ObRFD -- I'm done...

Okay. That's it. I'm taking myself out of this whole newsgroup creation business. Maybe it's my own spectacular bad timing, but what I've spent over a month carefully thinking out and crafting is turning into a holy war between NASCAR sim-racers and the rest of rec.autos.simulators. Much of this is attributable to Thomas Retkowski's dubious influence -- but a lot of it is due to the fact that I made this proposal during GP2's release. I'm through trying to draw the line between the rabid "NASCAR only" camp and the "diversification" camp. My whole proposal was meant to expand the arena for racing sims across the board, not to encourage some separatist newsgroup. So, Thomas, even though your methods are ill-researched, ill-begotten, and about as thought out as a one-night stand, the ball is now definitely in your court. Take all the glory from this that you want -- I have no desire to continue working at this or even read the threads anymore. Since you "got the ball rolling," it's your turn to dribble. -- Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Quoted text (18 lines)

>Okay. That's it. >I'm taking myself out of this whole newsgroup creation business. >Maybe it's my own spectacular bad timing, but what I've spent over a >month carefully thinking out and crafting is turning into a holy war >between NASCAR sim-racers and the rest of rec.autos.simulators. Much >of this is attributable to Thomas Retkowski's dubious influence -- but >a lot of it is due to the fact that I made this proposal during GP2's >release. >I'm through trying to draw the line between the rabid "NASCAR only" >camp and the "diversification" camp. My whole proposal was meant to >expand the arena for racing sims across the board, not to encourage >some separatist newsgroup. >So, Thomas, even though your methods are ill-researched, ill-begotten, >and about as thought out as a one-night stand, the ball is now >definitely in your court. Take all the glory from this that you want >-- I have no desire to continue working at this or even read the >threads anymore. Since you "got the ball rolling," it's your turn to >dribble.

Tony, I'm sorry to hear this. While I disagree with changing the current status of the newsgroup, I think your newsgroup divisions make far more sense than just adding r.a.s.nascar (change r.a.s. to r.a.s.misc and I think you've got a winner there). You have obviously thought this out. It's regrettable that Tom and Kyle have jumped into this headfirst, trying to ram their proposal through and stiffling any debate or discussion. Again, while I disagree with your goal, I have found your attitude and behaviour to be most professional. I know its extremely hard to convince oneself re-enter such a mess, I hope you reconsider your decision. PS - And I now see that Tom has bailed out some 7 hours after your message. Curiouser and curiouser... PPS - I didn't think it was relevant before, but I thought I'd mention that I haven't seen your RFD on my server, either in r.a.s, news. groups or news.announce.newgroups, only the note here in r.a.s. that you were posting it. Maybe its just a local problem here. Pick one or more: Model Rockets (competition-NERCB) / PCs (even Atari!) / Papyrus ICR-ICR2-NCR / Who needs a life when you have multiple non-lives?

sent shooting through ***space: I HAVE thought this out, which is why I was so disgusted about everyone turning this whole "new newsgroup" idea into a NASCAR-only reactionary flamefest. In my mind, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO ONLY CREATE A NASCAR NEWSGROUP. IF this newsgroup gets split, the following things need to occur: a) all of the "Big Three" racing categories (NOTE: NOT SIMULATOR PACKAGES) should be represented, i.e. F1, Indy, and NASCAR b) rec.autos.simulators will REMAIN in existence, both for people who don't approve of the split and for the sim categories that are of a more miscellaneous nature (i.e. rally games, Screamer, Need for Speed.. that is until there's a rec.autos.simulators.arcade). NASCAR should by no means get preferential treatment. I admit that I race NASCAR almost exclusively, because I am planning on racing in the NRL. However, I've had GP2 on special order for weeks and I continue to get beaten in NFS and IndyCar 2. So if r.a.s. splits, I will frequent all four of the newsgroups. That's because I followed USENET's policy for submitting RFD's -- i.e. I sent a properly formatted RFD through the news.announce.newgroups group, which is both moderated and automated to accept or reject RFD's based on their adherence to format guidelines. The RFD's are processed in cycles, and apparently the next cycle hasn't been sent through yet. Folks, it's NOT an easy task getting an RFD worked up, much less following it through to voting status. I need you all to understand where I'm coming from FROM MY OWN MOUTH, not from a bunch of NASCAR separatists, if I'm going to actively work at sending this RFD through. I don't mind objections such as the ones voiced by Mike Carver, et al.. in fact, I think that is EXACTLY the type of discussion we need when the RFD gets officially posted. But don't try to *** this into a NASCAR/Indy/F1 brouhaha, PLEASE. -- Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Folks, it's NOT an easy task getting an RFD worked up, much less >following it through to voting status. I need you all to understand >where I'm coming from FROM MY OWN MOUTH, not from a bunch of NASCAR >separatists, if I'm going to actively work at sending this RFD >through. I don't mind objections such as the ones voiced by Mike >Carver, et al.. in fact, I think that is EXACTLY the type of >discussion we need when the RFD gets officially posted. But don't try >to *** this into a NASCAR/Indy/F1 brouhaha, PLEASE. >-- >Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) >IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Hi Tony, While I do disagree with you about the need to split up r.a.s. into new groups, I do respect your opinion, and will willingly go along with whatever the consensus of the newsgroup users choose to do. I do find it difficult however when some of the people pushing for this are taking this as a personal crusade, and trying to influence people's opinions by throwing around names such as you and other so called famous users of r.a.s. Another thing that is making it a challenge to discuss this calmly, is the attitude that "Hey we're gone do it and no-one can stop us." When I try to share my reasons for disagreeing I get a response saying I make no sense rather than explaining to me why my reasons are not valid. In my way of thinking this group is a democracy, I am quite happy to discuss the merits for and against and go along with what the majority of the users want. Again I think a few people pushing for this have made a religious crusade out of it and take any opposition to it as a personal attack. I am just glad that you at least have been able to keep a reasonable attitude, and in fact those that are taking the militant attitude are doing more to hurt the push for a split with their snide comments. I did not become threatened by the discussion until i saw some of the posts that expressed they didn't care what the open-wheel racers wanted, they were going to do it no matter what. It was then that I felt the need to speak up and discuss the matter. And I am not a Open-wheel only racer, I also race nascar, and even hawaii if it ever becomes localy available. Just wanted to tell you I appreciate your level headedness and am looking forward to a calm discussion of the merits both ways and then a vote, in the normal USENET way of doing things and not in the militant, "lets push this through" way which some people have been treating this issue. Also your RFD has not reached my newsserver yet, the only RFD for this there was by the other group pushing for this, and I have to say that some of the reasons given there were a bit false, and dubious. I will also try and remain calm when discussing this, and try not to respond to the more obvious slanted comments. Cheers. --John -- ------------------- John (Joao) Silva http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva Seattle, Washington USA.

[snip] : I HAVE thought this out, which is why I was so disgusted about : everyone turning this whole "new newsgroup" idea into a NASCAR-only : reactionary flamefest. In my mind, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO ONLY : CREATE A NASCAR NEWSGROUP. IF this newsgroup gets split, the : following things need to occur: Tony, what happened with the above "confusion" is one of the things that I mean when I keep saying "nature of the beast". Apparently someone though along the same lines as you have been and "crossed in the night". I will admit that you certainly put alot of thought & effort into your move. It shows. Your approach DOES make a heck of alot more sense than just spinning off a NASCAR group. That is why I would like to see you come back on board and help us finish off the process. If we leave it up to the other plan and it succeeds, I forsee r.a.s. being greatly damaged. Please reconsider for the good of the r.a.s. community and put your shoulder back into the foray. As long as we can keep the "conversation" going and can keep it civil, only good things can happen. Even if the process doesn't end up with the outlined division you have laid out, we will have started an evolving process. One that can take us where we all want to be. One that will be better for all r.a.s.'ers. As anyone knows who has been following this thread, I support the reasons behind your proposal. I'm just not convinced that your path will necessarily achieve them. But I'm willing to discuss it. We may just be able to use this process to find a better solution. [snip] : That's because I followed USENET's policy for submitting RFD's -- i.e. : I sent a properly formatted RFD through the news.announce.newgroups : group, which is both moderated and automated to accept or reject RFD's : based on their adherence to format guidelines. The RFD's are : processed in cycles, and apparently the next cycle hasn't been sent : through yet. Again, Tony, that is exactly why we need you to come back into this. We need your leadership and insight. You have put alot of effort into this and I don't want to see it wasted. I for one greatly appreciate the time and thought you put into this project. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (19 lines)

>>Folks, it's NOT an easy task getting an RFD worked up, much less >>following it through to voting status. I need you all to understand >>where I'm coming from FROM MY OWN MOUTH, not from a bunch of NASCAR >>separatists, if I'm going to actively work at sending this RFD >>through. I don't mind objections such as the ones voiced by Mike >>Carver, et al.. in fact, I think that is EXACTLY the type of >>discussion we need when the RFD gets officially posted. But don't try >>to *** this into a NASCAR/Indy/F1 brouhaha, PLEASE. >>-- >>Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) >>IWCCCARS Project Coordinator >Hi Tony, >While I do disagree with you about the need to split up r.a.s. >into new groups, I do respect your opinion, and will willingly go along >with whatever the consensus of the newsgroup users choose to do. >I do find it difficult however when some of the people pushing for this >are taking this as a personal crusade, and trying to influence people's >opinions by throwing around names such as you and other so called famous >users of r.a.s.

[snip] To clear things up, I'd like to say that my use of Tony's and Ed's names was in no way intended to sway everyone's opinion. I don't believe other people are so shallow that their opinion could be influenced by such a tactic. In particular, I used Ed's name because I (like many others) are aware of and appreciate his news and answering of questions in this newsgroup. Perhaps to avoid any misunderstanding I should have avoided the use of there names in such a context. I apologize. I can debate my views without the inclusion of so-called 'famous' names in my posts, so I'll do so from now on. As far as the remark about personal crusades, I don't know how one is to go about it if they are 'all for' something. Either one doesn't care, so they don't post anything about it, or they post some kind of opinion, positive or negative. Other than the admittedly incorrect posting of mine involving Ed and Tony, my posts regarding the subject have been mine and mine alone. And if you still consider posting of this kind a 'personal crusade', I don't know what else to say. Kyle Langston

Quoted text (38 lines)

>[snip] >: I HAVE thought this out, which is why I was so disgusted about >: everyone turning this whole "new newsgroup" idea into a NASCAR-only >: reactionary flamefest. In my mind, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO ONLY >: CREATE A NASCAR NEWSGROUP. IF this newsgroup gets split, the >: following things need to occur: >Tony, what happened with the above "confusion" is one of the things that >I mean when I keep saying "nature of the beast". Apparently someone >though along the same lines as you have been and "crossed in the night". >I will admit that you certainly put alot of thought & effort into your >move. It shows. Your approach DOES make a heck of alot more sense than >just spinning off a NASCAR group. That is why I would like to see you >come back on board and help us finish off the process. If we leave it >up to the other plan and it succeeds, I forsee r.a.s. being greatly >damaged. Please reconsider for the good of the r.a.s. community and put >your shoulder back into the foray. >As long as we can keep the "conversation" going and can keep it civil, >only good things can happen. Even if the process doesn't end up with >the outlined division you have laid out, we will have started an >evolving process. One that can take us where we all want to be. One >that will be better for all r.a.s.'ers. >As anyone knows who has been following this thread, I support the >reasons behind your proposal. I'm just not convinced that your path >will necessarily achieve them. But I'm willing to discuss it. We may >just be able to use this process to find a better solution. >[snip] >: That's because I followed USENET's policy for submitting RFD's -- i.e. >: I sent a properly formatted RFD through the news.announce.newgroups >: group, which is both moderated and automated to accept or reject RFD's >: based on their adherence to format guidelines. The RFD's are >: processed in cycles, and apparently the next cycle hasn't been sent >: through yet. >Again, Tony, that is exactly why we need you to come back into this. We >need your leadership and insight. You have put alot of effort into this >and I don't want to see it wasted. I for one greatly appreciate the >time and thought you put into this project. >-- >**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************

Mike is making perfect sense. When I posted the first article suggesting a new r.a.s.nascar newsgroup, I did not mean to alienate owners of other sims. I trying to see what kind of interest there was to such an idea. Also, Tony Johns is the only person I know of that started something official regarding the creation of a newsgroup. His continued effort would definitely be appreciated. Kyle Langston

Quoted text (18 lines)

> To clear things up, I'd like to say that my use of Tony's and Ed's >names was in no way intended to sway everyone's opinion. I don't >believe other people are so shallow that their opinion could be >influenced by such a tactic. In particular, I used Ed's name because >I (like many others) are aware of and appreciate his news and >answering of questions in this newsgroup. Perhaps to avoid any >misunderstanding I should have avoided the use of there names in such >a context. I apologize. I can debate my views without the inclusion >of so-called 'famous' names in my posts, so I'll do so from now on. > As far as the remark about personal crusades, I don't know how one is >to go about it if they are 'all for' something. Either one doesn't >care, so they don't post anything about it, or they post some kind of >opinion, positive or negative. Other than the admittedly incorrect >posting of mine involving Ed and Tony, my posts regarding the subject >have been mine and mine alone. And if you still consider posting of >this kind a 'personal crusade', I don't know what else to say. >Kyle Langston

Kyle, I think at the beginning you really didn't care about swaying anyone's opinions. Since you wanted a split, Ed and Tony and a few more nascar people wanted a split so that was all there was to it as far as you were concerned, it didn't really matter what other people on the newsgroup wanted to you. But I think things are finally changing and a big part of that has been the reasonable posts by Michael and by Tony, and even lately by you. I am glad we are being more reasonable now, there is a difference between acting like one is "all for something" and acting ignorantly like one is "all for something". Crude actions by a few people towards a cause more often backfire than cause progress toward that goal. I remind you that I am still against this because I still haven't heard one good reason which convinces me that splitting the group would be a benefit, other than that some people just can't be bothered by ignoring a few subject threads that don't interest them. If there were a way to clean things up a bit, without loosing the community feeling of this group and shared common knowledge, I would be all for it. But I fear that the split will only cause the same thing that happened after the split of rec.autos.sports, now I can hardly talk about a great driver from Indycar moving up to Formula 1 in the F1 group without someone posting that indycar is junk, followed by others saying that the discussion should move to the Indycar group. Instead of a common sim racer community here we will have us -vs- them. If there were a addition of a new group I am leaning towards a group focused on online driving sim discussion, and not just nascar. I think it is shortsighted to start a group only for nascar, especially since there are bound to be more multiplayer sims coming on the market soon, now that Papyrus has led the way. Well, thats all for now. Cheers. --John -- ------------------- John (Joao) Silva http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva Seattle, Washington USA.