[MUD-Dev] Re: [adv-mud] MUD-Dev vs. adv-mud

J C Lawrence claw at kanga.nu
Thu Jan 20 22:34:35 New Zealand Daylight Time 2000


On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:16:34 -0500 
phlUID  <phluid at mindless.com> wrote:

> J C Lawrence wrote:
>> <<Crossed to MUD-Dev>>

As is this.

> I've noticed that most, if not all, of the traffic that crosses
> the MUD-Dev list and the new adv-mud list is relitively
> compatible. 

True.

>   Both these lists are becoming incredibly similar.

I'd argue this one a little (not too much).  To reference an old
meta thread on MUD-Dev: MUD-Dev at this point is primarily concerned
with being a research establishment.  Adv-MUD conversely I'd rate as
having much more of an educational purpose.  As such, yes, they are
similar, but I see them as more complementary than duplicate.

Aside: I've been trying in various not-so-subtle ways to make a
research/educational split for MUD-Dev for a couple years now.  I've
never been able to arrive at a method that wouldn't detract more
than gained from what we already had however, mostly due to the fact
that I'd have to start with the same list members for both forums.
Or to put it another way, Adv-MUD *needs* to have a significantly
different membership base than MUD-Dev to fulfill it purpose.

> As far as I can discern, adv-mud is geared more towards actual
> code and implementation in C++, while MUD-Dev sticks to design
> principles because it encompasses the entire mudding community.

I'd place it a little differently:

  MUD-Dev's primary purpose is to advance the state of the art.
  This has been made clear and frequently publicly stated since the
  very early days.

  Adv-MUD seems to concentrate on teaching and bringing people up to
  the state of the art.

Both sides are necessary.  If MUD-Dev gets too far ahead it will
simply leave everybody behind without a trail to follow (a primary
purpose of the archives BTW).  I see Adv-MUD as able to help fill
and bridge that gap and thus help MUD-Dev in its base purpose.

> While I like design issues, I also like to get into the nitty
> gritty of the actual language, which is outside of MUD-Dev's
> general scope because it is language independant.

<shake head>  Not quite.  To quote from the MUD-Dev charter:

--<cut>--
The MUD Development mailing list is not platform, language or game
specific, but concentrates on discussing the design and
implementation of any and all MUD servers and systems. Another large
related topic is game design. This does not mean that the details of
a specific server or game design point can't be discussed in
excruciating detail, or even that server or game source can't be
bandied about and picked over, just that the list isn't to become a
religious stomping ground for your platform, language, server, or
hobby horse of choice. The topic definition is not limited to
technical areas: social engineering, cultural considerations,
applicability of technical addresses to "soft" problems, and other
less rigorous avenues of investigation are also fair game.

The goal is high signal, low noise. The MUD Development list is NOT
an email version of the rec.games.mud.* newsgroups.
--<cut>--

MUD-Dev adopts no religion be it language, platform, design
methodology, or game type.  You can argue and discuss language
specifics (as we often do) or any other detail, just not on the
basis of "XYZ rules and QRS sucks!".  A character of mutual respect
is central to MUD-Dev and such silliness doesn't fit.

> Most of my interests lie in both these areas, so I am going to
> make it my policy to carbon copy all my email about design issues
> to both the adv-mud list and the MUD-Dev list, while keeping
> coding issues on the adv-mud list. 

<wince>

>   My question is about any policies about cross-list email and
> what kind of format it should take so that it is easily
> understandable to members of one list and not the other.

My request as list owner is that any crosses are clearly labled.

> Obviously, most of you have probabily noticed that a lot of
> material is being forwarded to the MUD-Dev list from the adv-mud
> list.

Actually, no.  I periodically cross posts from other forums such as
Adv-MUD that I find interesting.  Sometimes this is for discussion
on MUD-Dev, or (just as often) so that they'll be archived under
MUD-Dev for posterity (EGroup's archives are notoriously short lived
and not terribly useful) and many other forums are poorly archived
if at all.  Adv-MUD happens to have had a few such crosses lately.
Rec.games.mud.* also gets a few now and then, as do other lists and
forums.

--
J C Lawrence                                 Home: claw at kanga.nu
----------(*)                              Other: coder at kanga.nu
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:16:34 -0500 
phlUID  <phluid at mindless.com> wrote:

> J C Lawrence wrote:
>> <<Crossed to MUD-Dev>>

>   I've noticed that most, if not all, of the traffic that crosses
> the MUD-Dev list and the new adv-mud list is relitively
> compatible. Mostly I've been sticking to the adv-mud list because
> I just recently joined MUD-Dev, but this brings up a point that
> seems painfully obvious to me:

>   Both these lists are becoming incredibly similar.

>   As far as I can discern, adv-mud is geared more towards actual
> code and implementation in C++, while MUD-Dev sticks to design
> principles because it encompasses the entire mudding community.
> While I like design issues, I also like to get into the nitty
> gritty of the actual language, which is outside of MUD-Dev's
> general scope because it is language independant.

>   Most of my interests lie in both these areas, so I am going to
> make it my policy to carbon copy all my email about design issues
> to both the adv-mud list and the MUD-Dev list, while keeping
> coding issues on the adv-mud list. I just wanted to announce this
> so that people won't become confused with cross-list email. I'll
> also try to keep it a bit more organized.  The only problem with
> this is that sometimes my questions about design are answered on
> the adv-mud list and then it becomes awkward to forward associated
> thread over to the MUD-Dev list.

>   My question is about any policies about cross-list email and
> what kind of format it should take so that it is easily
> understandable to members of one list and not the other.

>   Obviously, most of you have probabily noticed that a lot of
> material is being forwarded to the MUD-Dev list from the adv-mud
> list.

> Amos Wetherbee, The Spellbound Project

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access
> them from anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days.  Click here for
> a chance to win a digital camera.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/337/3/_/24951/_/948431178/

> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault --
> http://www.egroups.com/docvault/adv-mud/?m=1



--
J C Lawrence                                 Home: claw at kanga.nu
----------(*)                              Other: coder at kanga.nu
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list