rec.autos.simulators.nascar

Consider this the formal proposal for the new newsgroup. Start adding the yes votes for this. While the comments about the GP2 being released are valid, the point is NASCAR, ICR and GP should be seperate areas.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>Consider this the formal proposal for the new newsgroup. Start adding >>the yes votes for this. While the comments about the GP2 being released >>are valid, the point is NASCAR, ICR and GP should be seperate areas. >Pardon the comment Thomas, but wher did YOU come from, I don't recall >seeing to many posts from you recently, if you are only interesed in >Nascar or ICR or whatever set up you newsreader to ignore other stuff. >I personally give this idea ther BIG no, i don't want to have cross >posted articles from 5 or 6 newsgroups to wade through. >Anthony

I also vote NO! I did not cry when I had to wade through tons of posts about Hawaii and Daytona and the king etc. I just ignored those threads using a simple threaded newsreader 'trn'. I guess if they really got on my nerves I could have even added hawaii to my kill file. Seems now that GP2 mania is in full swing our oval racing friends want to really disrupt things by breaking up our favorite newsgroup and making us wade through a bunch of different groups which all basically deal with the same thing. I say, just wait a few weeks and the gp2 posts will die down and we will be back to the usual Nascar2 threads and the I saw Elvis playing Nascar at Daytona on ET threads. If you really can't stand it, then by all means get a real newsreader and stop using that terrible Netscape as a newsreader, get one that has real features like killfiles and threading. By the way, in my limited use of Win95 newsreaders, NewsXpress and Gravity seemed to offer these features and they were free, although probably other ones do also. Now if only GP2 finally comes out here in the good 'ole U.S. of A soon! Cheers. --John -- ------------------- John (Joao) Silva http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva Seattle, Washington USA.

I vote NO. There isn't enough traffic here to warrant creation of another group. When a new product comes out there is usually a flood of posts about it, but overall the number of posts here never gets too high.

I disagree. I personally love all the sims and race each of them. We all learn more from hearing each other's views, and it's easy enough to ignore the stuff you don't want. Us GP fans had to suffer an avalanche when Hawaii arrived, and probably another with NASCAR2 - it'll die down soon. Cheers! John _________________________________ __ _____| |_____ __ ________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________ \ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | / > :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | < / :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \ /______:/ \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \::/ \._____\ http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~harmon/simnews

Quoted text (41 lines)

> >>Consider this the formal proposal for the new newsgroup. Start adding > >>the yes votes for this. While the comments about the GP2 being released > >>are valid, the point is NASCAR, ICR and GP should be seperate areas. > >Pardon the comment Thomas, but wher did YOU come from, I don't recall > >seeing to many posts from you recently, if you are only interesed in > >Nascar or ICR or whatever set up you newsreader to ignore other stuff. > >I personally give this idea ther BIG no, i don't want to have cross > >posted articles from 5 or 6 newsgroups to wade through. > >Anthony > I also vote NO! > I did not cry when I had to wade through tons of posts about Hawaii and > Daytona and the king etc. > I just ignored those threads using a simple threaded newsreader 'trn'. > I guess if they really got on my nerves I could have even added hawaii to > my kill file. Seems now that GP2 mania is in full swing our oval racing > friends want to really disrupt things by breaking up our favorite > newsgroup and making us wade through a bunch of different groups which all > basically deal with the same thing. > I say, just wait a few weeks and the gp2 posts will die down and we will > be back to the usual Nascar2 threads and the I saw Elvis playing Nascar at > Daytona on ET threads. > If you really can't stand it, then by all means get a real newsreader and > stop using that terrible Netscape as a newsreader, get one that has real > features like killfiles and threading. > By the way, in my limited use of Win95 newsreaders, NewsXpress and Gravity > seemed to offer these features and they were free, although probably other > ones do also. > Now if only GP2 finally comes out here in the good 'ole U.S. of A soon! > Cheers. > --John > --

I also vote no, i think Ed would too, he would have to go from the ICR newsgroup and the Nascar one back and forth to answer questions. Plus, i like to hear about ICR2 and GP2 even if i only have Nascar. -Keith Speroni http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/2172

I will take the leadership role if no one else will...just point me in the right direction as to whom i need to contact.

I agree fully.

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:23:27 -0500, "Thomas E. Retkowski" Actually, to submit a proposal for a newsgroup, there's a pretty long and detailed RFD process involved. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just saying "Let's make a news group". -- Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Quoted text (8 lines)

>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:23:27 -0500, "Thomas E. Retkowski" >>Consider this the formal proposal for the new newsgroup. Start adding >>the yes votes for this. While the comments about the GP2 being released >>are valid, the point is NASCAR, ICR and GP should be seperate areas. >Actually, to submit a proposal for a newsgroup, there's a pretty long >and detailed RFD process involved. Unfortunately, it's not as simple >as just saying "Let's make a news group".

Or maybe in some cases, fortunately :) My 1.5 cents. Ron R II *********************************************** ** Keep the shiny side up & the hammer down ** *** Ron "Cougar" Riekens II *** **** Owner - Driver **** **** Medallion Motorsports/*** Photography **** *** NASS ARCA Series #96 Pontiac *** ***********************************************

Pardon the comment Thomas, but wher did YOU come from, I don't recall seeing to many posts from you recently, if you are only interesed in Nascar or ICR or whatever set up you newsreader to ignore other stuff. I personally give this idea ther BIG no, i don't want to have cross posted articles from 5 or 6 newsgroups to wade through. Anthony

Silva) sent shooting through ***space: [snip] The issue here is really a lot bigger than just the release of GP2. NASCAR is coming out with the NRL pretty soon, which is its own racing series in its entirety. The sheer amount of information necessary for the NRL requires its own group; if not rec.autos.simulators.nascar, then rec.autos.simulators.nrl or something. Another thing to consider is the fact that Ed and Adam at Papyrus have been getting flamed by everyone for the ICR patch lately, when they DON'T EVEN WORK ON THE BLASTED ICR SIM! Mix into the bunch all the cross-flaming about how one racing style (open wheeled vs. stock car) kicks ass over the other, the general flames directed at certain simulators by fans of others... that is NOT productive traffic. Splitting up the newsgroup will not make information harder to find -- if anything, people will know BETTER where they can find info on a particular simulator. FYI, rec.autos.simulators will STILL be around. People will just go to the specific newsgroups in case they want to find purely NASCAR, F1, or ICR information WITHOUT wading through piles of Screamer, Need for Speed, etc. posts. By the way, I've talked with some Papyrus people and they're VERY reluctant to stick around here thanks to the cross-flaming and non-sequitorism. I think splitting the rec.autos.simulators groups into divisions would ease some of the pressure on them a bit as well. My .00002 cents... -- Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Quoted text (25 lines)

>The issue here is really a lot bigger than just the release of GP2. >NASCAR is coming out with the NRL pretty soon, which is its own racing >series in its entirety. The sheer amount of information necessary for >the NRL requires its own group; if not rec.autos.simulators.nascar, >then rec.autos.simulators.nrl or something. >Another thing to consider is the fact that Ed and Adam at Papyrus have >been getting flamed by everyone for the ICR patch lately, when they >DON'T EVEN WORK ON THE BLASTED ICR SIM! Mix into the bunch all the >cross-flaming about how one racing style (open wheeled vs. stock car) >kicks ass over the other, the general flames directed at certain >simulators by fans of others... that is NOT productive traffic. >Splitting up the newsgroup will not make information harder to find -- >if anything, people will know BETTER where they can find info on a >particular simulator. FYI, rec.autos.simulators will STILL be around. >People will just go to the specific newsgroups in case they want to >find purely NASCAR, F1, or ICR information WITHOUT wading through >piles of Screamer, Need for Speed, etc. posts. >By the way, I've talked with some Papyrus people and they're VERY >reluctant to stick around here thanks to the cross-flaming and >non-sequitorism. I think splitting the rec.autos.simulators groups >into divisions would ease some of the pressure on them a bit as well. >My .00002 cents... >-- >Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) >IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Thanks, Tony, for making the issue much clearer to everyone that doesn't seem to understand. Kyle Langston

I think there should be seperate groups for each division of auto racing. Just as John said, people like the swap info.But it's really easy to just ADD the groups you want to read. I vote YES for rec.auto.simulators.nascar Mick

>I think there should be seperate groups for each division of auto racing. >Just as John said, people like the swap info.But it's really easy to just >ADD the groups you want to read. I vote YES for >rec.auto.simulators.nascar >Mick It might be easy for you, but I assure you it's not easy for all of us. Some of us have to ASK our news admins to add new groups, and as an example lots of us (me included) still dont get the binary group where people post patches and such, because our admins cannot spare the bandwidth and storage space. Don't assume that your own experience is automatically just as easy for all others. Cheers. --John -- ------------------- John (Joao) Silva http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva Seattle, Washington USA.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>Consider this the formal proposal for the new newsgroup. Start adding >>the yes votes for this. While the comments about the GP2 being released >>are valid, the point is NASCAR, ICR and GP should be seperate areas. >I disagree. >I personally love all the sims and race each of them. We all learn more >from hearing each other's views, and it's easy enough to ignore the >stuff you don't want. >Us GP fans had to suffer an avalanche when Hawaii arrived, and probably >another with NASCAR2 - it'll die down soon.

I would have to disagree about adding more newsgroups. This is perfectly fine as it is. I have all the auto sims and I enjoyed driving them all. :) What's the big deal anyways?? Is it because now the big sim nowadays is GP2 and not Hawaii(NASCAR)?? Huh?? It seems as though everyone is starting to whine now, now that GP2 is out. Boo Hoo!! It also looks like some of the NASCAR boyz are jealous of the attention that GP2 is getting now. Face it NASCAR is getting old, but it's still a goodie.. I know I can at least kick ***on the ovals with you all...But let's goto the road courses now..!! You know World Status type courses.. Later Lamers...

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I fully support Tony's formal proposal to "the powers that be" to >split r.a.s. up into focus areas, and I will actively take part in the >official discussions & voting processs that is about to ensue. I >encourage all of you to do the same. >Ed Martin >Producer, Series Director >NASCAR Racing League >Papyrus / Sierra On-Line, Inc.

Now that we have Tony Johns leading the way and Ed Martin behind the idea, there's no stopping the creation of a new rec.autos.simulators newsgroup(s). Kyle Langston

Quoted text (9 lines)

>: The issue here is really a lot bigger than just the release of GP2. >: NASCAR is coming out with the NRL pretty soon, which is its own racing >: series in its entirety. The sheer amount of information necessary for >: the NRL requires its own group; if not rec.autos.simulators.nascar, >: then rec.autos.simulators.nrl or something. >Maybe! When NRL shows up and it shows it really deserves a sub-group, >we can decide then. I don't know where people get the idea that this >newsgroup is too big. Maybe you all need to get out more often and >visit other parts of the USENET world.

We can decide THEN? I believe that's called PROCRASTINATION. Kyle Langston

Quoted text (20 lines)

> : >Maybe! When NRL shows up and it shows it really deserves a sub-group, > : >we can decide then. I don't know where people get the idea that this > : >newsgroup is too big. Maybe you all need to get out more often and > : >visit other parts of the USENET world. > : We can decide THEN? I believe that's called PROCRASTINATION. > Deciding before you have the evidence to warrant a sub-group is called > pure speculation. Where is your evidence. I hope you don't say it's a > gut reaction, because that is called divination. Which by the way can > be done by reading the entrails. > Using your logic we would have tons of "forecasted" newsgroups > based on "vapor" demand. > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you don't want to be a part of it then don't, but don't tell the rest of us to stay...I've already been in contact with many of the simulation series directors and Ed Martin, and already submitted a proposal. My estimations project an easy approval.

It is probable there will be a vote date in the not too distant future. Ed Martin, Tony Johns, Richard Roddy and others should be getting back to me tomorrow and helping with the assistance I requested of them. Even if I hadn't started the ball rolling it seems given the response I've received that r.a.s.n is likely very soon. Those of you in ICR and GP2 I am sorry if this appears elitest, however, given the numbers I am looking at in support of this new group, it appears there has been an under-lying desire for it and no one spoke up until recently.

Quoted text (13 lines)

>I would have to disagree about adding more newsgroups. This is >perfectly fine as it is. I have all the auto sims and I enjoyed >driving them all. :) >What's the big deal anyways?? Is it because now the big sim nowadays >is GP2 and not Hawaii(NASCAR)?? Huh?? >It seems as though everyone is starting to whine now, now that GP2 is >out. Boo Hoo!! >It also looks like some of the NASCAR boyz are jealous of the >attention that GP2 is getting now. Face it NASCAR is getting old, but >it's still a goodie.. >I know I can at least kick ***on the ovals with you all...But let's >goto the road courses now..!! You know World Status type courses.. >Later Lamers...

I have to comment on the "now the NASCAR folks are mad because GP2 is gettng all the attention". Well, I would personally like to thank Microprose for releasing GP2. Now, I don't have to answer as many questions! <G> Ed Martin Producer, Series Director NASCAR Racing League Papyrus / Sierra On-Line, Inc.

: Now that we have Tony Johns leading the way and Ed Martin behind the : idea, there's no stopping the creation of a new rec.autos.simulators : newsgroup(s). Care to explain this to me? Since when did Tony Johns, Ed Martin and Kyle Langston Company control USENET? If you haven't noticed that there are more than 3-4 people contributing to this newsgroup. There are even far more people outside this newsgroup that control USENET. It will eventually come down to a vote. Any anyone who uses USENET can vote. I am not knocking you. You are welcome to campaign for your cause all you want. But what we want here is a logical discussion of the facts and issues. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Tony Johns ([email hidden]) wrote: [snip -- all snips are to items which I am not addressing] : I agree with you that rec.autos.simulators does not need to be split : into 10 separate groups for every software package that comes along. : But you have to realize that within the automotive simulators market, : there is a submarket called "racing sims," and within that sub-market : are some VERY distinct divisions. With the rate of growth not only in : racing simulators (i.e. Visiware contending with Microprose for F1 : dominance, EA's planned stock car sim, etc.), but in the racing : leagues that spring up from them (ESPECIALLY NRL, which is corporately : backed and is projected to generate a huge following), we need to at : least make these divisions. Dividing the newsgroup will not kill the : old hierarchy -- it will generate growth in each of the new ones. : Take for example my earlier example with rec.autos.sport. Once those : groups split, there was a meteoric rise in usership in all three : groups. The same will happen with r.a.s.f1, r.a.s.nascar, and : r.a.s.indy should they be approved. In the following r.a.s. will stand for rec.autos.simulators: Tony, I can see were you are headed here and yes there is a correlation here to a degree. However, if I recall rec.autos.sport was way busier than r.a.s has ever been. Though I am not saying that r.a.s. is not growing, it is. I also remember that alot of the reasons people wanted to "segregate" rec.autos.sports in their heart of hearts was that they were sick 'n tired of "my race sports better than your's and your's sucks" kinda things. In a way dividing up rec.autos.sports helped due to the large traffic it generated, but it didn't really help me because each of its sires generates way too much noise and traffic. Underscore noise, I don't necessarily see where dividing up r.a.sports, cut down on the flaming or other ill-mannered posts. It just keeps them all neatly in separate boxes. : What it WILL prevent is the necessity for Ed and Adam to have to : answer for a product they are not directly involved in. The obvious : question some might pose is, "Why SHOULD they be able to avoid the : questions? They work for Papyrus, ergo, they should be responsible : for ALL their sims." I disagree. Much of the flap over ICR2 stemmed : from the fact that Ed had to get his info second- or third-hand from : ICR2 techs. Maybe if the groups are split, some of the ICR2 techs : will actually get directly involved in r.a.s.i. As much as I feel for Ed, Adam, et al @ Papyrus for the sh*t they put up with. They were forwarding "company" policy issues to the public. It wasn't that Ed was simply guessing about something about ICR2 or NASCAR program structure for that matter. The issue being addressed had nothing to do with "tech" matters. I appreciate their attempt to keep us informed. To the best of my knowledge, the information they gave us was true. It just wasn't appreciated by the masses. I've seen Ed provide information recently that was corrected by another member of the Papyrus team. It all boils down to providing information. I am all for what ever we can do to facilitate this. It just seems a little naive to think that splitting up a newsgroup will help with this problem. : It depends what you're looking for. Think about it. If you want : information on NASCAR Racing, and there's only one newsgroup, you have : to pick around a ton of threads that have no mention of NASCAR at all : looking for information on it. I take from my Agent article list on : this last pass: : "Modem Play?" : "P200 frame rate?" : "Re: Rain" : "Release Date" : "Pity me and help !!!" : "TYRES" : ... etc. etc. etc. Not everyone puts the "required" subject header : information in their posts. Whereas, if you had specialized : newsgroups, like rec.autos.simulators.f1, if you had a question about : the F1 3-D physics model on a P200, you'd know EXACTLY where to go. Okay, splitting up a newsgroup is going to help this a little bit. But, there will still be "Help ME" "Question", etc. posts. So we've cut down the confusion a little. But, this also causes important information that can be shared across sim disciplines to be lost. So here I am posting a long treatise on setting up a Stock car for a road circuit. Hell, it's a brilliant piece of work. In fact the theories will apply equally well to all disciplines of the sport. But, since I am a NASCAR-Head, it gets posted in NASCAR and the Indycar racer never sees it. Yes, I know the arguement, "cross-post" it. Well, as you probably have realized 87.5% of the readers/lurkers don't even know what the hell cross-posting is, let alone how to do it. If they knew this much, they would be putting proper Prefixes in the Subject Headings ;). Okay, let's say I finally learned the fine art of cross-posting, that still leaves 87.49999% who don't know how to "un-cross-post" a followup. Especially the followups that have long since left their original subject matter. For example "Freon" -- "Driving Rental cars to Death". Admittedly these didn't belong in r.a.s. EVER. But how long did they persist? How many r.a.s.'ers posted to it (cross-posting & all)? Yeh, I know, there will still be the r.a.s group to post things that should be shared by all. Sorry, it will happen very rarely. If I am spending the last few months honing my NASCAR setup, why would I think of posting to r.a.s or r.a.s.i. about how to improve my frame-rate. But what is valuable in one situation is easily translated to the other. Lost information again. Another draw back to segration, is that people will not be exposed to the wonders of Hawaii (a.k.a. NRL), if they are a GP2 junkie or an ICR2 junkie. How many people got jazzed about Hawaii, cuz they saw a mention of it in r.a.s.? Some of them didn't even own NASCAR Racing, didn't even real care that it existed. But, hey, they saw all of the postings and all the excitement and went out and bought a copy of NASCAR and now own their souls to the phone company. LOST if we split up the group. : >Once again, dividing up newsgroups is not going to solve this issue. : >Creating a "moderated" newsgroup may be the only solution to prevent the : >above from happening. : Who would moderate it, though? That's the only thing keeping me from : doing a RFD for that idea. Ed and others have mentioned their desire : for such a group, but since a) we don't have IMPARTIAL moderators : lining up for the job and b) censorship issues have been raised : (USENET is a public resource), a better solution for moderated : discussion is a mailing list, which I am currently in the process of : creating on my new server (if anyone is interested). Maybe we should have a simple rec.autos.simulators.announce group that is moderated. This would deal with the important and informative posts and would require little or no real moderation. It would be more of a one-way broadcast. If any topic in r.a.s.a causes a need for discussion it could then happen in r.a.s. (or its many sires -- depending on the outcome here). : >Besides, what are we doing discussing this here? Doesn't this belong in : >another newsgroup? Actually, this is exactly what will happen when the : >groups get segregated. There will be posts which get ignored, cuz it : >supposedly didn't fit the "criteria" for said group. There will usless : >posts flaming someone for posting something in the wrong group. There : >will useless cross-postings generated because someone has something to : >say which they fill is approriate to another sub-group. : Yes, it does belong in news.groups, and I have cross-posted this : thread there to divert traffic to that group. But questions raised : here must be answered as well to present both sides of the question. Sorry, Tony I was being facetious. But, there is a valid point to this "go back to your corner of the world" attitude that is generated by "segrating" commonly linked groups. [my comments snipped] : I disagree again. There is a lot of discussion on NASCAR going on -- : it's just hard to pick out from all the rest of the topics. : Basically, I see this argument coming down to a division of : lassaiz-faire vs. expansion. Actually, I think my arguement is more in lines of avoiding "segragation" and compartmentalization of topics that share more in common than they do exclusive issues. : Here is the reality of the situation. In November, NRL will ship, and : it will be online and competing within six months of its release. It : will REQUIRE its own newsgroup, simply because it will move NASCAR : Racing out of the traditional realm of just another automotive : simulator -- it will be a racing series unto itself. My personal RFD : that I composed is designed to keep ahead of that, while at the same : time offering the F1 and IndyCar camps the same opportunity to divert : and expand their own content. You may have a valid point here. However this is pure speculation based on conjecture. Maybe what we really need is a new newsgroup devoted to Simulating Auto Racing On-Line and not the break-up of the r.a.s. community. Or do you forsee having to sub-divide r.a.s.n. in the future? : But hey, if you wanna vote no, that's fine -- everyone's entitled to : their opinion. But in my eyes this is not only necessary, but : beneficial in the long run. Hey, who said I was gonna vote NO. I thought we were just discussing the issues and facts here. At the moment, I feel just the opposite. I am afraid, that in the long run a "segragated" community is detrimental to our interests. But, I am trying to keep an open mind about this. It's just hard to make much of an opening in such a "pin-head" -- of course that would move me up to "needle-head" ;-) -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. ... read more »

Quoted text (9 lines)

>: >Maybe! When NRL shows up and it shows it really deserves a sub-group, >: >we can decide then. I don't know where people get the idea that this >: >newsgroup is too big. Maybe you all need to get out more often and >: >visit other parts of the USENET world. >: We can decide THEN? I believe that's called PROCRASTINATION. >Deciding before you have the evidence to warrant a sub-group is called >pure speculation. Where is your evidence. I hope you don't say it's a >gut reaction, because that is called divination. Which by the way can >be done by reading the entrails.

If enough people feel a separate newsgroup, or newsgroups, would help greatly in organization, isn't that enough evidence? We don't need to wait months from now, if the interest is already here. Kyle Langston

: > : > pure speculation. Where is your evidence. I hope you don't say it's a : > gut reaction, because that is called divination. Which by the way can : > be done by reading the entrails. : > : > Using your logic we would have tons of "forecasted" newsgroups : > based on "vapor" demand. : > : If you don't want to be a part of it then don't, but don't tell the rest : of us to stay...I've already been in contact with many of the simulation : series directors and Ed Martin, and already submitted a proposal. Hold on here just a minute. I am not telling anyone to do anything. We are in the discussion stage of this at the moment. We are supposed to be airing our concerns & voicing our opinions. All that has been "submitted" is a "request for discussion". That's what I thought we were doing. Later we can vote. Then we will find out what the majority wants. Until then, let's please attempt to have a civil discussion of the issues and attempt to respect each others opinions. There are alot of people who have a vested interest in this. You, the series directors & Ed Martin aren't the only people who use this forum. Besides, I don't want this to turn into a battle of "us" vs. "them". Feel free to voice your opinion and please allow me to be free to voice mine. : My estimations project an easy approval. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>: It is probable there will be a vote date in the not too distant future. [snip] [snip] No one can say Mike doesn't have a sense of humor. :-) Kyle Langston

On Sun, 21 Jul 1996 19:32:04 -0500, "Thomas E. Retkowski" On what, your CFD?? Did you even READ the procedure for submitting a newsgroup proposal? Man, you're just dying for attention, aren't you? Well, great then. I'll step out of the loop, let YOU do all the followup on the RFD when it comes through the administrative system for discussion. -- Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Tony and Michael both have some great points for both sides. In my experience, r.a.s. was a place to go AFTER I got NASCAR Racing. Once I knew how to search for websites related to it, these websites mentioned there was a newsgroup called r.a.s. And newbies aren't going to know to post with a header related to which sim they're referring to. Many times I've opened a thread thinking it was talking about NASCAR Racing when it was actually talking about another sim. I have to put in my vote FOR a divisional newsgroup. I don't normally read threads about F1 or Indycar sims but if I did, switching to that newsgroup wouldn't be that hard. After all, this IS the information superhighway ! :) The r.a.s. group should be a generic announcement and referral-type page for any racing sim fan. My 2 cents,

Quoted text (13 lines)

>: Now that we have Tony Johns leading the way and Ed Martin behind the >: idea, there's no stopping the creation of a new rec.autos.simulators >: newsgroup(s). >Care to explain this to me? Since when did Tony Johns, Ed Martin and >Kyle Langston Company control USENET? If you haven't noticed that there >are more than 3-4 people contributing to this newsgroup. There are even >far more people outside this newsgroup that control USENET. It will >eventually come down to a vote. Any anyone who uses USENET can vote. >I am not knocking you. You are welcome to campaign for your cause all >you want. But what we want here is a logical discussion of the facts >and issues. >-- >**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************

Well, Mike, I can only post logical discussions and debates in so many places before I just want to make it simple. Besides, you seem to be the only one that frequents this newsgroup that is debating AGAINST the idea. Perhaps you should prompt others to speak out against the creation of a separate newsgroup. Tony and Ed have just about said it all. What else is there to discuss? I'll be here to help reply to the people that post negative responses, but other than that, there is nothing more to do. P.S. When referring to posting debates and articles in various places, I wasn't talking about this thread in particular, and I wasn't trying to infer that I'm a crucial part of this debating process. Occasionally I get the motivation to type away about this issue, but when I see someone else has responded completely, which is usually the case, I'm not going to reply to that with "Yeah, I agree." Kyle Langston

sent shooting through ***space: I apologize; I shouldn't have led you to believe that SIZE is the issue here -- compared to other groups this one is a low volume group. But what IS at stake is the content. Rec.autos.simulators is undergoing a microcosm of what happened with rec.autos.sport a couple years back. The EXACT same reasons for "no" votes were forwarded, but the CFV eventually went through because of the logic inherent in the proposal. I agree with you that rec.autos.simulators does not need to be split into 10 separate groups for every software package that comes along. But you have to realize that within the automotive simulators market, there is a submarket called "racing sims," and within that sub-market are some VERY distinct divisions. With the rate of growth not only in racing simulators (i.e. Visiware contending with Microprose for F1 ***, EA's planned stock car sim, etc.), but in the racing leagues that spring up from them (ESPECIALLY NRL, which is corporately backed and is projected to generate a huge following), we need to at least make these divisions. Dividing the newsgroup will not kill the old hierarchy -- it will generate growth in each of the new ones. Take for example my earlier example with rec.autos.sport. Once those groups split, there was a meteoric rise in usership in all three groups. The same will happen with r.a.s.f1, r.a.s.nascar, and r.a.s.indy should they be approved. What it WILL prevent is the necessity for Ed and Adam to have to answer for a product they are not directly involved in. The obvious question some might pose is, "Why SHOULD they be able to avoid the questions? They work for Papyrus, ergo, they should be responsible for ALL their sims." I disagree. Much of the flap over ICR2 stemmed from the fact that Ed had to get his info second- or third-hand from ICR2 techs. Maybe if the groups are split, some of the ICR2 techs will actually get directly involved in r.a.s.i. It depends what you're looking for. Think about it. If you want information on NASCAR Racing, and there's only one newsgroup, you have to pick around a ton of threads that have no mention of NASCAR at all looking for information on it. I take from my Agent article list on this last pass: "Modem Play?" "P200 frame rate?" "Re: Rain" "Release Date" "Pity me and help !!!" "TYRES" ... etc. etc. etc. Not everyone puts the "required" subject header information in their posts. Whereas, if you had specialized newsgroups, like rec.autos.simulators.f1, if you had a question about the F1 3-D physics model on a P200, you'd know EXACTLY where to go. Who would moderate it, though? That's the only thing keeping me from doing a RFD for that idea. Ed and others have mentioned their desire for such a group, but since a) we don't have IMPARTIAL moderators lining up for the job and b) censorship issues have been raised (USENET is a public resource), a better solution for moderated discussion is a mailing list, which I am currently in the process of creating on my new server (if anyone is interested). Yes, it does belong in news.groups, and I have cross-posted this thread there to divert traffic to that group. But questions raised here must be answered as well to present both sides of the question. I disagree again. There is a lot of discussion on NASCAR going on -- it's just hard to pick out from all the rest of the topics. Basically, I see this argument coming down to a division of lassaiz-faire vs. expansion. Here is the reality of the situation. In November, NRL will ship, and it will be online and competing within six months of its release. It will REQUIRE its own newsgroup, simply because it will move NASCAR Racing out of the traditional realm of just another automotive simulator -- it will be a racing series unto itself. My personal RFD that I composed is designed to keep ahead of that, while at the same time offering the F1 and IndyCar camps the same opportunity to divert and expand their own content. But hey, if you wanna vote no, that's fine -- everyone's entitled to their opinion. But in my eyes this is not only necessary, but beneficial in the long run. -- Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

You said it, what's the big deal. There's no reason why subgroups should get any feathers ruffled. It's just like sports newsgroups. There is a main, general discussion group, and a subgroup for each team, for specific discussion. It's not a big deal, and some people are really getting carried away about this.

Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM Distribution: : Well, Mike, I can only post logical discussions and debates in so many : places before I just want to make it simple....... Keeping that thought pattern, Could who ever is working on the vote process please post some sort of charter that will help those interested to vote. Something that describes exactly what the split will produce and if more than one split which groups will result etc... For instance will there be several new groups like r.a.s.nascar r.a.s.F1 r.a.s.GP etc..., or will this result in just one more group called r.a.s.nascar? Personally, I feel that a several group split off would be good leaving intact r.a.s for the more general topic discussions that overlap all auto sims like hardware, new product announcements/upgrades, as well as house discussions of the less popular products. If others feel this is too much of a move then I would like to toss up once again the idea of r.a.s.online rather than r.a.s.nacar since it appears that what really prompted all this was the added weight of the Nascar Online service. At least the "learn how to drive jerk" posts will have a place to go, and non-long distance charge chatting can prevail between the drivers of the leagues and such. Just another opinion, Matt

: It is probable there will be a vote date in the not too distant future. : Ed Martin, Tony Johns, Richard Roddy and others should be getting back : to me tomorrow and helping with the assistance I requested of them. : Even if I hadn't started the ball rolling it seems given the response : I've received that r.a.s.n is likely very soon. : Those of you in ICR and GP2 I am sorry if this appears elitest, however, : given the numbers I am looking at in support of this new group, it : appears there has been an under-lying desire for it and no one spoke up : until recently. Thomas, I applaud you in your efforts to do the "right thing". However, it doesn't quite work that way. First of all there is a required period of discussion which is to take place. Has there been some cabal cooking up some sorta USENET revolution that I wasn't invited to here? I have seen some discussion about this issue, but until very recently, none of the official "leg-work" was put into motion. You make it sound as if you have become Judge, Jury & Executioner on this matter. Please do your homework on the process and stop spreading propaganda about the impending arrival of a "Brave New World Order". Let's follow the proper procedure and "discuss" the issues at hand. One question, what reputable polling firm have you retained for your "numbers" guaranteeing inevitable victory? -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Hi Tony, The key issue for me is having information which is USEFUL to a cross- section of the r.a.s. "community" under their noses, without having to be looked for, and other information elsewhere. The "Hawaii" posts have died down somewhat, but I fully expect they will reach fever pitch with NASCAR2/NRL later in the year. It did get a bit tedious reading the nth "who was right" post - this stuff needs a separate group. Where I undecided is about splitting up the actual SIM posts. Several fans of NASCAR have bought GP2 simply because they saw it in Sim Racing News - they had no idea what it was or that it was even coming out. Now if someone is only interested in F1 and subscribes only to "r.a.s.f1", they may well miss completely ICR2/3/? and lose out on a great experience, or at the very least miss out on a lot of info which would enhance the purchase they had made. I wouldn't think splitting the group would have any effect on this. "They work for Papyrus ergo they must know all about ICR2" seems to be the philosophy adopted. I'm sorry to say I have to agree with Ed, although it's a big loss for us - "no info = no flaming". This is total BS and a waste of time. The latest game is always going to be a step forward from previous ones, and if it isn't then it has kind of missed the boat. However, take one look at the Quake and Duke newsgroups (asbestos underwear on beforehand). Those guys could flame for their country! Is there a category in the Olympics yet? Sign 'em up! The problem is "sneak attacks" into the other newsgroups saying "XXXX sucks!" and then sit back to watch the flame war begin. I hope we're a bit bigger than that...! :) *IF* they know they are looking for this info - I happen upon a lot of stuff by accident, and that is my only concern. For me, I will read all of the sim newsgroups so I have no problem with any subdivisions. I just wonder what everyone else thinks, and if people will miss out on things they would otherwise have enjoyed because of the split? Cheers! John PS - Does that mean you actually READ all of that stuff about a new newsgroup?! Wheeeeeew! I thought I was going to have to ;) Thanks Tony! _________________________________ __ _____| |_____ __ ________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________ \ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | / > :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | < / :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \ /______:/ \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \::/ \._____\ http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~harmon/simnews

Quoted text (8 lines)

> : > > : > pure speculation. Where is your evidence. I hope you don't say it's a > : > gut reaction, because that is called divination. Which by the way can > : > be done by reading the entrails. > : > > : > Using your logic we would have tons of "forecasted" newsgroups > : > based on "vapor" demand. > : >

There would be a huge amount of demand for this group, if created. It would likely spawn all kinds of baby groups. I would vote for it. 8-) -l "My ears are still ringing." __ Undertoad: [link lost in import: /~bumgarls/] "Klaatu barada nictow" * "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts loves you, but everyone else thinks you're an *** * Usenet is forever

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>I fully support Tony's formal proposal to "the powers that be" to >>split r.a.s. up into focus areas, and I will actively take part in the >>official discussions & voting processs that is about to ensue. I >>encourage all of you to do the same. >>Ed Martin >>Producer, Series Director >>NASCAR Racing League >>Papyrus / Sierra On-Line, Inc. > Now that we have Tony Johns leading the way and Ed Martin behind the >idea, there's no stopping the creation of a new rec.autos.simulators >newsgroup(s).

I vote that we split 'em up. I'm not the least bit interested in GP2, nfs, or demo derby or any of those other kiddie games. NASCAR is my favorite, and I have a little interest in ICR2 and will follow those two groups. /===================================================\

Quoted text (10 lines)

| John Simmons (Redneck Techno-Biker) | | http://www2.connectnet.com/users/jms/index.html | |===================================================| | IGN #12 Zerex American Eagle Motorsports Ford | | http://www2.connectnet.com/users/jms/aemmain.html | | Hawaii NickName - AEMwest | |===================================================| | 93 FLSTC - 54,000 miles and counting | | Harley Scum Biker (tm) #14 |

\===================================================/

: If others feel this is too much of a move then I would like to toss up : once again the idea of r.a.s.online rather than r.a.s.nacar since it : appears that what really prompted all this was the added weight of the : Nascar Online service. At least the "learn how to drive jerk" posts will : have a place to go, and non-long distance charge chatting can prevail : between the drivers of the leagues and such. If, there needs to be a split this is the one that I could get behind. I still feel that the discussions over the various "disciplines" still have more in common than differences. I do though see more differences with the "online" conversations, than common factors with individual sim products. If one is trying to set up their car for Hawaii, they could still post to r.a.s., but then again, there are differences. Since multi.exe has been patched to fix the "weight transfer" bug in the stand alone NASCAR. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> Unless you hear that us road racers want each road race sim to have > its own group, please limit your efforts to r.a.s.nascar. I agree with Larry on this. The most vocal supporters of the split seem to be the NASCAR gang....so why not just create a R.A.S.NASCAR, and leave it at that. ****************************************** Or put it up to a vote RIGHT HERE AND NOW: ****************************************** Do you want: A) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR B) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.F1 REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.ICR2 C) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS left as it is

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >>I fully support Tony's formal proposal to "the powers that be" to > >>split r.a.s. up into focus areas, and I will actively take part in the > >>official discussions & voting processs that is about to ensue. I > >>encourage all of you to do the same. > >>Ed Martin > >>Producer, Series Director > >>NASCAR Racing League > >>Papyrus / Sierra On-Line, Inc. > > Now that we have Tony Johns leading the way and Ed Martin behind the > >idea, there's no stopping the creation of a new rec.autos.simulators > >newsgroup(s). > Hmmmm. If I counted right, Tony, Ed, and Kyle only make 3 YES votes. Usually > the voting for the creation of a new newsgroup requires a FEW more votes than > that. :-) > -- > +------------------+--------------------------------------------+ > | G. Warren Abao | Official BBL Jacksonville Jaguars Website: | > +------------------++------------------------+------------------+ > | SPOOOOOOOOOOON!!! | BBL Jacksonville 1-0 | IFL Chicago 11-6 | > +-------------------+------------------------+------------------+

My current estimation puts the "yes" votes at no less than 150.

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > Unless you hear that us road racers want each road race sim to have > > its own group, please limit your efforts to r.a.s.nascar. > I agree with Larry on this. The most vocal supporters of the split seem > to be the NASCAR gang....so why not just create a R.A.S.NASCAR, and leave > it at that. > ****************************************** > Or put it up to a vote RIGHT HERE AND NOW: > ****************************************** > Do you want: > A) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR > B) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.F1 > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.ICR2 > C) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS left as it is

This posting makes no sense as the current newsgroup would remain unchanged. The proposal is for R.A.S.N. only. You can't propose more that one group at a time per request. Votes are taken by a 3rd party and not via this newsgroup.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> I'm against the creation of r.a.s.nascar, for totally selfish reasons. I own > ICR, ICR2, NASCAR, F1GP/WC, and soon, GP2. All the news I need is in the same > newsgroup. > I know those in support of r.a.s.nascar have their own agenda(s), which is fine > with me. But since I enjoy NASCAR just as much as the other sims I play, > there's no need for me to approve the split because it wouldn't be of any > benefit to me. > The only reason I haven't spoken out against the creation of r.a.s.nascar > (until now) is because I didn't want to post a bunch of "Me too!" replies after > Mike Carver's messages. Mike has been pretty much saying what I've been > thinking about the issue, and I was only planning on waiting until the call for > votes was announced to make my opinion count. But, since you want to hear the > voices of others that are against r.a.s.nascar, here I am.

<snip> > +------------------+--------------------------------------------+ > | G. Warren Abao | Official BBL Jacksonville Jaguars Website: | > +------------------++------------------------+------------------+ > | SPOOOOOOOOOOON!!! | BBL Jacksonville 1-0 | IFL Chicago 11-6 | > +-------------------+------------------------+------------------+ I feel the same way. I don't really think this will solve Ed's concerns. There are going to be some jerks in any group and unless there's a FAQ your going to get questions repeated. And, on the other hand, it will almost certainly add cross-posting problems. The only people I see this benefitting are those who are interested in only 1 particular sim. The rest of us, assuming we can get our server to carry the new groups, will have to jump back and forth between them. I realize that this is not a big deal, but it also doesn't seem that difficult to skip those posts you don't want to read. Just one more "Me Too".

I think you should perhaps try GP2 before classing it as a "kiddie game". The driving model arguably puts every other game you mentioned into the shade.... _________________________________ __ _____| |_____ __ ________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________ \ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | / > :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | < / :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \ /______:/ \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \::/ \._____\ http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~harmon/simnews

Quoted text (15 lines)

>>: Now that we have Tony Johns leading the way and Ed Martin behind the >>: idea, there's no stopping the creation of a new rec.autos.simulators >>: newsgroup(s). >>Care to explain this to me? Since when did Tony Johns, Ed Martin and >>Kyle Langston Company control USENET? If you haven't noticed that there >>are more than 3-4 people contributing to this newsgroup. There are even >>far more people outside this newsgroup that control USENET. It will >>eventually come down to a vote. Any anyone who uses USENET can vote. > Well, Mike, I can only post logical discussions and debates in so many >places before I just want to make it simple. Besides, you seem to be >the only one that frequents this newsgroup that is debating AGAINST >the idea. Perhaps you should prompt others to speak out against the >creation of a separate newsgroup.

I'm against the creation of r.a.s.nascar, for totally selfish reasons. I own ICR, ICR2, NASCAR, F1GP/WC, and soon, GP2. All the news I need is in the same newsgroup. I know those in support of r.a.s.nascar have their own agenda(s), which is fine with me. But since I enjoy NASCAR just as much as the other sims I play, there's no need for me to approve the split because it wouldn't be of any benefit to me. The only reason I haven't spoken out against the creation of r.a.s.nascar (until now) is because I didn't want to post a bunch of "Me too!" replies after Mike Carver's messages. Mike has been pretty much saying what I've been thinking about the issue, and I was only planning on waiting until the call for votes was announced to make my opinion count. But, since you want to hear the voices of others that are against r.a.s.nascar, here I am. Mr. Retkowski's call for discussion has only been out for what, less than a week? How can you expect everyone to voice his/her opinion in such a short amount of time? And now I hear that Mr. Retkowski has withdrawn his CFD because Tony Johns posted a CFD first. Tony's CFD hasn't even shown up on my server yet. Kyle, Usenet is not quite instantaneous yet. Give the discussion some time to form. Well, if you want to hear the other people against r.a.s.nascar make their opinions known, and people like you and Mike have already eloquently typed the reasons for-or-against the formation of r.a.s.nascar, all this discussion will degenerate into is a bunch of "Yeah, I agree" responses if all the opinions of all the interested parties have to be heard. -- +------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | G. Warren Abao | Official BBL Jacksonville Jaguars Website: | +------------------++------------------------+------------------+ | SPOOOOOOOOOOON!!! | BBL Jacksonville 1-0 | IFL Chicago 11-6 | +-------------------+------------------------+------------------+

I mostly road race, ICR2, and someday F1GP2 and Starting grid. but I usually read a couple of NASCAR and Hawaii posts each day. To me, a spit is inconvenient. It's easy to skip over NASCAR, Hawaii, NFS, Destruction Derby and other topics that don't interest me. The "Where's F1GP2" and "I have F1GP2" posts are a bump that each new sim will have, and should not be considered in this discussion. The only reason I've seen to support this split is that Ed Martin is justifiably pissed over some threads. He tried to be of service to ICR and NASCAR racers. His expertise is with NASCAR, and I would hate for those of you who race NASCAR to loose this resource. Ed, I ask you again, does you continued participation here require the creation of r.a.s.nascar? It is important to some participants of NASCAR to have their own group. If I am convinced that most NASCAR racers want this, I don't think we should chain them to a newsgroup they feel fails to meet their needs. What I am hearing from advocates is, "It will be great, we'll each have our own group, NASCAR, ICR, F1". Whoa there fella! You see an advantage in a NASCAR split, don't assume the rest of us want an ICR/F1 split. Unless you hear that us road racers want each road race sim to have its own group, please limit your efforts to r.a.s.nascar. Thanks Larry

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>I fully support Tony's formal proposal to "the powers that be" to >>split r.a.s. up into focus areas, and I will actively take part in the >>official discussions & voting processs that is about to ensue. I >>encourage all of you to do the same. >>Ed Martin >>Producer, Series Director >>NASCAR Racing League >>Papyrus / Sierra On-Line, Inc. > Now that we have Tony Johns leading the way and Ed Martin behind the >idea, there's no stopping the creation of a new rec.autos.simulators >newsgroup(s).

Hmmmm. If I counted right, Tony, Ed, and Kyle only make 3 YES votes. Usually the voting for the creation of a new newsgroup requires a FEW more votes than that. :-) -- +------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | G. Warren Abao | Official BBL Jacksonville Jaguars Website: | +------------------++------------------------+------------------+ | SPOOOOOOOOOOON!!! | BBL Jacksonville 1-0 | IFL Chicago 11-6 | +-------------------+------------------------+------------------+

I vote YES to creating a rec.autos.simulators.nascar group. Again, I vote YES and I urge everyone who wants to have discussion based SOLELY on NASCAR Racing to also put in an affirmative vote. Kirn Cromur

> My current estimation puts the "yes" votes at no less than 150. Please add one more to the "yes" column Thanks, vetteracer ________________________________________________________________________ Vetteracer's Garage http://twalker.d2g.com ________________________

: My current estimation puts the "yes" votes at no less than 150. Can you say "election fraud"? I knew you could! Maybe there's a floating point bug in your calculator. This ain't Peter Pan, so just wishing Tinkerbell well again just doesn't cut it in the real world. There are alot of people who have decided it's not "proper" to clutter this newsgroup with their "vote". Besides, I think the voiced opinions are pretty much evenly matched. Unless you count a Yes vote everytime you post. It's one person, one vote here. Go ahead and count away if it will make you feel better. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>I vote YES to creating a rec.autos.simulators.nascar group. Again, I vote >YES and I urge everyone who wants to have discussion based SOLELY on NASCAR >Racing to also put in an affirmative vote. >Kirn Cromur YES !!! Give me NASCAR !!! David W. Long Memphis, TN

I would like A. Keep the open wheel sims together. Dave Thayer IVGA #2789

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >Do you want: > >A) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS > > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR > >B) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS > > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR > > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.F1 > > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.ICR2 > > C) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS left as it is > I would like A. Keep the open wheel sims together. > Dave Thayer > IVGA #2789

Invalid point since there are no other options available.

I've been lurking around in r.a.s. for something like a year and half, and posting only occasionally. In this time, I've seen lots of this come and go, and that seems to be the way of it. I feel that splitting rec. autos.simulators group into multiple divisions is crazy. While my own preference is for NASCAR racing, I do however, use ICR 1, and plan to get ICR2, and GP2 as money allows. When I first got NASCAR and installed it, I had some sound problems, but the idea and solution to the problem came from a post for ICR1. This seems to happen on other fronts as well, since the above solution also solved sound problems, with other games, that had plagued my system at the time. Currently, I feel that while there is a lot of volume for GP2, and the ICR2 patch, these posts really don't need to be separated. Don't you remember 5-6 weeks ago, when we were all discussing both Hawaii, and freon substitutes. Before that, the volume of article here had lulled to the point that just to keep in touch people were joking about when GP2 would hit the stands. Before Christmas, it was all ICR2. I think you all can see the tend showing up here. This group tends go through bouts of approx. 6-8 weeks, before we all move on to something different. Why make things more difficult than they really need to be? To the fellows who desperately want a nascar group, wait for a while, and we'll get back to your toys, in the mean time if you really don't want to read about GP2, don't, have your newsreader ignore these articles and read only those that pertain to your interests. Hell, at this point, I still haven't been able to get my provider to subscribe to the binaries group yet, so it'll ages, if I ever do see the split groups, if this gets passed. And what for, to sift through multiple place to get the same kind of information I get here, right now. What I would really like to see though is people who know how to snip an original quote down to the contents that they are replying to. Do we really need to see five copies of the same page and half signature?? Or eight copies of the original multiple screen article with a "Me Too!!!!!" stuck on the end of it?? My thoughts on the matter, Kev

[snip] There have been a few posts from other pro-r.a.s.nascar people that drive the other simulations as well as NASCAR. They have said that it would organize things a lot better, from their viewpoints. So this statement isn't entirely true. Kyle Langston

: This posting makes no sense as the current newsgroup would remain : unchanged. The proposal is for R.A.S.N. only. You can't propose more : that one group at a time per request. Thomas, can you quote a source for the above "factoid"? : Votes are taken by a 3rd party and not via this newsgroup. But, in the mean time it seems that you are the Holding Company for the votes, right? -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Subject: Re: CFD: rec.autos.simulators reorganization (was >rec.autos.simulators.nascar) >Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 03:11:04 GMT >What I would really like to see though is people who know how to snip an >original quote down to the contents that they are replying to. Do we >really need to see five copies of the same page and half signature?? Or >eight copies of the original multiple screen article with a "Me Too!!!!!" >stuck on the end of it??

This speaks to the real problem, huge numbers of needless and/or pointless postings. When I don't go online for a few days and then have 800!! posts to plow through, splitting the group seems like a good idea, unfortunately all those pointless postings will still be there. What this group really needs is A: a FAQ , and B: people to leanout there posts by: reading the f...ing manual, lerking and learning before posting, agreeing in silence when someone says something that makes sense, and to quit asking the same question over and over so many times that it needs it's own group.

sent shooting through ***space: >: This posting makes no sense as the current newsgroup would remain >: unchanged. The proposal is for R.A.S.N. only. You can't propose more >: that one group at a time per request. >Thomas, can you quote a source for the above "factoid"? Don't bother waiting for his reply -- that "factoid" is utter horse-hockey. Anyone who takes the time to read the RFD procedure FAQ would know that. -- Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Quoted text (63 lines)

> Well, actually, I vote YES. > First, I want to make it very clear that I do enjoy reading about all > of the racing sims out there. From a personal and professional > perspective, I think it's great. However, in trying to be a nice guy > & answer Papyrus questions online, to me, rec.autos.simulators is just > too much. Here are a few things that have me on the verge of > disappearing from r.a.s.: > 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? > 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. > 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. > 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! > 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? > 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 fully support Tony's formal proposal to "the powers that be" to > split r.a.s. up into focus areas, and I will actively take part in the > official discussions & voting processs that is about to ensue. I > encourage all of you to do the same.

Well after reading all of that (whew) i changed my descision to yes also, i think now that it would be good to split up the newsgroup. Keith http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/2172

>There is also too many of these "Split the newsgroups" posts. If these >alond would stop, the traffic on the group would be cut in half!! >LET IT GO. But what would all the Nascar fans have to talk about then?

writes:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>> >Do you want: >> >A) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS >> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR >> >B) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS >> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR >> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.F1 >> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.ICR2 >> > C) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS left as it is >> I would like A. Keep the open wheel sims together. >> Dave Thayer >> IVGA #2789 >Invalid point since there are no other options available.

There is also too many of these "Split the newsgroups" posts. If these alond would stop, the traffic on the group would be cut in half!! LET IT GO. Mike

Quoted text (8 lines)

> This speaks to the real problem, huge numbers of needless and/or pointless > postings. When I don't go online for a few days and then have 800!! posts > to plow through, splitting the group seems like a good idea, unfortunately > all those pointless postings will still be there. What this group really > needs is A: a FAQ , and B: people to leanout there posts by: reading the > f...ing manual, lerking and learning before posting, agreeing in silence > when someone says something that makes sense, and to quit asking the same > question over and over so many times that it needs it's own group.

IMHO The problem with the large number of post is never going to stop. Usenet just keeps growing as more and more people get on the web. Split Rec-sim into two groups and it will just give you two groups with 800 post in a couple of weeks. As to agreeing in silence and asking the same question....well..people will be people.:-] Jim Glot Diving officer, Make my depth 400 feet.

> >But what would all the Nascar fans have to talk about then? > Ummm..How much better NASCAR is than GP2? Likely to be a short conversation....(Grin). JEB in Vegas

>>There is also too many of these "Split the newsgroups" posts. If these >>alond would stop, the traffic on the group would be cut in half!! >>LET IT GO. >But what would all the Nascar fans have to talk about then? Ummm..How much better NASCAR is than GP2?