Re: Awright, let's get this straight, people

From: Gary Baines <g.baines@dial.pipex.com>

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Chris Kessel wrote:
>
> |> >As for free PBM's, as long as the moderator is voluntarily running the
> |> >show for no money, sounds fine to me.  People have been advertising
> |>
> |>   Let me get this straight.  You are saying that free games can advertise
> |> to their hearts content, but commercial games should not be able to?
> |> Since both are providing the same service, and the only difference that is
> |> apparent is what it costs to play, that is somewhat strange.
>
> No, the difference is whether or not your making money by abusing the
> tax-backed Usenet to get free advertising.

That's just plain silly Chris.  The principle of advertising on usenet or
anywhere else for that matter, is the same whether the person doing it is
advertising a free game or a commercial game.  It's still advertising, it's still
letting everyone know about a service, and so what if someone is making money
from one of the games.  Presumably those who play think the games worth it and
both forms of advertising effect everyone here in the same way.

<snip>....
> I said before, I'll say it again.  Noone can really stop you from
> abusing Usenet.  The only thing in your way is your own sense of
> right and wrong.

What you have to decide is what's on topic for this group.  In my view as a
player, PBM and information about PBM/PBEM is on topic, and if this includes the
occasional plug from GM's (whether offering free games or not - I see no
difference between them to the rest of us) then I'm happy with that and prefer it
that way.

What I would like to see is a more friendly atmosphere on this group.  Every time
I come back to browse it and make the occasional post, I can almost guarantee
that the old advertising arguement will still be booming, and every time the main
person railing against advertising is the same, (although half the time the rest
of us wouldn't consider what he complains about as advertising).

So to calm things down, how about the following couple of guide lines to start
with:

1. Occasional informative posts from gm's can be sent to this group.  1 month has
been bandied about.  If it was some sort of newsletter then I think that would be
fine, if it was a more bare faced advert then perhaps 3 months?

2. If a player asks for info on this group, I would prefer to see a more
friendlier response that just "see Greg's pbmlist".  Certainly they should be
made aware of it as Greg does a good job keeping it upto date and I'm sure it is
very useful to new players, but I don't see anything wrong with gm's and
hopefully other players letting the person know about their games.  I say
hopefully other players will post, because a recommendation from another player
rather than a gm is obviously of more value.  We all, and I hope Greg agrees,
have to understand that the pbmlist is just one source of PBeM information.

3. If we can all be more civil to each other then perhaps more players will be
willing to post on topic stuff and let everyone know about the games they are
playing and what they think of them.  That's what I'd really like to see on this
news group.

To that end I'll start by letting you know what I'm currently in:

I'm a long standing player of WWIV with Pagoda games.  This is a 40 player war
game with unit technology starting off at around 1940's level and progressing to
modern and near future levels through research.  The aim is for a single player
to reach 1000 victory points which are computed by the amount of territory you
own and your tech levels.  Great fun and very cut throat.  I often see it as a
complex game of Diplomacy.

The other game I'm currently playing is Odyssey.  I'm in game 11 of Heroes Quest
(just gained control of my first guild!) and have just started the first game
using the latest scenario "Only the Strong" which is faction based and looks very
good so far (only had 1 turn).  For anyone who doesn't know, Odyssey is a fantasy
character war game/roll-playing game (as far as any computer moderated game can
be said to be).  It is similar is many ways to Legends and I am told to Olympia
(although I've never played that).  It is fairly complex but well worth the
effort.

That's about it for now.

Cheers

Gary.

It's pretty clear from your posts that money
> matters more to you than your ethics.  Given that I suppose its
> pointless to respond any further.  You've made it clear money
> drives your viewpoint.

References

Re: Awright, let's get this straight, people
thor@netwit*7*.net.au (Steve Johansson)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Awright, let's get this straight, people
soliiigm@aol.com (Sol III GM)
Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Awright, let's get this straight, people
chrisk@iago.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Chris Kessel)
Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Awright, let's get this straight, people
thor@netwit*7*.net.au (Steve Johansson)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Awright, let's get this straight, people
soliiigm@aol.com (Sol III GM)
Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Awright, let's get this straight, people
chrisk@iago.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Chris Kessel)
Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000