Rustwurk?

Can we now consider it officially dead? Peteo

On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 04:29:03 GMT, "Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> wrote: >Can we now consider it officially dead? > >Peteo Well, mostly dead anyhow.. I'd post more messages there, but it begins to look like you're talking to yourself when nobody else has anything to say. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

>>Can we now consider it officially dead? >> >>Peteo > >Well, mostly dead anyhow.. > >I'd post more messages there, but it begins to look like you're talking >to yourself when nobody else has anything to say. Yeah, I've been seeing clear signs of rigor mortis the past several months as well... A shame 'specially since it was revamped pretty recently. Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] Some of the revamp was pretty good, but was maybe a bit too much of a good thing. Part of the problem is the icons used to mark new messages, being as the color difference to the icons are so slight as to be nearly indistinguishable from messages you'd already viewed. Maintaining a good website requires a lot of effort, and it's a real shame to see Rustwork fade away after such a good start. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

<berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message news:3e13e978....@netnews.attbi.com... [ quoted text not captured ] This may just be the public relations professional in me asserting itself, but what is the interest level in having a central internet hub such as Rustwurk? Could it survive another incarnation? Maybe something completely different could be tried? I would guess not, but you never know. I've always wanted to be involved in a web project for V:TES but I dont have the resources to do it myself. I realize that we have www.thelasombra.com and it is a wonderful resource, but its focus is mainly an archival one, and I was thinking if V:TES could stand to use something more "news" related. My fear of course is that this might be the first step to crossing from game to work, and we certainly don't want that. So, is there an interest and/or need to have something like Rustwurk that operates and updates regularly? Peteo

On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 04:42:25 GMT, "Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> wrote: >This may just be the public relations professional in me asserting itself, >but what is the interest level in having a central internet hub such as >Rustwurk? Low. > Could it survive another incarnation? No. > Maybe something completely different could be tried? Which would then be something completely different, not Rustwurk reincarnated. > I would guess not, but you never know. I've >always wanted to be involved in a web project for V:TES but I dont have the >resources to do it myself. >I realize that we have www.thelasombra.com and it is a wonderful resource, >but its focus is mainly an archival one, and I was thinking if V:TES could >stand to use something more "news" related. My fear of course is that this >might be the first step to crossing from game to work, and we certainly >don't want that. texas.vekn.org was originally created to be the SlashDot for the VTES community. The VTES community ignored it. >So, is there an interest and/or need to have something like Rustwurk that >operates and updates regularly? All Rustwurk has been is a forum. That's why the newsgroup exists and has interaction from people around the world, is to fulfill the needs that a forum fulfills. It also brings news, strategy articles, tournament announcements, and everything else Rustwurk originally strived towards. Having it web-based instead of news-reader based didn't have any effect on the only important part of the equation, the creative participation of its members. When the newsgroups is going strong, it blows away everything Rustwurk ever tried to be. I have nothing but respect for Grant and the effort he put into making it all look good, in both incarnations, but that kind of effort has to be its own reward, and it the vast majority of cases, the effort isn't worth the reward. Carpe noctem. Lasombra

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, The Lasombra wrote: > Having it web-based instead of news-reader based didn't have any > effect on the only important part of the equation, the creative > participation of its members. When the newsgroups is going strong, it > blows away everything Rustwurk ever tried to be. I've got most the well known V:TES web pages bookmarked, but I only check them out occasionally, usually in reference to some comment made here. I much prefer Usenet to any web-based forum. The one exception to this is Path of Blood on which I lurk, and on which I would post, if Todd would just give me a hand with a valid password and id.... something went screwy somewhere. I would say that we don't need a web-page that attempts to be the newsgroup, but more focused web-pages on certain clans or sects might fill a niche. $.02 David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu

On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 02:20:29 -0500, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 04:42:25 GMT, "Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> >wrote: > >>This may just be the public relations professional in me asserting itself, >>but what is the interest level in having a central internet hub such as >>Rustwurk? > >Low. I respectfully disagree with you on this Jeff. By all rights White Wolf's Vampire CCG page should be THE central internet hub. >> Could it survive another incarnation? > >No. Probably true. This last revamp prettied things up to the point where it became difficult to use. If changes were to take place, don't lose the user database. >> Maybe something completely different could be tried? > >Which would then be something completely different, not Rustwurk >reincarnated. > >> I would guess not, but you never know. I've >>always wanted to be involved in a web project for V:TES but I dont have the >>resources to do it myself. Depends on what you mean by resources. There is plenty of free (or next to free) resources available on the web if you know where to look. >>I realize that we have www.thelasombra.com and it is a wonderful resource, >>but its focus is mainly an archival one, and I was thinking if V:TES could >>stand to use something more "news" related. My fear of course is that this >>might be the first step to crossing from game to work, and we certainly >>don't want that. > >texas.vekn.org was originally created to be the SlashDot for the VTES >community. The VTES community ignored it. It has never been promoted except on initial release of the site. Also, if you were in another state or part of the world (let's say Canada) how likely are you going to visit a site that is self-labelled VEKN:Texas. Ethan has a great site, but IMO it will never become a slashdot for VTES due to it's name. If I had no idea that VEKN:Texas was a central repository of information, why would I look there? >>So, is there an interest and/or need to have something like Rustwurk that >>operates and updates regularly? > >All Rustwurk has been is a forum. Not true. When they originally kicked off the Rustwurk site they had various articles in print. There were 2 monthly issues per my recollection, and then the dreaded reincarnation took place. >That's why the newsgroup exists and has interaction from people around >the world, is to fulfill the needs that a forum fulfills. It also >brings news, strategy articles, tournament announcements, and >everything else Rustwurk originally strived towards. Somewhat. But the NG tends to be a snippy little place that doesn't get all the traffic that a central location would (if done proper). Ever take a look at websites that popup around videogames? Those people understand marketing and their target audience. >Having it web-based instead of news-reader based didn't have any >effect on the only important part of the equation, the creative >participation of its members. When the newsgroups is going strong, it >blows away everything Rustwurk ever tried to be. I can't agree with you on that. Before they changed the format at RustWurk I found it to be a much more agreeable venue than the NG. Perhaps as there was a lot more positive energy behind the site, and moderators that were enthusiastic about VTES. >I have nothing but respect for Grant and the effort he put into making >it all look good, in both incarnations, but that kind of effort has to >be its own reward, and it the vast majority of cases, the effort isn't >worth the reward. The downside of running an active website is the amount of energy required to keep it going strong. To really make it work, you need a team of people that trusts each other to get things done. >Carpe noctem. > >Lasombra BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

<berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message news:3e15ab98....@netnews.attbi.com... > On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 02:20:29 -0500, The Lasombra > <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 04:42:25 GMT, "Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> > >wrote: <snip stuff> > >> I would guess not, but you never know. I've > >>always wanted to be involved in a web project for V:TES but I dont have the > >>resources to do it myself. > > Depends on what you mean by resources. There is plenty of free (or next > to free) resources available on the web if you know where to look. > I don't have a dedicated connection to the internet and I don't have a good piece of hardware to function as a server. I also probably lack the technical knowledge necessary to make a decent looking, decently functional site, at least on my own. > >>I realize that we have www.thelasombra.com and it is a wonderful resource, > >>but its focus is mainly an archival one, and I was thinking if V:TES could > >>stand to use something more "news" related. My fear of course is that this > >>might be the first step to crossing from game to work, and we certainly > >>don't want that. > > < snip V:EKN Texas > [ quoted text not captured ] The problem with Rustwurk was its redundancy. Since it only updated itself once a month, the forums became the central focus of the site even though that probably wasn't the intention of Grant and Co. So why visit a web-based forum when you have the NG? So then, a central internet hub needs to be "news" related so that it truly supplements the NG and doesn't step on its toes. The question then becomes, is there enough "news" worth covering in the V:TES community to warrant such a site? By "news" I mean both news in the traditional sense (i.e. tournament reports, expansion releases) and features (i.e. clan newsletters, player profiles etc.) I don't doubt that there are a good number of players out there with the drive to contribute toward such an effort. Maybe I'm just bored and need something to do. I should build some decks :-) Peteo

Peter Oh wrote: > So, is there an interest and/or need to have something like Rustwurk that > operates and updates regularly? I dunno--this game doesn't have *that* big of aplayer base, and while I occasionally checked out Rustwurk discussions, they really were just more of the same stuff from here, usually with most of the same people. Not a bad thing, but is there really that much of a need for multiple discussion forums? I'm not saying that Rustwurk was a bad thing, as it was a very well organized and spiffy site, but as a guy who spends a lot of time talking smack onthe internet, I generally find spreading my discussion around too many areas difficult, so I go with the easy option, which for VTES is this here newsgroup. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "she tore down Paris on the tail of Thom Paine but the left wing's broken and the right's insane" -Bowie

In message <3e15ab98....@netnews.attbi.com>, berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM writes: <Online V:TES resources, a la Rustwurk> >I respectfully disagree with you on this Jeff. By all rights White >Wolf's Vampire CCG page should be THE central internet hub. In part, that depends on what the function of such a hub is. Were V:TES a huge, sprawling, disparate subject like, say, Unix operating systems, you'd have significant problems stuffing everything into one hub - the intersection of device driver programming, web scripting, kernel details, how to run the latest game and so on isn't that huge, since lots of people will want one bit and not another. V:TES is generally much more focused than that. A central hub is much more likely to include a lot more of the information lots of people want/need. Lasombra's website does such now, for instance. Where does this cause problems? For a start, lots of people want card lists *as soon as the cards become available*. With small sets, these are often rapidly constructed, well in advance of White Wolf releasing them. Would it then be appropriate for White Wolf to be hosting the unofficial ones as well? Such could be problematic - a number of promotional things done with magazines often work on the principal that the company won't release the information. Hosting the unofficial ones too has problems. So then you have the problem of them having to weed out some things, and it ceases to be a central hub, but one of several. Similar problems might occur if, say, White Wolf go temporarily insane, sack LSJ, double the price of V:TES cards, employ 5 year old children to colour them in by hand in sweat shops and rule that half your collection is unplayable on different days.[0] A central hub would be a good place for different groups of players to put their views forward, and campaign in certain ways. Again, having it on a White Wolf administered server could cause problems. Additionally, designing, maintaining and promoting such a hub introduces additional costs for White Wolf. Now, we know that some post-WotC V:TES cards have sold like crack cocaine *but* we don't know what the profit margin is like. I'd guess somewhere between okay and respectable - bear in mind that the cost of V:TES isn't that hugely different to the cost of similar sets in Magic or Harry Potter or Pokemon or similar, but they gain in terms of economies of scale, huge muscle with printing firms or whatever. Employing person/people to maintain a rapidly changing, extensive web-site isn't done with peanuts, unfortunately, whereas player-run sites a) keep players more in touch with each other and b) are free. Cynical? Me? [0] Suggestion obviously extreme. However, more down to earth problems might be protests against 7/7 rulings, the grouping rule or whatever. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled B457CA213D7E6 faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." 68C3695D623D5D

> Cynical? Me? I would like to add my 2 eurocents here ... - A forum can be very complementary to a newsgroup. A newsgroup is often dis-organised (ie, you can't organise subjects by topic etc). This would also imply having moderators. - Rustwurk only came to my attention through the NG. I have visited it once and wasn't exactly impressed. I could see where they had tried to incorporate something of a graphical design, but that was about it. - The White Wolf pages are a terrible thing to behold. No user-friendliness at all. Difficult to read, long pages of text. Every page is filled with too much information etc. The White-Wolf forum is a disaster. Sorry all your V:TES-reps, but that's the sad truth. Maybe hiring a webmaster instead of asking everybody to contribute as well as possible would be a good idea. That was my own little rant.

> I dunno--this game doesn't have *that* big of aplayer base, and while I > occasionally checked out Rustwurk discussions, they really were just more of > the same stuff from here, usually with most of the same people. Not a bad > thing, but is there really that much of a need for multiple discussion > forums? I dont know, perhaps there is need for more than one forum and thats what White Wolfs forum and this newsgroup is for - To support the online community. If a forum should survive it needs something different from the existing ones. I扉e tried to make Rack.tk愀 forum like an interactive board for those who wish to comment stuff on www.rack.tk and so on, but with very small results. /Alexander Gyhlesten ==================== www.rack.tk

Kitzune wrote: > I dont know, perhaps there is need for more than one forum and thats what > White Wolfs forum and this newsgroup is for - To support the online community. Possibly, but I am a pretty serious supporter of this game, and have been for a long time, and I have been to the WW Forum, like, once. Web based interface simply doesn't seem to work as well for significant discussion, overall (as well as seeming to attract much more rabble). [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Kitzune wrote: > > > I dont know, perhaps there is need for more than one forum and thats what > > White Wolfs forum and this newsgroup is for - To support the online community. > > Possibly, but I am a pretty serious supporter of this game, and have been > for a long time, and I have been to the WW Forum, like, once. Web based > interface simply doesn't seem to work as well for significant discussion, > overall (as well as seeming to attract much more rabble). Not everyone is comfortable with using the USENET (I believe this is where your "rabble" designation would come in, although it also could apply to people not wanting to deal with the exposure to spam that posting on the USENET gets you, or the flames, or whatever). They both exist to support the online community, however. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > Not everyone is comfortable with using the USENET Yeah, they should be. > (I believe this is where > your "rabble" designation would come in, although it also could apply to > people not wanting to deal with the exposure to spam that posting on the > USENET gets you, or the flames, or whatever). Nah. The rabble designation refers to the extra piles of stupid people who post on BBS forums, where they generally wouldn't on USENET. > They both exist to support the online community, however. Certainly. Not saying that the WW BBS is a bad thing (or that Rutwurk was a bad thing). Just that I'm not real fond of it. But that's me. Cei la vie. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3E1B4204...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> Possibly, but I am a pretty serious supporter of this game, and have been >> for a long time, and I have been to the WW Forum, like, once. Web based >> interface simply doesn't seem to work as well for significant discussion, >> overall (as well as seeming to attract much more rabble). > >Not everyone is comfortable with using the USENET Google is always an option, and fairly simple, even for non-Usenet people. This is best demonstrated by the fact that now, for a number of newbies, Google *is* Usenet, and you'll find people asking how to get Google to make a new group etc. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

> Certainly. Not saying that the WW BBS is a bad thing (or that Rutwurk was a > bad thing). Just that I'm not real fond of it. But that's me. Well, it could be more structured ... Lots of BB software out there ... > Cei la vie. You prolly mean c'est la vie ;)

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3E1B4204...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >> Possibly, but I am a pretty serious supporter of this game, and have been > >> for a long time, and I have been to the WW Forum, like, once. Web based > >> interface simply doesn't seem to work as well for significant discussion, > >> overall (as well as seeming to attract much more rabble). > > > >Not everyone is comfortable with using the USENET > > Google is always an option, and fairly simple, even for non-Usenet > people. ... for people who aren't comfortable due only to the extra steps required to connect to a standard newsserver, and who aren't put off by the multi-hour lag time on Google, yes. But there are people who are not comfortable with using the USENET for other reasons (becoming spam targets, enduring extra flames, having their posts archived forever, etc.). While some of those things can be avoided, it requires still more steps to do so (and I'm not sure that posts made on Google can be set to no-archive at all). The WW forum offers an easier path to anonymity (which can be good or bad, depending on the user), both latency and retention times are lower, and there are fewer flames there, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 07:43:26 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: >> >> In message <3E1B4204...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- >> wolf.com> writes: >> >> Possibly, but I am a pretty serious supporter of this game, and have been >> >> for a long time, and I have been to the WW Forum, like, once. Web based >> >> interface simply doesn't seem to work as well for significant discussion, >> >> overall (as well as seeming to attract much more rabble). >> > >> >Not everyone is comfortable with using the USENET >> >> Google is always an option, and fairly simple, even for non-Usenet >> people. > >... for people who aren't comfortable due only to the extra steps required >to connect to a standard newsserver, and who aren't put off by the multi-hour >lag time on Google, yes. > >But there are people who are not comfortable with using the USENET for >other reasons (becoming spam targets, enduring extra flames, having their >posts archived forever, etc.). While some of those things can be avoided, >it requires still more steps to do so (and I'm not sure that posts made >on Google can be set to no-archive at all). > >The WW forum offers an easier path to anonymity (which can be good or bad, >depending on the user), both latency and retention times are lower, and >there are fewer flames there, IMO. Absolutely true on all points. Only problem is that the forum software used at the WW website is not very user friendly. I think that was the point some of us were trying to get across is that we simply detest the choice of forum software currently being used. Ciao, BernieTime [ quoted text not captured ]

intGod wrote: > Well, it could be more structured ... Lots of BB software out there ... It isn't really a matter of structure. For my money, it is a matter of the interface (regardless of network speed, web based interfaces are still slower and klunkier than USENET) and, well, that there is so much more rabble (people who post random idiocy and/or don't know the rules to internet discussion) on the web. Call me a snob, but I find the discourse on USENET both more intelligent and more prone to actual discussion. But again, that is me. > You prolly mean c'est la vie ;) Teach me to be snooty :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:BA4209F0.B42B%PD...@bigplanet.com... > intGod wrote: > > > Well, it could be more structured ... Lots of BB software out there ... > > It isn't really a matter of structure. For my money, it is a matter of the > interface (regardless of network speed, web based interfaces are still > slower and klunkier than USENET) and, well, that there is so much more > rabble (people who post random idiocy and/or don't know the rules to > internet discussion) on the web. Call me a snob, but I find the discourse on > USENET both more intelligent and more prone to actual discussion. But again, > that is me. You're a snob. :-) But seriously, it's true that there's some intelligent discussion on Usenet, but there could be *so* much more. There are probably not more than a hundred people who actually say interesting things on this here newsgroup. There are thousands of VTES players in the world. Even if only one in ten has interesting things to say, the newsgroup is missing a *lot* of them. A useful "central gathering place" website might capture some, and good editors could make sure that the content was of a quality to be useful and to attract more good content from readers. Overall, I think a really good "VEKN website" would be a great thing for the game. Unfortunately, it would also be a lot of work (editorially, content-writingly, and website-maintainingly). More work than WW can afford to pay for, most likely, so it'd have to be a volunteer thing, and as always the availability of people willing to work hard for no money is limited. :-) Josh why is it floating in my beer?

Joshua Duffin wrote: > But seriously, it's true that there's some intelligent discussion > on Usenet, but there could be *so* much more. You are correct, sir! > A useful "central > gathering place" website might capture some, and good editors > could make sure that the content was of a quality to be useful > and to attract more good content from readers. It certainly could be, but you are always going to have some folks who don't want to read web forums, some people who don't want to read USENET, and some who don't wan't to read both. However, as a reasonable example, the Star Fleet Battles internet community used to be spread around USENET (on rec.games.board) and various listserves, but then a few years ago (4? 5?), the game company started up their own BBS, which is where *all* of the SFB internet discussion exists at this point, and it is both very well organized and full of solid, intelligent discussion. But then the game designers (Cole and Petrick) run the place with a pair of iron fists, and won't tollerate *any* internet foolishness (i.e. any flame wars are shut down with extreme predudice and removal of posting priveleges, and misplaced or inappropriate discussion is extinguished quickly). That, and the mean age of SFB players is probably, like, 30, so there is much less, shall we say, youthfull inexperience. So it is certainly possible to have a solid, accessible web hub for discussion and such, but I suspect it takes a lot of work and very focused moderators. [ quoted text not captured ]