[MUD-Dev] META: Making the list public?

Jon A. Lambert jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jul 16 14:33:14 New Zealand Standard Time 1997

> From: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
> Subject: [MUD-Dev]  META: Making the list public?
> A)  Should the archives be requestable or browsable by non-members? 
> Note that this effectively makes ever poster's email address open.

The email addr problem doesn't bother me personally. I think the
benefit of archives to existing newer members would be high (list going
public or not).  To see what has gone before and all that.
> B)  Should the list be echoed (one way) to a newsgroup?  If it is
> echoed to a newsgroup should that group be a private group on a
> private newsserver, or should I create a moderated alt.mud.development
> group?

I think it very unlikely that a new 'alt' group will be picked up by
many news providers.  In fact my provider, Netcom, has been squeezing out
some of the low traffic "standard" groups and alt groups are disappearing
even faster.  Why not flood rec.games.mud.misc?  It seems to have the 
broadest FAQ.  Perhaps, like Matt said, a special tag could be reserved to 
prevent the echo should one desire.  

Echoing to a newsgroup has the advantage that one can effectively ignore 
noise ridden feedback should one desire.  It could also provide hours
amusement and frustration for readers of rgmm only. ;)

> C) Should the list be split into seperate lists, divided by topic? 
> What should the topic splits be?  (Note: I'm not keen on this motion. 
> Convince me)

I'm all for a subject tagging mechanism similar to what was proposed in
rgma.  This would be especially nice of us if we echo to an existing NG.
I think a physical list split would be counterproductive to discussion.  
Like others have pointed out, some threads have bounced between hardwired 
bit-level out to effects on user feelings and back.

> D) How should the list be publicised?  As part of this can the current
> list invitation be extended as the publicity banner, and if so, how
> should it be modified?  (Hey, Keegan!  How about that invitation
> update for the introduction message!)

I dunno that depends on subscription method below.
> E) How should new membership be handled?
>     2) Publicise the fact of the list, but leave membership by
> invitation only.  Require any new member to be sponsored by an
> existant member.

This is the current method with the added fact of publicity.  This 
could cause one to be open to elitism charges, but who cares.  It does
avoid much of the hit and run of option 4).  I think that fact that 
if someone takes the extra effort to request invitation from a member
is a good indicator that they have an interest in positive contribution.

> Do realise however that taking the list public opens it to the Reese
> idiot intolerace flames, Katrina's dunno-how-C++-works prattles,
> Addledbrain III's LP-is-da-deity pieties, DikuHeads R00L chants etc of
> the world, etc and that any moderation I do will be after the fact. 
> As such it will potentially open us to hit-and-run attacks.  I don't
> think this is a huge danger, but it is present and should be
> acknowledged.

Actually it would may likely open the list to more innocent forms
of "noise".  Such as "How do I compile a fooble on a Z-system?" or 
"I'm getting errors when I throw a flob switch in a widgetlib"

>   Note; Yes, I can close subscription for a while, ban selected 
>   users, remove posting priviledges, personally accept/reject 
>   every post for a while, etc, but the more time and effort 
>   these tactics require of me, the less eager I am to use them.

I think this question boils down mostly to your preferences.  If you
believe you have the time, thick skin, big stick, et al to handle
such a job then so be it.  I know you have the best intentions at 
heart for the good of the list and I'm certain you would close 
subscription if going public backfired and decreased your pleasure
in posting/reading the list.


More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list