Re: Why no rec.games.pbEm?

From: echack@crl.com (Edmund C. Hack)

Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000

In article <800297837snz@sandj.demon.co.uk>,
Simon Reed  <simon@sandj.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm sure someone has raised this question before but it appears in no FAQ I
>have seen.
>
>I am *not* interested in PBM, only PBeM.  IMHO it would be convenient to
>have a rec.games.pbem as well as rec.games.pbm
>
>a) has this been attempted before?

Not to my knowledge, spanning about 4 years on Usenet

>b) is there a good reason (besides the usual "too many newsgroups already")
>   why there this should not be done?

Sure. The message traffic here is pretty low, with only a few games
(Olympia, BSE, Galaxy) generating significant numbers of messages, so I
see no need for a split. Get to 150 messages a day, with a trend showing
a movement to 200/day soon and I'd support a split, though probably
along game specific lines.

>c) am I being unreasonable?
>
No.

>I appreciat a number of games allow/require turns to be sent in by post
>or email, where they would live I do not know!

That is the key problem - what to do with games that take turns both ways.

--
Edmund Hack  \  "I screamed and ran to smash my favorite slot machine" - Bowie
echack@crl.com \  "If gambling was drugs, craps would be heroin" - J. Binion
Houston, TX      \  "Cards for sorrow, cards for pain." - R. O'Brien

References

Why no rec.games.pbEm?
Simon Reed <simon@sandj.demon.co.uk>
Fri, 12 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000