Re: Best Newsgroup for Multiplayer Action games?

Thus spake Xocyll <Xocyll@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:47:19 -0500,
Anno Domini:

>>Only if you don't have cable. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to mirror
>>some of the content to local storage if you really wanted to. Again, that's
>>not the point of all this.
>
>The problem is which local? If the concept behind this is that you
>can link in from anywhere (ie travelling salesman with laptop) what is
>local? Is broadband available in the motel or only dialup? etc

As I said, only synchronise onto whatever local client for offline reading &
replying. That feature doesn't require Usenet OR the nntp protocol - you can
do it already with email lol!

>>>I keep certain messages in certain groups and have another couple groups
>>>that don't ever expire messages.
>>>Not an issue since it only affects this one computer and it's storage.
>>>
>>>How would that be done on your system?
>>>With some kind of centralized system you'd almost certainly have
>>>messages expiring - that or they'd have to have one hell of a lot of
>>>storage.
>>
>>Why? It's just text & pointers to certain graphics & formats stored
>>serverside. Obviously, for offline reading, you get no bells n whistles.
>
>Think about it - think about storing all the text groups usenet has,
>think about people in every one of those groups ALSO having 1 meg
>animated avatars (don't laugh, i've seen it), plus large picture sigs
>that get changed semi-frequently, plus the extra formatting information
>for color, fonts, etc (compare plain text vs HTML) and that storage
>becomes seriously non-trivial unless you're expiring messages.

I get your point X, but my point was more to emphasise a fully fledged news
reader with all the features - if you throw in graphics & bells for only
those who want it, then it's their bandwidth. Sure, if everyone used avatars
& big graphical sigs the central server(s) would probably crumble (just how
many ppl read Usenet as an estimate - anyone know?); OR, you could just link
to offsite storage like most html forums do, so the news provider doesn't
have to store anything except text, pointers & indices.

>>You're assumption is that Big Brother will actually moderate the content
>>somehow just because they host it. Unlikely if it's set up correctly in the
>>first place. Personally, I have no problems with someone filtering spam
>>artists, paedophiles & terrorists on my behalf. I know what you're gonna say
>>next - "who decides who's a spam artist, paedophile or & terrorist". Let's
>>not get silly m'kay? ;)
>
>It's going to require serious amounts of storage, indexing etc to manage
>with text plus all the other bells and whistles, so it's likely it would
>be a pay-to-play service.

See above for an alternative approach.

>The US already tried to regulate the internet with the Communications
>Decency Act. The world laughed because it's not US based so the US
>couldn't control it.
>
>We've also had the likes of Hillary Clinton on the rampage after the
>"hot coffee" incident.
>
>Do you really think a large commercial and CENTRALIZED server in the USA
>would not end up being moderated by the "protect the children" brigade
>or the looney "moral majority" types?

Fine, stick it in Antarctica, Denmark & Russia. It's just a matter of
bandwidth ;)

>It would also INCREASE SPAM, since those avatars and picture sigs are
>the perfect way to advertise due to a much wider focus and audience than
>a standard web forum.
>Dead easy to make a short, on-topic post/reply and have a big ad
>attached to your post.

Asshats will always be asshats. With a centralised model that has a strict
prohibition based on spam, virus deployment, kiddie porn & whatever the rest
of the civilised world would unanimously agree is more than sensible, you
would also eliminate 80+% of all that crap & thus *reduce* your bandwidth to
a large extent.

>We already get the occasional "ad disguised as a question" in these
>groups

Sure - but they don't use up too many of my brain cells ;)

>>>Remember how "bad posts" get removed from corporate forums if they
>>>complain about things that are wrong with the company's products.
>>
>>An open Usenet-like online, embedded text forum would have 1 or 2 groups out
>>of several tens of *thousands* related to the client app itself. They would
>>do that now with a web-based forum, so what's your point? If Usenet's only
>>advantage is to allow trolls & arsewipes to slag off anything & everything
>>thus subtracting from the sum total value with every post, good riddance to
>>them! Anyway, we're talking about discussion groups - focusing on the client
>>in correlation to these is tantamount to a straw dog imo. Same thing if you
>>slag off your ISP on one of their web forums - what would you expect to
>>happen? I actually won that war with my ISP years ago with my own group:
>>labyrinth.nostromo.vent (now keypoint.*). It's a place where *absolutely* no
>>rules apply - language or otherwise. Only requirement is that you vent! Some
>>very interesting exchanges in this AO private newsgroup in the past, both
>>with staff & other subs >:-)))
>
>You're not thinking straight.

I'm not thinkin gay either, but you can think anyway you want X! ;-p

>Anything that can be done or said will have someone pissed off.
>Some company forums don't mind complaints, others will ban people for
>the slightest complaint.

The point is NOT to have a centralised moderator or enforcer of any kind,
just a software/portal/data storage provider. If I buy timber from a
hardware store & build my own house, the store ain't gonna tell me what I
can or can't put in it after I've built it! If they try they lose a
customer. Getting the picture? ;) So long as the US of A(sshats) government
isn't allowed to run this service & technology most of your arguments go
away.

>It doesn't HAVE to be company related - once you have a centralized
>point that can exert control you'll get every fringe lunatic trying to
>get their pet peeves banned.

When I said 'moderated' I didn't mean in a traditional sense, nor across the
board. See above for explanations.

>The real people that think games are evil, or porn is evil or movies are
>evil or....

I think we can all (at least 99.99% of us) say that spam & viruses & kiddie
porn are evil. If not, may I suggest that free thought & democracy aren't
working any more? ;-p

>In other words the people that operate under the philosophy of "I don't
>like it therefor it must be banned."
>Generally these people are just too stupid to know what usenet is or
>figure out how to post to it.

Security through obscurity hey? Works until you stop being obscure. Look at
the trolls throughout these groups over the past couple years - the ones
that just drop crossposted troll-count emails & don't even care what group
it is they're shitting on. They never used to be this prolific even a couple
years back. I've got bad news X - they've found us & they ain't ever giving
up on tormenting us, so long as Usenet is completely unmoderated.

>>>We've seen that time and time again in official game forums, where
>>>you're just not allowed to post if you're saying bad things - even if
>>>those bad things are bugs that everyone is encountering.
>>>I'd rather not see that kind of thing enter usenet as well.
>>
>>How many groups do you know of that talk about Usenet itself as the primary
>>topic...? See above. Red herring I say.
>
>Yes you are putting out a red herring, since I never said anything about
>talking about usenet itself.

You effectively suggested that the provider/controller of this
software/service would try to control all the groups (like 70,000+ at
present!), rather than just concern themselves with their own private groups
& related content. I think you're getting paranoid here.

>Let me put it into perspective for you; Shadowcove II.

Red herring - that service was specific to the game servers it was purpose
built for & *directly* related to all things SCII. Plus you had to subscribe
& get a login/passwd, which they could revoke if you trashed their primary
content & services. IF you bad mouthed Rumanian politics or the price of
Fish in China, do you think they would've even noticed? Likewise, this
service would/should be set up to be mostly self-moderating (with the above
noted exceptions).

>>>>>The last thing usenet needs is an influx of the illiterate morons who
>>>>>infest most web forums.
>>>>>As long as usenet doesn't have the web forum "features" they like so
>>>>>much, they voluntarily stay away. This is a good thing.
>>>>
>>>>I think you're over-reacting a tad ;) If the reader only shows what a person
>>>>sets up, then not all clients/subs will have avatars & crap set up. Even so,
>>>>the filtering would be done serverside based on *your* preferred client
>>>>settings - hardly much extra processing power to speak of.
>>>
>>>You're not understanding the problem.
>>>It's not that I would have to see those features, it's that the presence
>>>of those features would draw in the web forum weenies like flies to
>>>***.
>>
>>Well, it's a free Internet. If they can read & write they're welcome. If the
>>content is still the drawcard AND it's available on any browser *anywhere*
>>(even internet cafes) then I think it would weed out the weenies by natural
>>selection. Hey, it's not like there's not a fair share of them (including
>>spam & trolls) in these groups as it is now!
>
>There you have the problem, they can't write coherently.
>Making it available everywhere would mean the kind of "spelling is
>tough" web weenies would be into everything.

Well, then we have (or had) Bateau with this ascii crap
& SK with his zealous anti-steam crap & a number of others who would &
should get banned from any self-respecting forum is they incessantly &
continually flood it with their brand of crap. Would anyone in their sane
mind disagree...? Sure, warning emails & 3 strikes or whatever, but it
wouldn't go on for *years* ffs!

>Go check out some game forums and look at the average post, now add
>several THOUSAND of those posts to this newsgroup.
>Would that make this group better?
>Not a chance, it would just mean a huge amount of idiots to killfile and
>an immense amount of noise drowning out the signal.

Stop focusing on the graphics stuff. I was always much more interested in a
centralised, web-accessible, embedded, feature-rich, platform independent,
preferably open-source news-like client - the graphics was an afterthought,
so lets not dwell, m'kay? ;)

>Natural selection is already weeding them out, that's why they don't
>post to usenet, only to web forums.

I think there's other reasons. I happen to like some of the web forums I'm
on, graphics & all. Doesn't make me illiterate or a graphics whore or
stoopid. But yes, when there's a lot of threads & sub-threads a typical
online forum gets very hard to follow & read effectively - plaintext is
best. One could go a step further & integrate IM & chat groups with this
sort of client, but I know you're probably steaming up right now as I say
that, so I won't go any further :).

>Putting a web forum type interface on usenet is like putting a "do not
>blow dry hair while taking a shower" warning sticker on a hair dryer.

Heh - but how fun it would be to mess with the rednecks, ey? >8^D

>>The only reason I suggest an alternative to Usenet is because the transport
>>mechanism for it is outdated imo & the storage is, well, flat files, which
>>are NOT a good information storage medium when talking about complex
>>indexing, searches & interactions. Having said that, a meta-engine with a
>>RDB back-end may be just fine tacked onto Usenet, but if the system were
>>largely centralised (with redundant mirrors) then nntp would become defunct
>>eventually. I guess Google Groups most likely already do this - it's just
>>that their client is *** compared to any decent newsreader.
>
>Suggest your idea to google and maybe they'll like it and implement it.

Well, they're already half way their, but all they are is just an
archive/poor indexing service for Usenet. I want bigger & better from the
ground up!

>Having that kind of thing as a specialized newsreader while leaving
>usenet alone is perfectly fine. Changing the way usenet works in order
>to make it more web-forum like is a bad idea and would quickly kill off
>usenet under the weight of the webTV types.

As per several points above, this was an afterthought, not the primary focus
of my suggestion. I mentioned it as a hook to perhaps attract all the other
(semi)literate ppl on the internet, live & let live & all that ***...but I
see now I'm preaching to the forever-unconverted here (in regards to
accepting any & all), so let's call it a draw, ey? ;)

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
.

Loading