EdMar...@papy.com (Ed Martin) wrote:
>kllra...@POBoxes.com (Kyle Langston) wrote:
>>mcar...@teleport.com (Michael E. Carver) wrote:
>>>Ed Martin (EdMar...@papy.com) wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>: 1) Ignorant flames. Hey, I don't mind taking some heat up here.
>>>: However, when things get totally out of hand like they did with the
>>>: ICR 2 patch, that's when I say ENOUGH. I said then that I would never
>>>: make another post regarding ICR 2 and I never will. Was it a bad
>>>: situation? Yes. Did the postings/flames go way too far? Absolutely.
>>>: Who ends up losing? Not me! I don't NEED to be here. I don't NEED to
>>>: try to help answer questions. The people who pushed my too far on the
>>>: ICR 2 issue know who they are, and I hope they realize the result. I
>>>: never will comment on the product again... I don't even read the
>>>: threads anymore. Who's going to answer your questions now?
Please, just let the ICR2 thing go. The vast majority of respectul
people using ICR2 and reading this newsgroup were the ones punished,
not you. I read the flames, I know what you are talking about- very
bad flames. But this is USENET, there is no avoiding that sort of
junk. It is best to ignore them and focus on the people being
respectful, as Rick generally did. That is how this medium works.
I sort of wanted to just let the whole thing die, but since you've
brought up ICR2 again, there is something I feel obliged to share. It
was pretty obvious that Sierra/Papyrus threw you in to the ICR2
threads, and that you had no interest whatsoever in being there. And I
would say that is a lousy job to shove on anyone, given the state
things had degraded to due to Sierra's support neglect of ICR2. But
what stinks is that now it seems like you are using the poor ICR2
slobs that have been left in limbo by Sierra for corporate reasons, to
make an example of us to the NASCAR guys- like "If you NASCAR guys act
up like the ICR2ers, I and Sierra will drop you too!"
As if that is why ICR2ers really were being dropped.
All this may just be a creative corporate technique, or maybe it is
just an unconcious thing... but whichever, they sort of work together-
you really didn't want to be in the threads anyway, and you took the
first ticket out of there, sort of like Sierra's whole attitude with
ICR2.
Please, let the ICR2 thing go- we lose, we have lost, and I think
everyone already knows that Sierra doesn't give a damn about ICR2- it
bought Papy because of NASCAR, and people who bought/buy ICR2 are out
to hang. Ya, we figured that one out- took 8 months, but it is plain
as day to anybody who lived through the last 8 months.
Sierra has not bettered it's name with this manouver.
>>>: 2) Piracy. For God's sake, people, if you're going to try to rip hard
>>>: working people off by freely distributing software, DON'T DO IT IN
>>>: FRONT OF THEM. Do you know how many times I've seen stuff up here
>>>: about FTP sites, warez newsgroups, Daytona hacks, Indianapolis Motor
>>>: Speedway give-aways, and the like. You know how that makes me feel?
>>>: I'll tell you... every time, my reaction is "why the hell am I up here
>>>: trying to help people like this?" The only thing that keeps me coming
>>>: back is the realization that it is the vast minority of people who are
>>>: doing this, and there are a lot more honest people that I'm hopefully
>>>: helping than there are scum-bags trying to rip off my company. But
>>>: that realizaton is starting to wear thin.
What is this, another "creative corporate technique?!?" It is no
surprise to anyone that Sierra is not in love with piracy of their
products.
And I'm certainly against priacy as much as the next guy, I paid for
my INDY500, ICR, NASCAR, ICR2 and now MP's GP2. It is a little sad
that with ICR2 I paid for something that will never complete it's
evolution to a fully working sim. I know that is not piracy... but
what should we call that? Sad, is about all I can think of.
>>>: 3) Noise. There is so much traffic up here, it's tough to find what
>>>: you're looking for. The result is that peolple ask the same things
>>>: over & over again. Also, the same discussions end up taking place in
>>>: multiple threads.
Agreed
>>>: 4) My latest favorite: bogus postings. Some idiot thought it would be
>>>: funny to post something with my name on it this weekend. That's the
>>>: stuff that puts me over the edge. Do I need this? What a total
>>>: moron!
This is USENET for christ sake- Don't you realize that you are asking
some depraved, angry guy to do it again? You just can't taunt ,
discipline, or threaten around USENET without consequences, that is
something we all have had to learn at some point or another about this
medium.
Sierra might want to take some tips from Microprose- Tonight I learned
how Crammond does it. Read the threads: MP says he has some guys
extract posts for him, so he doesn't get flamed, and doesn't really
have to deal with USENET bizarrity.
>>>: Just about all of the arguements up here that I've heard against
>>>: spliting r.a.s. up have been along the lines of "hey, I like reading
>>>: about all the different racing sims". OK, so explain to me why
>>>: splitting r.a.s. into separate areas of interest would prohibit this?
Let 'em split, I agree with you. But first it must be established that
all people getting R.A.S. now could get the three split groups too...
that may not work, and then a lot of people are left in the dark.
>>>: I think we should split r.a.s. into differnet areas. You know what?
>>>: I'll frequent every one of them. However, it will give me the the
>>>: ability to approach each one differently, sort through the noise more
>>>: efficiently, and enjoy each one of them more than r.a.s. Yes, in
>>>: comparison to many other newsgroups, this one is "moderate" in the
>>>: amount of trafic it gets. However, that doesn't mean that it's not
>>>: time to split this one up. There are some VERY focused areas of
>>>: interest up here, each deserving of it own forum. Remember, just
>>>: because r.a.s. gets split up doesn't mean that you can't take part in
>>>: each of the pieces. Spliting it up is just going to make it easier &
>>>: better.
I'm all for the splitting. I think it would be good for everyone.
NASCAR might even want a separate Hawaii group, since that seems to be
it's own sort of discussion.
>>>Can't debate this issue as it is purely a personal preference.
>>>In closing Ed, it sounds like what you are really looking for is
>>>a moderated newsgroup.
Just a reminder to all: Ed is speaking here for himself, sure, but he
also is representing a product and a corporation. I think you can bet
money that Sierra would love the group to be moderated, and they would
love to step up to the job. Remember, this isn't like a newsgroup
discussing aeronautics or philosophy, this is a group centered around
comercial products. I think that makes it very difficult and dangerous
to moderate.
>>> This is the ONLY way to solve the other issues
>>>you outlined. Splitting up a newsgroup to solve these issues is purely
>>>a panacea. One simply spreads the problem over a wider area so it
>>>appears that it is better.
Racing sims seem to be getting more popular, and inevitably they will
have to split or lose readership. R.A.S. is a "wild and wooly" beast
as it is now. What would be wrong with having 2 or three other groups
to subscribe to?
The only worry is that perhaps a lot of servers wouldn't pick the new
groups up, for whatever reason... in that case, it could get scary;
ICR2 threads could, for instance, could just evaporate for many USENET
readers. I just don't know how that stuff works.
>>>I am not flaming and I am not knocking Ed for his point of view. This
>>>is purely an open and frank discussion of the issues at hand. Thanks
>>>for listening...
Michael, you are a good man. If there were a moderator, you should get
paid for the job.
>>>--
>>>**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
>>I don't think Ed was providing reasons for the creation of a new group
>>so much as he was detailing his frustrations dealing with this one.
>>Kyle Langston
>>E-mail - kllra...@POBoxes.com
>>PowWow - kllra...@worldnet.att.net
>Exactly right, Kyle.
>On a related note, Tony Johns & a number of other "famous" r.a.s.
>people have been communicating via e-mail about this for quite a while
>now. As a representative of one of the companies that creates these
>sims, I don't think it's appropriate for me/us to take the lead in
>this whole thing. However, I'm fully behind Tony' initiative to
>create multiple focused r.a.s.'s, and I don't necessarily think it
>would be the worst thing in the world if they were moderated (however,
>I would be part of them in either case).
>I want to again voice my plea for Tony & Thomas to try to get in synch
>on this whole thing. I think they both have the same good idea, but I
>think if it's going to be done, we need more than just
>rec.autos.simulators.nascar. That's hardly fair to the other areas of
>interest up here -- all of which I want to be part of.
>BTW... this is the best damned discussion I've seen on r.a.s. in a
>LONG time -- intelligent, "professional", articulate & insightful. I
>applaude eveyone who is participating! I wish it worked this way all
>the time. The fact that it doesn't is exactly the problem.
You are a smart guy, so you must know that ICR2ers feel (right or
wrongly) that they got royally ripped off, so we all know why the ICR2
threads reached a boiling point. People started to realise that they
were getting cut off, and they flipped out.
I really think you'd benefit from Rick's old method- just don't
respond to anything not worthy of response. And about people faking
your name- sure, that really sucks, but let me point something out:
you threatened all ICR2ers because of the actions of a minority, and
of course some people, already feeling ripped off
...
read more »
