RE: Tolerance

I agree!

David Best

>----------
>From:	Deeply in Love with Dot[SMTP:jw4@bolton.ac.uk]
>Sent:	Tuesday, September 16, 1997 10:53 AM
>To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
>Subject:	Re: Tolerance
>
>At 09:42 16/09/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>>Personally the attachments don't bother me, neither does the FTL
thread
>>>(yet), but can't we be a little more tolerant??
>>
>>I feel compelled to add my forpennorth (British 2 cents) to this:
>>Personally speaking I like to read mails relating (though not always
>>directly) to wargaming.  What I do not like to read (in volume) is a
>>discussion between two factions covering subjects which, although
starting
>>in game relavant material, rapidly expands into so much pseudo science
(my
>>physics is better than your physiscs) ramble.  Come on guys this is a
game
>>after all, who cares about the real world, we are PLAYING with little
>>spaceships, PRETENDING they are in space.  Surely we do not need to
justify
>>what we want to do with some science babble.	If I want to use some
super
>>X-ray laser scanner missile disruptor then as long as my gaming
>>group/oppponent doesn't mind/likes the idea then who cares if it
does/will
>>ever exsist.	As  a bonus if it works then I may post it on the net
where I
>>would expect an amount of 'its too expensive/powerful/try this
>>modification' type of discussion.  I do not feel it is neccesary for a
>>three week long argument over the net as to the possiblity of this
thing or
>>how it may work, in my mind it just DOES, is that not enough ? If
folks
>>want to argue the future/potential physics of things then please do so
but
>>why not mail each other privately.
>>
>>As far as attatchments go.  I thought the nettiquet of attatchments
was not
>>to send them unsolicited.  OK so I don't pay for my email time so I
have no
>>problems with them but some folks do, so perhaps it is best not to
send
>>them unless asked to.
>>
>>Rather than start a flame war over the mailing list, if folks want to
flame
>>me for my opinions then please mail me privately !
>>
>>Stuart.
>For what it's worth I think those are pretty good guidelines. Rather
than
>set any arbitrary limits I like the list to attempt to police itself,
which
>it does in general quite well. We have the odd flurry, in the way of
the AI
>debate or the FTL one, but even then they are within the general
purview
>and may be useful to some. But as I have had private email from a
couple of
>people who were having problems with the volume of mail these two
>generated, I would ask people in future to attempt to at least keep it
game
>relevant. I stayed out of the AI debate but I was as guilty as anyone
in
>the FTL one, so this goes for me too I suppose. As a rule of thumb from
now
>on, I would ask people to consider the mail they are sending and if
they
>cannot see how what they are talking about could be interpreted in a
game
>setting, then think twice about posting.
>
>As to binaries, or even text encosings of binaries, in general I'm
against
>them. If you have something you want to distribute, post that you have
it
>and ask people to request you send it to them. If you post a binary to
the
>list even with the best will in the world you will end up angering as
many
>people as you help.
>
>			TTFN
>				Jon
>----------------------------------------------
>'And I love what we are but I hate what I am
> And I wanna be like you but I hate when you're like them'
>		    Maria McKee 'What Else you Wanna Know'
>BWFC Fans List Home Page - 
>	     http://www.sar.bolton.ac.uk/bwfclist/home.html
>