere. Remember, we are all reading this
through computer screens, so the format needs to be comprehensible thus.
For instance...
*****INTERNAL: SIGANet
>>>>>[TO: D J H Coppinger, Director
Sir, we intercepted this radio transmission from somewhere near
Baltimore.
+++++begin transcript
or
*****INTERNAL: Private Log, Colonel Tepanohoutec AIS
>>>>>[+++++begin playback
Who is behind this? Hiding data from me, defying my orders? Who would
have the gall?
....
*****INTERNAL: Lone Star Precinct 16
>>>>>[Got this from a traffic camera. Check the perpetrators, see if
they're known.
+++++begin video
The street is shown in the jerky, grainy black-and-white of an old
traffic camera. For some reason your attention is drawn to the black-
clad figure, face swathed in dark cloth, as she picks her way through
the seething crowds...
...
Private memos, transcribed conversations, incidents seen by drone
cameras, communications monitored by third parties, the INTERNAL header
has a lot of potential.
>As was suggested to use this for telephone conversations between the
>players, I would suggest not. It can be used to elucidate a point that
>is undergoing discussion, as if captured using evesdropping equipment,
>but to expect a Shadowrunner to use a telephone for delicate
>communication is tantamount to walking into a Lone Star squad room,
>claiming that you're a Shadowrunner, and that ACAB, and dropping your
>trousers to punctuate the point. Not conducive to long term survival.
Bear in mind that InterPol, most corps, many nations, et cetera all
monitor this BBS also. While it requires the consent of the _players_,
even PRIVATE and encrypted posts can be broken with the application of
enough processing power: this has happened before and will probably
happen again. It is _not_ a private forum; Lilith and Lynch are UCAS
government agents and freely admit it, for instance.
>I notice that others in the list use the "non stamp" idea ie:
><**:**:**/**-**-**> is this usual or is it that seeing as none of you
>are newcomers it's OK coz your not newbies. I have been told that it is
>highly frowned upon, because - as the FAQ states -
>
> There are some industrious "Deckers" that alter the time-
>date stamp into saying something else.
> While this can be fun, it is generally accepted that only
>VERY expert Deckers can do this, not
> listmembers who are too lazy to check the date and time
>for a message. It is /not/ a trivial task
>
>Right, now, in some cases this policy is ignored, and a couple of
>deckers do post without the T/D stamp, how does one go about achieving
>this. Does one ask Mark directly after posting a bio of the Decker
>character, or in PlotD, or what. It must be possible, because I've
>noticed it quite a bit in other posts. I'm not advocating that we, as
>newcomers are *going* to do it.
As a for-instance, none of my characters modified their T/D stamps, nor
had the means or ability to do so. Then Karlsbruhn, the SIGA decker who
works most with Lilith and Lynch, suffered badly under black IC, and has
been a little... strange since. He now makes the effort to change his
T/D. Once in a while he changes those of the other accounts in his care,
rarely to something the user would choose.
Being able to hack your T/D indicates decking prowess of some order, and
is better done after a while (to add emphasis showing off a new
processor or new software, for instance).
Also, _not_ hacking T/D might mislead others about your abilities.
><quote>
>The best guideline for posting format can be found in the FASA
>rulebooks, but in summary, a post should be made as follows:
><unquote>
>
>OK, this speaks for itself, but nowhere in the FASA sourcebooks do they
>have a bunch of people playing a game, they're commenting on current
>affairs, swapping information and generally misbehaving, there are also
>quite a lot of "personal" posts to each other. None of this follows a
>rigid plot line.
>
><quote>
>***** (Key Word): Name List (optional)
>>>>>>[Text to be discussed]<<<<<
> -- ID < Time / Date >
><unquote>
>
>We have been trying to follow this method, but occasionally a mistake is
>made. Some of us get somewhere in the region of 350-400 posts a day, so
>once in a while after answering a considerable amount of mail it is
>possible to get into a situation where one is operating under autopilot.
I would say that if you're _that_ busy, perhaps you shouldn't get too
involved with ShadowTK... it has a habit of devouring spare time. In my
case I delete almost everything mage- or decker-related from ShadowRN
almost unread these days, because I devote more of my attention to this
list.
>Yes some of us have included a .sig. In the majority of occasions it has
>been a single .sig in the initial post, and has been jumped on publicly
>by the rest of us, as will be noticed by the comments within the thread
>itself. The attacks that have been made privately and publicly are not
>only unnecessary but also show a considerable intolerance and arrogance.
Agreed. Let him among us who is without stone cast the first sins.
>Sometimes this happens by default with the mailer, and can't be helped.
Here I disagree. If your mailer _always_ adds a .sig, it's broken. When
I leave a signature on, it's because I forgot to delete it, nothing
else.
>It says above that it is unnecessary to do it, but not that it is
>*against the law.* Again, sometimes it happens, and when your going
>through a lot of mail, it's sometimes a reflex reaction to hit send, and
>once that's done there's no way to stop it. The people being complained
>about have a busy life, and receive a *lot* of mail.
The problem is that Nightfox has to edit all this into a coherent log
file, and signatures add to his workload.
><quote>
<quoting previous text snipped>
><unquote>
>
>Yes it is frowned upon by the list to quote. And I can agree to the
>reasoning with this method of thought. It makes a lot of sense, and
>shouldn't be necessary. However, it is standard policy everywhere else,
>to quote previous text. Where we are new to this, mistakes will be
>made. What I fail to understand is the intolerance and outright bigotry
>displayed by some people here. I'm not attacking everyone on PlotD,
>some of you have been more than helpful, and extremely polite, but one
>or two apparently just look for an excuse to bitch. Isn't there enough
>hatred in the world without some sad sack bringing it to a mailing list
>as well.
I would point out, Pete, that a week of lurking would have addressed
many of these concerns: these lists are ongoing and stable, and while
the idea of the Great Invasion of the ShadowRN Readers is a good one
(more players, more ideas, more variety) it helps to know what you're
getting into.
This is not a standard list: it's pretty esoteric to many people. It's
been running, well, since 1992, and the rules have evolved over time
into what works best. They'll carry on evolving.
>I was very much under the opinion, as are a great many
>other people, that Shadowtk, is for In Character discussion, this is
>also made apparent by the FAQ, .... However, it would appear that
>something is wrong. Any attempt at discussion of Shadowrun society,
>rumours, reports, opinions etc. made in Shadowtk is immediately jumped
>upon unless it is in "game" form and discussed first in PlotD.
Not in my experience, I have to say. Again, sometimes matters are raised
that simply don't attract responses, whether plot starters, discussion
points, or whatever: but that's often because some of us only have a
finite amount of time to spend on these pleasantries and can't answer
_everything_ that interests us.
One thing that concerns me greatly is the idea that the Invasion Force
consider themselves to be one half of a "us and them" situation. I'm
_part_ of the Invasion Force and have a character in there, because I
think that attitude will damage the list a great deal and want to try ro
break it down and get the IF integrated: personally I'm deeply concerned
at the newcomers' feeling so persecuted, since without new blood this
list will wither.
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
