Strategy NG dying as well

In article
<072ebc14-ae5b-48f5-bfc8-63b6ac0439fa.RemoveThis@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Jonah Falcon <jonahnynla.RemoveThis@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Sports NG is dead, the Strategy NG is dying. (sigh)

S/N ratio is on the rise, though...

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

Jonah Falcon <jonahnynla.RemoveThis@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Sports NG is dead, the Strategy NG is dying. (sigh)

That is a common theme, but individual USENET discussion groups are
constantly waxing and waning. The USENET as a whole also waxes and
wanes, probably depending on factors like social and economic
climates.

If you think a group is dead, of course you can always move on to
something else.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc.DeleteThis@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote:

> S/N ratio is on the rise, though...

Thanks to Google Groups, the new spam/troll portal to USENET.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

John Doe wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc.TakeThisOut@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
>> S/N ratio is on the rise, though...
>
> Thanks to Google Groups, the new spam/troll portal to USENET.

That *lowers* the Signal/Noise ratio -- high is good, low is bad.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

Jonah Falcon wrote:
> Sports NG is dead, the Strategy NG is dying. (sigh)
As yet I haven't seen any Empire: Total War posts here.

Thoughts?

--
Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

On Jan 11, 3:28 pm, John Doe <j....TakeThisOut@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

> If you think a group is dead, of course you can always move on to
> something else.

Or submit a proposal to Big8. There are currently too many sub-groups
to begin with, and Usenet as a whole has lost much of the critical
mass that justified the sprawl of sub-groups that you see in every
major hierarchy. The problem, IMO, is that the Big8 policies are a bit
too lenient in regard to automatic pruning; without a proposal, dead
groups can keep going for years based on little more than the
occasional spam post. It fragments the community and makes the service
look dead to newcomers, when you subscribe to 10 groups just to find
out that 9 of them are worthless.

Then, of course, there's the people who would resist a merge because
they'd rather check a group to see one good post a week than to have
to "filter" all the other discussions in an active group. Well, at
least they're getting their wish. Too much activity will never be a
problem for Usenet again, and Usenet as a public forum is dead. Make
no mistake, although you may see or hear of things that call
themselves Usenet, they're really just different applications of NNTP.
The most popular ways of recycling the protocol:

1. A centralized, for-pay filesharing network
2. Localized, moderated, corporation-owned, text-only forums (like how
Microsoft, Mozilla, and Eclipse use it currently)

Oh look, I went off on a rant. See you guys next time.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

yaugin <yaugin RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 3:28 pm, John Doe <j... RemoveThis @usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If you think a group is dead, of course you can always move on to
>> something else.
>
> Or submit a proposal to Big8. There are currently too many
> sub-groups to begin with,

That might be temporary. That's not a reason to get rid of them
(current ISPs probably pay little attention to the Big8 anyway).
Besides, what about the thousands of truly frivolous groups?

> and Usenet as a whole has lost much of the critical mass that
> justified the sprawl of sub-groups that you see in every major
> hierarchy.

Assuming that's true, that might be temporary.

> The problem, IMO, is that the Big8 policies are a bit too lenient
> in regard to automatic pruning; without a proposal, dead groups
> can keep going for years based on little more than the occasional
> spam post. It fragments the community

If the community is nonexistent, you can't fragment it.

> and makes the service look dead to newcomers, when you subscribe
> to 10 groups just to find out that 9 of them are worthless.

That sounds fishy to me. Most users find their way to a
group they want to be in.

You can hang out in (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc) or maybe ask for a
group name (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games) and hang out there. There is no
need for an attempt to prune legitimately named groups.

> Then, of course, there's the people who would resist a merge

Sounds like the Borg talking.

> because they'd rather check a group to see one good post a week
> than to have to "filter" all the other discussions in an active
> group. Well, at least they're getting their wish.

I'm surprised you know what the Big8 is and yet you are arguing like
you've never seen the 10,000 USENET groups with the most ridiculous
names and little/nothing but spam.

> Too much activity will never be a problem for Usenet again, and
> Usenet as a public forum is dead.

That sounds silly to me. The home built PC group is thriving. The
tennis group is huge. I'm sure lots of other groups are thriving
too.

> Make no mistake, although you may see or hear of things that call
> themselves Usenet,

I haven't. Sounds interesting but whatever it is probably would
require ISP participation to be like USENET.

I'm familiar with paid-for binary groups/servers though (premium
USENET servers).
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

On Jan 12, 10:28 pm, John Doe <j....TakeThisOut@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> yaugin <yau....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or submit a proposal to Big8. There are currently too many
> > sub-groups to begin with,
>
> That might be temporary. That's not a reason to get rid of them
> (current ISPs probably pay little attention to the Big8 anyway).
> Besides, what about the thousands of truly frivolous groups?
>
> > and Usenet as a whole has lost much of the critical mass that
> > justified the sprawl of sub-groups that you see in every major
> > hierarchy.
>
> Assuming that's true, that might be temporary.

Temporary how? Other than unfounded optimism, under what circumstances
would you propose that people start flocking to Usenet?

> If the community is nonexistent, you can't fragment it.

Your strategy is reversed: fragmentation is a contributing factor to
why the community is nonexistent. If you join 10 groups and find them
almost empty, what are the chances that you are going to stay? On the
other hand, multiply one of those groups' traffic by 10 and many more
people will find a reason to stay. That's the significance of critical
mass. You need a certain amount of people in order to attract more.

> That sounds fishy to me. Most users find their way to a
> group they want to be in.

"Most"? Usenet has been losing population for years. Many formerly
high-traffic groups are now completely deserted. Obviously "most" are
finding it lacking. The error in your calculation is that you are
counting the number of people that are here rather than the number of
people that aren't.

> You can hang out in (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc) or maybe ask for a
> group name (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games) and hang out there. There is no
> need for an attempt to prune legitimately named groups.

What would be the point? Any csipg group name you are given is
practically devoid of traffic, except for maybe action and rpg.

> I'm surprised you know what the Big8 is and yet you are arguing like
> you've never seen the 10,000 USENET groups with the most ridiculous
> names and little/nothing but spam.

What part of "dead groups can keep going for years based on little
more than the
occasional spam post" didn't you understand?

And make up your mind: should groups not be pruned or are there too
many groups with little/nothing but spam?

>
> > Too much activity will never be a problem for Usenet again, and
> > Usenet as a public forum is dead.
>
> That sounds silly to me. The home built PC group is thriving. The
> tennis group is huge. I'm sure lots of other groups are thriving
> too.

For every group you can name that has maintained itself since the turn
of the millennium, there is a multiple of groups that used to be
thriving and are now dying or completely dead. I didn't say that there
are no useful groups left at all; that is a straw argument. I'm saying
Usenet is dying, and that's the only direction it's going, sans the
two new applications I mentioned.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

So, Mark Bender is now pontificating on how to save usenet eh?

The guy who used to flood games groups with "no read, no
comment" responses on every message.. as if the entire
group was just hanging on his every word, and really cared
what messages he had read or not, or commented on.

The guy who spent years telling how he was going to completely
reinvent the real time strategy genre with his brilliant ideas. (at
least brilliant to him, convulted and stupid to everyone else).

The guy who calls anyone who ever says anything bad about
him a troll and posts lengthy headers as part of it.

The guy who is constantly arrogant and sanctimonious, talking
down at everyone like he's the greatest intellectual hero in the
history of usenet.

The guy who is such an arrogant twat that he has people stalking
him around on usenet posting his real life info.

This arrogant twat is the one who is now telling us how to
save usenet? My God, this guy never get's over himself. It's
amazing.

HEY MARK, IT'S BECAUSE OF IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT
USENET IS DYING IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU CLUELESS
RETARD.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

In article
<bf8de590-b974-4f9f-b39d-1e7d4dccaa56 DeleteThis @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
yaugin <yaugin DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 3:28 pm, John Doe <j... DeleteThis @usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> > If you think a group is dead, of course you can always move on to
> > something else.

> Or submit a proposal to Big8. There are currently too many sub-groups
[snip]

In what way are there "too many sub-groups"? Who among us uses a
newsreader that can't subscribe to multiple groups? How hard is it to
ignore the empty ones and post in the ones with posts?

I don't see what the problem is.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

yaugin <yaugin gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 12, 10:28 pm, John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> yaugin <yau... gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Or submit a proposal to Big8. There are currently too many
>> > sub-groups to begin with,
>>
>> That might be temporary. That's not a reason to get rid of them
>> (current ISPs probably pay little attention to the Big8 anyway).
>> Besides, what about the thousands of truly frivolous groups?
>>
>> > and Usenet as a whole has lost much of the critical mass that
>> > justified the sprawl of sub-groups that you see in every major
>> > hierarchy.
>>
>> Assuming that's true, that might be temporary.
>
> Temporary how?

Lost much of the critical mass how? I see no evidence of what you
are saying except in a few groups.

> Other than unfounded optimism, under what circumstances would you
> propose that people start flocking to Usenet?

I would think that social and economic pressures strongly affect
participation in gaming groups.

>> If the community is nonexistent, you can't fragment it.
>
> Your strategy is reversed: fragmentation is a contributing factor
> to why the community is nonexistent. If you join 10 groups and
> find them almost empty, what are the chances that you are going to
> stay?

Some users enjoy hanging out in almost extinct groups.

> On the other hand, multiply one of those groups' traffic by 10 and
> many more people will find a reason to stay.

Some people prefer more focused discussion.

> That's the significance of critical mass. You need a certain
> amount of people in order to attract more.

Users congregate wherever they feel like congregating. Having fewer
group names has nothing to do with it.

>> That sounds fishy to me. Most users find their way to a group
>> they want to be in.
>
> "Most"? Usenet has been losing population for years.

Prove it. Provide some data. A few gaming groups have lost some
traffic, but again it's easy to figure that social and economic
circumstances can cause waxing and waning of gaming groups.

> Many formerly high-traffic groups are now completely deserted.

Show me some data. There are hundreds of groups thriving here on
USENET.

> Obviously "most" are finding it lacking. The error in your
> calculation is that you are counting the number of people that are
> here rather than the number of people that aren't.

Just like nym shifting trolls (mostly from Google Groups nowadays),
the cry "USENET is dying" is common and old as the hills. Making
predictions like that and nym shifting go hand in hand.

>> You can hang out in (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc) or maybe ask for
>> a group name (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games) and hang out there. There is
>> no need for an attempt to prune legitimately named groups.
>
> What would be the point? Any csipg group name you are given is
> practically devoid of traffic, except for maybe action and rpg.

I thought you wanted to hang out in a less specific group. Go for
it.

>> I'm surprised you know what the Big8 is and yet you are arguing
>> like you've never seen the 10,000 USENET groups with the most
>> ridiculous names and little/nothing but spam.
>
> What part of "dead groups can keep going for years based on little
> more than the occasional spam post" didn't you understand?

The part between groups that are utterly meaningless and groups that
are very well named legitimate groups like this strategy gaming
group.

> And make up your mind: should groups not be pruned or are there
> too many groups with little/nothing but spam?

I know you aren't that blind to not see the difference.

>> > Too much activity will never be a problem for Usenet again, and
>> > Usenet as a public forum is dead.
>>
>> That sounds silly to me. The home built PC group is thriving. The
>> tennis group is huge. I'm sure lots of other groups are thriving
>> too.
>
> For every group you can name that has maintained itself since the
> turn of the millennium, there is a multiple of groups that used to
> be thriving and are now dying or completely dead.

Only in your head.

> I didn't say that there are no useful groups left at all;

You haven't provided any evidence of USENET as a whole dying either.

> I'm saying Usenet is dying, and that's the only direction it's
> going,

Yeah, your argument is that USENET is dying. Your argument is very
clear but your argument is unsupported.

Once again... gaming groups are likely to wax and wane due to
social/economic circumstance and maybe other reasons. Other groups
wax and wane too. The cry that USENET is dying is nothing new, it's
a troll that has been used for ages. I bet you have made that claim
before, and if I cared to know any of your conceivably countless
former aliases, I could probably find such a quote.

When I look at my server's newsgroup list, I see hundreds of huge
groups, there is no indication that USENET is dying. Lots of groups
interest me and all of those groups except for this strategy gaming
group and the speech recognition group (that's almost always been
tiny) are thriving.

The tennis group is just plain huge. You might attribute that to the
fact that Roger Federer is becoming clearly the greatest player of
all time. Groups wax and wane, for various reasons.

The idea of removing legitimately named groups is just silly IMO,
besides it's never going to happen.

>>> Oh look, I went off on a rant. See you guys next time.

I should have quoted that, I could have guessed it wasn't going to
happen that way













>
>
> Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: yaugin <yaugin.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
> Subject: Re: Strategy NG dying as well
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:07:15 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 29
> Message-ID: <bf8de590-b974-4f9f-b39d-1e7d4dccaa56.TakeThisOut@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> References: <072ebc14-ae5b-48f5-bfc8-63b6ac0439fa.TakeThisOut@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <iYShj.35597$lD6.24703@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.6.88.232
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1200193635 30926 127.0.0.1 (13 Jan 2008 03:07:15 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse.TakeThisOut@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:07:15 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse.TakeThisOut@google.com
> Injection-Info: e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.6.88.232; posting-account=76bCRAoAAAD3Je1oNuDj2VCPwIyxpZOr
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Bytes: 2747
> Xref: prodigy.net comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic:877527
> X-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:07:16 EST (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

<snip>

I think people tend to prefer message boards to usenet boards now.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

"Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote:

> So, Mark Bender is now pontificating on how to save usenet eh?

Sounds like a personal problem. I haven't argued anything about
saving USENET. I don't think USENET needs saving.

> The guy who used to flood games groups with "no read, no comment"
> responses on every message..

That's a lie from a guy who self admittedly apparently frequently
goes off his medications.

> as if the entire group was just hanging on his every word, and
> really cared what messages he had read or not, or commented on.

I don't think so. I was evolving, learning how to cope with the
trolls like Jim Vieira. And in fact, ignoring a sub thread is the
only filter I use these days. Ignoring a thread branch is the most
effective filter there is, if necessary combined with a non nym
shifting author ID.

> The guy who spent years telling how he was going to completely
> reinvent the real time strategy genre with his brilliant ideas.
> (at least brilliant to him,

Nothing about reinventing real-time strategy. I have some ideas
about real-time strategy that might improve the genre. I've never
brag about them and I've never called them brilliant. The only
argument I have made made is about how certain ideas could be
implemented and how they would improve gameplay.

> convulted and stupid to everyone else).

Sounds like Jim Vieira's ego problem thinking he's the speaker for
real-time strategy gamers.

> The guy who calls anyone who ever says anything bad about him a
> troll

Jim Vieira is a troll, IMO, obviously. Since a strategy gaming group
isn't the place to say bad things about other authors, naturally
you're going to consider someone a troll when they start saying bad
things about you. It's called "mudslinging".

<Snipped lots more trolling>

> that he has people stalking him around on usenet posting his real
> life info.

Violating the privacy of innocent people. Freedom of speech includes
the responsibility for that speech. Nobody forces you to say
anything on the Internet. It's your responsibility alone.

<Snipped lots more trolling>

> YOU CLUELESS RETARD.

I'd tell you to crawl back under the rock you came from, Jim Vieira,
but I know your mother is so fat now that's impossible.










>
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post01.iad01!post02.iad01!roadrunner.com!not-for-mail
> From: "Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT wiDOT.rrDOT.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
> References: <072ebc14-ae5b-48f5-bfc8-63b6ac0439fa k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <iYShj.35597$lD6.24703 newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <bf8de590-b974-4f9f-b39d-1e7d4dccaa56 e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <Cciij.7238$se5.1884 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <c243eb8c-99cb-4849-86c5-a2eb5a55ecc3 s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Strategy NG dying as well
> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:38:39 -0600
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> Lines: 30
> Message-ID: <478a4c85$0$18460$4c368faf roadrunner.com>
> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.135.236.110
> X-Complaints-To: abuse rr.com
> Xref: prodigy.net comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic:877532
>
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well