Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision

From: lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000

soliiigm@aol.com (Sol III GM) writes:

>   Those who have followed this debate will note that it is consderably
> more restrictive than most of the Posters have wanted, but it is presented
> in a spirit of compromise, and the hope that seeing it in black and white
> will put some fears to rest.

I don't see anything about "only companies which support this group
get to post ads" -- are you giving up on that notion?

> D)  Signature Files that are attached to your posts on this newsgroup are
> considered appropriate advertising as long as they are short and concise.
> It is best to include a pointer to your Website or E-Mail.

No one disputes this -- why waste electrons by putting it in the FAQ?

> Other than posting basic information about your game, supporting your game
> on the group is encouraged -- if folks have questions, post and answer
> them.  It's only repetitive hype-filled postings, or perhaps repetitive
> answers of the same question, that will tick off Usenetters.

And folks, you can note that this paragraph is from the existing FAQ
-- but you know I'm a fire-eating monster who discourages gm's
from supporting their games, I must have been slipping when I
encouraged them.

>   Please now that you have read it, post your vote here.  If the margin is
> great enough, and the votes numerous enough, we might see this whole
> argument laid to rest instead of having to re-fight it every 6 months.

This isn't how Usenet conducts votes. If you want to conduct a straw
poll I would be interested in the result, but holding a vote by
posting is a great way to tick off vetern Usenetters, even the ones
who think I'm a jerk.

-- g

References

PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
soliiigm@aol.com (Sol III GM)
Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
soliiigm@aol.com (Sol III GM)
Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000