NEWSGROUP: reorganizing rec.autos.simulators?

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Everyone -- > I have submitted a RFD (request for discussion) to the > news.announce.newgroups and news.groups newsgroups. A carbon copy is > being sent to rec.autos.simulators. > The procedure for applying for a new group or reorganization of a > specific group is quite long and detailed. Basically, a detailed RFD > is written up, whereupon a 21 day long discussion period is > instituted. THIS DISCUSSION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE HERE, but in the > news.groups newsgroup. If the RFD is passed, a RFV (Request for > votes) will go out to this group and the aforementioned USENET admin > groups, whereupon you will be informed on how you can vote. > FYI, I proposed a division of r.a.s. into: > rec.autos.simulators > rec.autos.simulators.nascar > rec.autos.simulators.f1 > rec.autos.simulators.indy > Just so you know that the official wheels are turning. We should know > within the next 3 weeks if the proposal makes it past the admins. > -- > Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) > IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Great but I would prefer: rec.autos.simulators.misc rec.autos.simulators.nascar rec.autos.simulators.f1 rec.autos.simulators.indy Chuck Stuart - Mesquite TX USA

The new format, if any, is what the discussion period will decide. FLAMERS. Save it for the discussion. The die is already cast and the wheels are in motion. Options should be expressed in NEWS.GROUPS, NOT HERE. PLEASE, DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY MESSAGES CONCERNING THIS SUBJECT IN THIS NEWS GROUP. Tony will keep us all advised of the progress. Chuck Stuart - Mesquite TX USA

Everyone -- I have submitted a RFD (request for discussion) to the news.announce.newgroups and news.groups newsgroups. A carbon copy is being sent to rec.autos.simulators. The procedure for applying for a new group or reorganization of a specific group is quite long and detailed. Basically, a detailed RFD is written up, whereupon a 21 day long discussion period is instituted. THIS DISCUSSION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE HERE, but in the news.groups newsgroup. If the RFD is passed, a RFV (Request for votes) will go out to this group and the aforementioned USENET admin groups, whereupon you will be informed on how you can vote. FYI, I proposed a division of r.a.s. into: rec.autos.simulators rec.autos.simulators.nascar rec.autos.simulators.f1 rec.autos.simulators.indy Just so you know that the official wheels are turning. We should know within the next 3 weeks if the proposal makes it past the admins. -- Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Quoted text (21 lines)

>Everyone -- >I have submitted a RFD (request for discussion) to the >news.announce.newgroups and news.groups newsgroups. A carbon copy is >being sent to rec.autos.simulators. >The procedure for applying for a new group or reorganization of a >specific group is quite long and detailed. Basically, a detailed RFD >is written up, whereupon a 21 day long discussion period is >instituted. THIS DISCUSSION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE HERE, but in the >news.groups newsgroup. If the RFD is passed, a RFV (Request for >votes) will go out to this group and the aforementioned USENET admin >groups, whereupon you will be informed on how you can vote. >FYI, I proposed a division of r.a.s. into: >rec.autos.simulators >rec.autos.simulators.nascar >rec.autos.simulators.f1 >rec.autos.simulators.indy >Just so you know that the official wheels are turning. We should know >within the next 3 weeks if the proposal makes it past the admins. >-- >Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) >IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Following is a posting I made to another thread... thought it made sense here as well: >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 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. Ed Martin Producer, Series Director NASCAR Racing League Papyrus / Sierra On-Line, Inc.

[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? Fair enough. However, where's the logic? If a newsgroup is not moderated, how is splitting it up going to stop arsonists? : 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. Fair enough. However, I once again fail to see the logic? How is splitting up a newsgroup going to stop the "pirate" posts? A moderated newsgroup is the only way to accomplish this. : 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. Fair enough. However, the logic is still weak here. Just because a newsgroup is devoted to NASCAR, there will always be simultaneous discussions split up over multiple threads. That is why a good newsgroup has FAQ's. The only advantage here in splitting up the group, is that maybe (and I say "maybe"), it will be easier for someone to maintain a FAQ. However, that could have been easily accomplished here on r.a.s. -- a FAQ maintained for each "discipline". I haven't seen a FAQ for this group since Peter Burke maintained one for ICR1. People ask the same questions over & over again because of the nature of the beast. Some people are new to the group and didn't see the old threads (they have either expired or their server expired them sooner due to storage space concerns). Some people don't visit the group as often as the hard core junkies (& I say that in the kindest sense). Therefore, they missed out on that discussion. Again, splitting up a newsgroup will not solve this problem. : 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! Totally agree! However, again unless you have a moderated newsgroup how does splitting up a newsgroup solve the problem? : 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. 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. 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. 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 E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[big snip] Hi Kyle, Don't think of this as a complaint, but is it really necessary to quote the whole of someone's message just to add only two lines at the end? My newsreader also quotes everything when I respond to a post (unless I highlight some specific text for it to choose), but I then delete everything not directly relevant. It's just easier than having to scroll down two pages to read a couple of added lines of comment. As I said, not a complaint, just a suggestion. 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 (78 lines)

>[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? >Fair enough. However, where's the logic? If a newsgroup is not >moderated, how is splitting it up going to stop arsonists? >: 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. >Fair enough. However, I once again fail to see the logic? How is >splitting up a newsgroup going to stop the "pirate" posts? A moderated >newsgroup is the only way to accomplish this. >: 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. >Fair enough. However, the logic is still weak here. Just because a >newsgroup is devoted to NASCAR, there will always be simultaneous >discussions split up over multiple threads. That is why a good >newsgroup has FAQ's. The only advantage here in splitting up the group, >is that maybe (and I say "maybe"), it will be easier for someone to >maintain a FAQ. However, that could have been easily accomplished here >on r.a.s. -- a FAQ maintained for each "discipline". I haven't seen a >FAQ for this group since Peter Burke maintained one for ICR1. People >ask the same questions over & over again because of the nature of the >beast. Some people are new to the group and didn't see the old threads >(they have either expired or their server expired them sooner due to >storage space concerns). Some people don't visit the group as often as >the hard core junkies (& I say that in the kindest sense). Therefore, >they missed out on that discussion. Again, splitting up a newsgroup >will not solve this problem. >: 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! >Totally agree! However, again unless you have a moderated newsgroup how >does splitting up a newsgroup solve the problem? >: 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. >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. 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. >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 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

Quoted text (81 lines)

>>[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? >>Fair enough. However, where's the logic? If a newsgroup is not >>moderated, how is splitting it up going to stop arsonists? >>: 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. >>Fair enough. However, I once again fail to see the logic? How is >>splitting up a newsgroup going to stop the "pirate" posts? A moderated >>newsgroup is the only way to accomplish this. >>: 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. >>Fair enough. However, the logic is still weak here. Just because a >>newsgroup is devoted to NASCAR, there will always be simultaneous >>discussions split up over multiple threads. That is why a good >>newsgroup has FAQ's. The only advantage here in splitting up the group, >>is that maybe (and I say "maybe"), it will be easier for someone to >>maintain a FAQ. However, that could have been easily accomplished here >>on r.a.s. -- a FAQ maintained for each "discipline". I haven't seen a >>FAQ for this group since Peter Burke maintained one for ICR1. People >>ask the same questions over & over again because of the nature of the >>beast. Some people are new to the group and didn't see the old threads >>(they have either expired or their server expired them sooner due to >>storage space concerns). Some people don't visit the group as often as >>the hard core junkies (& I say that in the kindest sense). Therefore, >>they missed out on that discussion. Again, splitting up a newsgroup >>will not solve this problem. >>: 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! >>Totally agree! However, again unless you have a moderated newsgroup how >>does splitting up a newsgroup solve the problem? >>: 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. >>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. 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. >>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 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

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. Ed Martin Producer, Series Director NASCAR Racing League Papyrus / Sierra On-Line, Inc.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> rec.autos.simulators > rec.autos.simulators.nascar > rec.autos.simulators.f1 > rec.autos.simulators.indy > Just so you know that the official wheels are turning. We should know > within the next 3 weeks if the proposal makes it past the admins.

Thank god. I am only interested in Nascar and I get tired of sifting through 200+ messages a day on "GP2 IS OUT IN CAMBODIA" or where ever. KenH

[email hidden] (Ed Martin) wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>[email hidden] (Kyle Langston) wrote: >>[email hidden] (Michael E. Carver) wrote: >>>Ed Martin ([email hidden]) 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.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>>: 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.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>>: 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.

Quoted text (25 lines)

>>>-- >>>**************************** 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 - [email hidden] >>PowWow - [email hidden] >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 »

Is there any movement on this issue? I support the split a solid 100% and we ought make it happen ASAP for all too obvious reasons. Below are the suggested groups for the uninformed: -- --- Terje Wold Johansen --- http://www.ifi.uio.no/~terjjo/ --- "I am your inferior superior." O.W.

[snip RFD1.0] We're waiting for the RFD v3.0 to appear in news.groups - then we'll start discussing it again. FYI, it no longer resembles the split you quoted below. Please join in when it happens - it seems there is only a handful of us deciding the future shape of r.a.s. at the moment. If you have an opinion about how it should look, then we need to hear it - this goes for everyone reading this post.

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Below are the suggested groups for the uninformed: >>FYI, I proposed a division of r.a.s. into: >>rec.autos.simulators >>rec.autos.simulators.nascar >>rec.autos.simulators.f1 >>rec.autos.simulators.indy >--- Terje Wold Johansen >--- http://www.ifi.uio.no/~terjjo/ >--- "I am your inferior superior." O.W.

James -- James Bevan NeXTMail & MIME welcome

Quoted text (36 lines)

> Johansen) writes: > [snip RFD1.0] > >Is there any movement on this issue? > >I support the split a solid 100% and we ought make it happen > >ASAP for all too obvious reasons. > We're waiting for the RFD v3.0 to appear in news.groups - then we'll start > discussing it again. FYI, it no longer resembles the split you quoted > below. > Please join in when it happens - it seems there is only a handful of us > deciding the future shape of r.a.s. at the moment. If you have an opinion > about how it should look, then we need to hear it - this goes for everyone > reading this post. > >Below are the suggested groups for the uninformed: > >>FYI, I proposed a division of r.a.s. into: > >>rec.autos.simulators > >>rec.autos.simulators.nascar > >>rec.autos.simulators.f1 > >>rec.autos.simulators.indy > >--- Terje Wold Johansen > >--- http://www.ifi.uio.no/~terjjo/ > >--- "I am your inferior superior." O.W. > James > -- > James Bevan > NeXTMail & MIME welcome

I would love to see some sort split or re-organisation of ras. It would be much better to just able to read the articles one is interested in rather than wading through the many articles that appear on ras. I am only really interested in GP2 & ICR so therefore would prefer to see these as separate groups. I am not trying to play down the nascar people as I am sure, also, they do not wish to plough through the f1 type posts also. I agree with Terje's proposals for the different newsgroups he listed, good idea. Here's hoping for some development in the near future. Gary --

>> Please join in when it happens - it seems there is only a handful of us >> deciding the future shape of r.a.s. at the moment. If you have an opinion >> about how it should look, then we need to hear it - this goes for everyone >> reading this post. [...]

Quoted text (18 lines)

>I would love to see some sort split or re-organisation of ras. >It would be much better to just able to read the articles one is >interested in rather than wading through the many articles that appear >on ras. >I am only really interested in GP2 & ICR so therefore would prefer to >see these as separate groups. I am not trying to play down the nascar >people as I am sure, also, they do not wish to plough through the f1 >type posts also. >I agree with Terje's proposals for the different newsgroups he listed, >good idea. >Here's hoping for some development in the near future. >Gary >--

Thanks for your comments. I guess I should have said: "If you have an opinion about how it should look, then we need to hear it *in news.groups, when the RFD comes out* - this goes for everyone reading this post." James -- James Bevan NeXTMail & MIME welcome

I appreciate your efforts but my ignorance prevents participation. Please enlighten us as to HOW WHERE and WHEN we do what we do.:-} Please give us detailed instructions as to the news group we should go to and then where we look and when to look there and what will happen. If you can point us to a document that explains it that would be good too. Thanks for your help. Tim Daley

Keep an eye on the newsgroup "news.groups" for a post titled "3rd RFD: rec.autos.simulators reorganization". It's my understanding that getting RFDs (Request For Discussion) through the official USENET mechanisms can take a while - this RFD has been in the works for over a week now. As for what will happen, I guess we'll discuss the proposed split some more until we all agree, then there will be a call for votes (CFV). I'm in the same boat as you - I've not done this before either. too. There are regular official postings in news.groups along the lines of "How to create a newsgroup". I reckon one of these will have the full explanation you're looking for. My pleasure James -- James Bevan NeXTMail & MIME welcome

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Below are the suggested groups for the uninformed: > >FYI, I proposed a division of r.a.s. into: >rec.autos.simulators >rec.autos.simulators.nascar >rec.autos.simulators.f1 >rec.autos.simulators.indy

I think there should be a rec.autos.simulators.arcade for Need For Speed ,ect... twb