Yet more crypt cards

So, we are getting hunter crypt cards. What is next? Werewolf crypt cards? Mage crypt cards? Wraith crypt cards? Changeling crypt cards? Mummy crypt cards? and so on. Do you guys look forward to this? I myself is kinda uncertain. On one hand - VtES is a VERY good game-mechanic, and it deserves to be used more "widely" then just with vampires. On the other hand - I seriously hope WW is sensitive with the mix between the different Awakened, so that the wraiths don´t have votes in Kindred referendum and so on (it´s bad enough that Sabbat vamps can vote to decide who become Camarilla princes).

Personally, I am. I have always thought that the other creatures of the WoD should be subjected to a methuselah's whim directly from the crypt. I am looking forward to seeing how the alternate crypt cards are handled in the hunter's set. If all goes well, I think it's likely that we will see others - after all, their is no new material for oWoD. Farming it deeper is the only way to continue to expand VtES. If ever there are 'other creature' crypt possibilities, we may see something similar to the Scarce trait on them to keep them from being the focus of crypts, or even a VEKN tournament rule similar to the storyline crypt rule (75% of crypt has to be vampires). Who knows? AFAIC, I don't care if the crypt card represents a cardboard box imbued with alien telepathy and cybernetic weapons, so long as it is balanced and playable. I say the more the merrier.

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > So, we are getting hunter crypt cards. What is next? Werewolf crypt > cards? Mage crypt cards? Wraith crypt cards? Changeling crypt cards? > Mummy crypt cards? and so on. Do you guys look forward to this? Yes. To me a crypt card is mostly just a card with blood cap, disciplines and a bunch of other properties. Different vampires allready have different kind of properties (like anarch trait etc..) so I don愒 see a big difference between another kind of vampire and a new type of non-vampire crypt card. > I myself is kinda uncertain. On one hand - VtES is a VERY good > game-mechanic, and it deserves to be used more "widely" then just with > vampires. > > On the other hand - I seriously hope WW is sensitive with the mix > between the different Awakened, so that the wraiths don愒 have votes > in Kindred referendum and so on (it愀 bad enough that Sabbat vamps can > vote to decide who become Camarilla princes). I prefer having good game mechanics that result in a balanced game and good game flow instead of a strictly "logical" game. Taste of Vitae on long range is totally "bad enough", too, but it愀 helping the game balance (who would care for gun decks w/o) so it愀 fine with me. -- johannes walch

"Tom Duncan" <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1137599310.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > AFAIC, I don't care if the crypt card represents a cardboard box imbued > with alien telepathy and cybernetic weapons, so long as it is balanced > and playable. I say the more the merrier. I don't know. I'm not sure if there's any reason to fuss about these hunter cards, exactly. But at some point, I find part of the fun of a game like this to be having a reasonably consistent backstory within which the game pieces fit more or less in an intuitive way. Chess works because it's so abstracted it doesn't really matter and because the appeal of the game is in its ease-of-play-difficult-to-master game rules. But CCGs will need a lot more backstory appeal since the game manufacturer wants to sell you endless numbers of game pieces. That's a paradigm which tends to be at odds with eloquent simplicity. Fred

If you haven´t noticed, you developers DO listen. If we (the players) thinks the new mechanics suck or if no one plays them, it will be a concept quickley forgotten. If we like it, more will come. The infernal rule is good example of this. I don´t really see the problem. Anyway, it´s to soon to judge NoR. /Mathias

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > So, we are getting hunter crypt cards. What is next? Werewolf crypt > cards? Mage crypt cards? Wraith crypt cards? Changeling crypt cards? > Mummy crypt cards? and so on. Do you guys look forward to this? Not terribly much looking forward to most of the others - at least, not enough to build a full Mage deck or whatever. Hunters, though, make sense. All the other supernaturals in WoD were pretty much tangential to the role of VtM (possible exception of Wraiths interacting with Giovanni, but that's not wraiths in general or vampires in general). Individual Garou, wraiths, etc. can be recurited to assist a methuselah in their eternal struggle, but as a group, all the other supernaturals are pretty insular and have their own concerns oustide the existence of vampire (or each others', or mortal) society. The various kinds much prefer (as a group) to ignore each other altogether and handle their own problems. Hunters, on the other hand, are all about getting in-your-face with everybody else. Hunter lore is chock full of Hunters being manipulated by vampires. Manipulating and escaping Hunters is an important part of kindred survival. Heck, manipulating non-hunter mortals would be quite in-theme of a Vampire game. This is most certainly something that vampires do, all the time, and adding it to the game makes perfect thematic sense. If a methuselah is now able to influence only mortal minions to defeat his opponents in the Jyhad, more power to him. This is something that would probably be unheard of in the past, but with the advent of Imbued Hunters, who have supernatural powers that most Kindred don't really understand, it's may be possible for a quick-thinking methuselah to pull it off. This is also thematically appropriate. > I myself is kinda uncertain. On one hand - VtES is a VERY good > game-mechanic, and it deserves to be used more "widely" then just with > vampires. > > On the other hand - I seriously hope WW is sensitive with the mix > between the different Awakened, so that the wraiths don´t have votes > in Kindred referendum and so on (it´s bad enough that Sabbat vamps can > vote to decide who become Camarilla princes). I might get queasy if they added enough crypt-influenceable mages (or garou, or whatever) to make a whole deck around them work well. I might not. But Hunters are too appropriate to the themes and background for me to get worked up over. John

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > So, we are getting hunter crypt cards. What is next? Werewolf crypt > cards? Mage crypt cards? Wraith crypt cards? Changeling crypt cards? > Mummy crypt cards? and so on. Do you guys look forward to this? I don't see anything special about Hunters that makes them any more or less acceptable than other cards previously represented by allies to have in the crypt. But then I don't know any canon, either... > On the other hand - I seriously hope WW is sensitive with the mix > between the different Awakened, so that the wraiths don愒 have votes > in Kindred referendum and so on (it愀 bad enough that Sabbat vamps can > vote to decide who become Camarilla princes). The way I think about it, not knowing any better, is that a Hunter is mechanically a Vampire, with some special, and "Cannot play cards requiring a Vampire" on the bottom. Maybe some disciplines that they can play as a vampire, but otherwise excluding them from this huge range of cards. Each time some new game concept is put in place that segregates groups of cards (Grouping, Sects, Anarchs/Black Hand, &c, &c) it subdivides the groups of cards and effects out there to make it less likely that some new added card will have an overpowered interaction, without saying "You can't play this expansion with that expansion." It's a good thing. I think of this the same way - it makes it possible to make new cards, probably small cards, to bring out from the crypt, without being prone to weenie-abuse. It's very hard to add small support vamps that are useable to boost diverse, larger-capacity crypts, without giving weenie decks even more ammunition. By stripping away Vampire-ness, it hems in some potential abuses. By leaving them vulnerable to all the effects that can subvert allies generally (if they are), they are checked in a way that small vampires aren't - which means you can also give them more interesting and unique abilities or cards. I'm a fan of diversity. And small sets, where I can feel like I can pick and choose which aspects of the game I want to emphasize more. I'm sure I'll wind up buying singles or trading for the LOB cards that I want. I'm sure I'll buy a bunch of Reckoning if it looks interesting.

Tom Duncan wrote: > Personally, I am. I have always thought that the other creatures of the You're a crypt card?

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, as you can see on the White Wolf home page, World of Darkness: Chicago has just been released. It has "· Numerous ways for characters from any World of Darkness game to interact and collide. This book is a fully compatible supplement for Vampire: The Requiem, Werewolf: The Forsaken and Mage: The Awakening" Perhaps we'll be seeing this same sort of fusion in V:TES as well. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] The above isn't a problem in the NWoD as it was initially designed with this in mind (no one 'world' of supernaturalizm living in exclusion to others). The only thing WoD: Chicago assists is in trying to figure out the character motivations and relationships between all of these factions. THAT'S about as tough as figuring out the dynamics of the CCGs disciplines interacting with one another. > Perhaps we'll be seeing this same sort of fusion in V:TES as well. Perhaps, but VTES wasn't initially built with this in mind. The mechanics of the game and previous cards (which refer to 'vampire' when really, other things would have worked too) don't interact nicely with other supernaturals. Using blood for a payment system in vampire might not translate nicely to mages, or werewolves. Political referendums (a third of the current game, kind of) doesn't translate well, fluff wise, to other supernaturals (though in NWoD mages, werewolves and kindred may all share the same counsel). In short there are problems with VTES mechanically, and with VTM, fluffily. Granted, one thing at a time, and I'm sure the bridges can be gapped. (like, starting with hunters). ~SV

a...@hotmail.com says: On the other hand - I seriously hope WW is sensitive with the mix between the different Awakened, so that the wraiths don´t have votes in Kindred referendum and so on (it´s bad enough that Sabbat vamps can vote to decide who become Camarilla princes). -------------------------- i dont think that vampires with votes go to a place, raise his hands and say "i have 2 votes for this referendum"...i think that X votes is simmilar to +bleed...both means power in the society (vampiric and/or mortal ) and make me sense that a few hunters or another creatures (even sabbat on praxis referendum) can have "X votes".

>The above isn't a problem in the NWoD as it was initially designed with >this in mind (no one 'world' of supernaturalizm living in exclusion to >others). The only thing WoD: Chicago assists is in trying to figure out >the character motivations and relationships between all of these >factions. THAT'S about as tough as figuring out the dynamics of the >CCGs disciplines interacting with one another. Yeah, and that is why newWoD seems more like Buffy than oWoD.

[ quoted text not captured ] I am looking forward to it (the expansion of the type of crypt minions available). And my image does appear on several crypt cards that I have created over the years!

If you know any canon you also know that the forces behind most supernaturals is very much more powerful than any puny methuselahs, or even Antediluvians. For example, its highly unlikely some methuselah summons a whole bunch of garou or so.

[ quoted text not captured ] Wait... what? Buffy relationships between groups is pretty... sophomoric. Are you saying the dynamics of the disciplines interacting with one another in VTES are sophomoric? I wasn't! (they give me a head ache sometimes...). ~SV

My personal thoughts are that Hunters should be ally cards rather than Crypt, but saying that I'm looking forward to the set and will give it a good try before making my mind up one way or another. -- Colin "Eryx" Goodman Samedi Prince of St. Neots, Cambridgeshire Cambridge UK http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

Pardon, I´m not native speaking english and my dictionary didn´t have 'sophomoric'. What does it mean? My general feel of nWoD is that it "merges" the different supernaturals to a greater extent than oWoD, ie, vampires interact with werewolfs, demons, mages and so on instead them coexisting primaly hidden from eachother.

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Pardon, I惴 not native speaking english and my dictionary didn愒 have > 'sophomoric'. What does it mean? "pretentious, bombastic, inflated in style or manner; immature, crude, superficial" (according to the Oxford English Dictionary). (found with Google: "define: sophomoric") -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

[ quoted text not captured ] Do you think so? Baba Yaga, per example, had not just a bunch of Garou under her belt but also vampires and a few Mages. That's not surprising you find oWoD as "less Buffy" then nWoD, given that much unfamiliarity with the oWoD ;-) At least the nWoD doesn't have developers and writers saying "no no crossover is a bad thing avoid this" and then here comes yet another book featuring Samuel Height... :-P best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Thanks LSJ. No, I don´t feel the dynamics of the disciplines interacting with one another in VTES are "pretentious, bombastic, inflated in style or manner; immature, crude, superficial". What made you think I felt so?

Well, I was thinking about Gaea, various other umbrood lords, mage-oracles and so on. Creatures WW didn´t bother to put stats on. So you say nWoD is LESS "Buffyish" than oWoD was? I am not against crossover though. But I think it should be handled with care. Sam Haight was not to handle crossover with care.

[ quoted text not captured ] If he's not, I am. Please define 'buffy-ish'. NWoD, though it is designed to be cross over friendly, is not supposed to be a monster of the week campaign (though STs everywhere will continue it as such). Nor do the different supernatural factions neccesarily get along swimingly. But they WILL get along together, if it suits them... There's nothing confusing rules wise about NWoD supernaturals mixing (ok... maybe a teeny bit... but at least there's no banality/rage determining akwardness needed). The only thing that's confusing about NWoD is the mixing of supernatural (hell, and mortal) factions. But this is just as confusing as trying to figure out how any other multivariable system interacts with itself. Like, say, the VTES discipline system, or, how political party membors take their stances on issues, or the stock market. ~SV

In message <1137670994.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Please, please, please, please, please quote some of the previous article you are replying to. You can do this by hitting "Show Options", "Reply" on the article you are replying to in Google Groups, and then trimming the quoted text. Just posting responses without providing context makes your posts much harder to follow. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > Please, please, please, please, please quote some of the previous > article you are replying to. You can do this by hitting "Show Options", > "Reply" on the article you are replying to in Google Groups, and then > trimming the quoted text. I know that the majority agrees. But I still don't see why. Maybe in the older days of usenet it was necessary. I don't trust people to quote the relevant parts anyway, and using google groups its so easy to view the conversation as a tree. When it's a short response to a short post, I don't see the need.. If whatever news group reader people are using is inferior to google groups in this fashion then why are they using it? Plus depending on someone else's quotes loses track of the larger conversation. The conversation starts ignoring what people don't quote, which is silly. If you want to respond to a specific part, of a large post, and what you are saying makes no sense without context, then I can see why you would need to quote. The majority does agree though, and it is polite to follow the conventions of said majority in a public forum. My pair of cents, -Mercuriel

On 19 Jan 2006 17:27:00 -0800, "MathiasTCK" <Mathias...@gmail.com> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: >> Please, please, please, please, please quote some of the previous >> article you are replying to. You can do this by hitting "Show Options", >> "Reply" on the article you are replying to in Google Groups, and then >> trimming the quoted text. >I know that the majority agrees. But I still don't see why. Because two weeks from now your post that has no context will be completely worthless as far as understanding any topic of discussion. One of the values of Usenet, with DejaNews and now with Google, is the ability to archive conversations and revisit them as appropriate. The one sided one paragraph articles produced by incorrect posting (see also: Netiquette] will be worthless when viewed outside of the immediate window of the day/hour when the author posted. Every post should be able to stand on its own, and be understood. If you aren't writing so that others can understand you, why bother?

The Lasombra wrote: > On 19 Jan 2006 17:27:00 -0800, "MathiasTCK" <Mathias...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >James Coupe wrote: > >> Please, please, please, please, please quote some of the previous > >> article you are replying to. You can do this by hitting "Show Options", > >> "Reply" on the article you are replying to in Google Groups, and then > >> trimming the quoted text. > > >I know that the majority agrees. But I still don't see why. > > Because two weeks from now your post that has no context will be > completely worthless as far as understanding any topic of discussion. How is it worthless if any user can just view one message up in the tree to see what they are responding to? > Every post should be able to stand on its own, and be understood. Yeah that's what I'm asking, why can't we expect people to be able to view one step up in the tree? I think anything that creates a barrier to entry is bad for a group. Any unnecessary rule is bad, etc. I know the majority agrees, and it's generally in your best interest on a forum to heed the netiquette set by said majority, I'm just hoping to get convinced. -Mercuriel

MathiasTCK wrote: > When it's a short response to a short post, I don't see the need.. 'Cause people have no idea what you are talking about if there is no context. Just calling things out into the air means nothing if no one knows what you are calling out about. >If whatever news group reader people are using is inferior to google > groups in this fashion then why are they using it? This is usenet. Usenet existed looooong before google groups. Usenet is intended to be used by newsreaders. Google groups is currently a convinient web interface for folks who don't have newsreaders. But the majority of people who read usenet use newsreaders. Some newsreaders thread discussions. Some don't. But that is irrelevant. If you want people to know what you are talking about in any text medium, be it usenet, a web bbs, or google groups, it is a good idea to quote relevant text that you are replying to. As it makes the conversation make more sense for everyone. And if you don't quote relevant text, people tend to be annoyed and just ignore you. > Plus depending on someone else's quotes loses track of the larger > conversation. The conversation starts ignoring what people don't > quote, which is silly. So the answer to this is to just have everyone shouting randomly into a void? > If you want to respond to a specific part, of a large post, and what > you are saying makes no sense without context, then I can see why you > would need to quote. And if you want people to have any idea of what you are talking about, it is also a good idea to use a quote. And if you want people to pay attention to what you are saying, it is also a good idea use a quote. > The majority does agree though, and it is polite to follow the > conventions of said majority in a public forum. Its about much more than politeness. I'd think that people would want others to read their posts and pay attention to them, and then respond to them. If you don't quote relevant text and provide a context, people tend to ignore you, as it is often too much work to try and figure out what you are talking about. -Peter

MathiasTCK wrote: > How is it worthless if any user can just view one message up in the > tree to see what they are responding to? Not everyone sees the discussion in the same organizational manner. Lots of newsreaders delete messages that the owner has already read, and if what you are responding to has been deleted like this, it isn't there to look back to. But more importantly, if you want someone to pay attention to what you are saying, you shouldn't make them do extra work to understand what you are talking about. If I see a post that contains no quoted text that it is replying to, and I don't know what they are talking about, I have two choices: A) Go back and search previous posts to try and figure out what they are talking about. B) Assuming they are an idiot 'cause they can't be bothered to provide a context for their comments and ignoring them. Most of the time, (B) wins out. Do you want people making this choice about you? > Yeah that's what I'm asking, why can't we expect people to be able to > view one step up in the tree? No. You can't. You can expect people to say "This post has no quoted text it is responding to. This person is a fool. I have no need to pay attention to them." and then have your possibly well thought out and interesting comments ignored. It isn't worth the extra effort to avoid this? > I think anything that creates a barrier to entry is bad for a group. > Any unnecessary rule is bad, etc. It is a barrier to entry to make yourself understood? > I know the majority agrees, and it's generally in your best interest on > a forum to heed the netiquette set by said majority, I'm just hoping to > get convinced. The reasons are self evident. And should be followed purely out of self interest, if for no other reason. -Peter

p...@lightlink.com wrote: > MathiasTCK wrote: > > How is it worthless if any user can just view one message up in the > > tree to see what they are responding to? > > Not everyone sees the discussion in the same organizational manner. I quote this because it contradicts a later line. > It is a barrier to entry to make yourself understood? It's a barrier to entry when new users get lectured. > > > I know the majority agrees, and it's generally in your best interest on > > a forum to heed the netiquette set by said majority, I'm just hoping to > > get convinced. > > The reasons are self evident. And should be followed purely out of self > interest, if for no other reason. If I'm using a great reader like google groups, and following threads, it's not self evident why anyone would have trouble following what I'm saying. If it was self evident we wouldn't see so many new users that have get to taught this method. New users using google groups, or any reader where it's easy to view a parent message in the tree, will wonder why everyone else is having such trouble. -Mercuriel

MathiasTCK wrote: > The Lasombra wrote: >>Because two weeks from now your post that has no context will be >>completely worthless as far as understanding any topic of discussion. > > How is it worthless if any user can just view one message up in the > tree to see what they are responding to? Faulty premise -- it is not true that "any user" can just "view up" one message in the tree. ATM (since I am reading and posting via my personal ISP's news server), I cannot "view up" the whole tree for this conversation, for example. >>Every post should be able to stand on its own, and be understood. > > Yeah that's what I'm asking, why can't we expect people to be able to > view one step up in the tree? Because that's not how USENET works. It's how Google works. USENET (for which Google offers a gateway and an archive, but doesn't replace) is a medium for transmission and *temporary* storage of "posts" (basically a grown-up mailing list with slight latency and retention add-ons). See also replying to email. Just because you can see the whole conversation (because you're using gmail, for example) doesn't mean the recipient can (even if his email address ends in "@gmail.com"). Or that the onus for digging out context should fall on the recipient rather than the sender, even if he does have the ability. That's why gmail includes context by default, and why google groups should as well. But just because google groups has a shortcoming in that regard doesn't mean you have to accept it -- you can quote context with a slight bit of additional effort. > I think anything that creates a barrier to entry is bad for a group. True, but this convention does not create a barrier to entry. > Any unnecessary rule is bad, etc. True, but the convention is not unnecessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

MathiasTCK wrote: > I quote this because it contradicts a later line. Ok. That would be where? > It's a barrier to entry when new users get lectured. True. But this all could have been avoided by simply taking good advice as it comes, rather than questioning the good advice. > If I'm using a great reader like google groups, and following threads, > it's not self evident why anyone would have trouble following what I'm > saying. Which is why people will occasionally say things like "Hey--you should probably quote relevant text". And why this hand information is generally available in things like newsgroup FAQs and google groups user information. But regardless, again, if you want people to pay attention to you, why would you not make the effort to make it easy for them? Why would you assume people are inherrently interested enough to go through the effort to back track in the conversation. > If it was self evident we wouldn't see so many new users that > have get to taught this method. What should be self evident is that you want people to pay attention to what you write, otherwise, what is the point? > New users using google groups, or any > reader where it's easy to view a parent message in the tree, will > wonder why everyone else is having such trouble. Because they are assuming that everyone is interested enough in what they have to say to want to bother to go back and figure out what they are talking about. Which isn't a good assumption to make. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > MathiasTCK wrote: > > The Lasombra wrote: > >>Because two weeks from now your post that has no context will be > >>completely worthless as far as understanding any topic of discussion. > > > > How is it worthless if any user can just view one message up in the > > tree to see what they are responding to? > > Faulty premise -- it is not true that "any user" can just "view up" > one message in the tree. Virtually all user's have a choice in what reader they user, right? > > ATM (since I am reading and posting via my personal ISP's news server), > I cannot "view up" the whole tree for this conversation, for example. Eek, that sounds like a big drawback to your reader. > > >>Every post should be able to stand on its own, and be understood. > > > > Yeah that's what I'm asking, why can't we expect people to be able to > > view one step up in the tree? > > Because that's not how USENET works. > > It's how Google works. I have to admit, it's been a long time since I used a newsgroup reader that wasn't google, is google the only one that allows you to easily navigate a tree, I recall otherwise but perhaps I am mistaken. > > USENET (for which Google offers a gateway and an archive, but doesn't > replace) is a medium for transmission and *temporary* storage of "posts" > (basically a grown-up mailing list with slight latency and retention > add-ons). > > See also replying to email. > Just because you can see the whole conversation (because you're using gmail, > for example) doesn't mean the recipient can (even if his email address > ends in "@gmail.com"). Or that the onus for digging out context should > fall on the recipient rather than the sender, even if he does have the > ability. > > That's why gmail includes context by default, and why google groups > should as well. > > But just because google groups has a shortcoming in that regard doesn't > mean you have to accept it -- you can quote context with a slight bit > of additional effort. The thing is, this really sounds to me like people saying, my reader doesn't provide a service for me, so I'm asking you to do it for me. Could I not make the same argument, and every time someone complains about this issue, instead of telling them to quote a response, instead tell them to switch readers? > > > I think anything that creates a barrier to entry is bad for a group. > > True, but this convention does not create a barrier to entry. > > > Any unnecessary rule is bad, etc. > > True, but the convention is not unnecessary. But it's only necessary as long as people use readers that make it difficult to view a parent post, right? -Mercuriel

MathiasTCK wrote: > The thing is, this really sounds to me like people saying, my reader > doesn't provide a service for me, so I'm asking you to do it for me. > Could I not make the same argument, and every time someone complains > about this issue, instead of telling them to quote a response, instead > tell them to switch readers? Here is what you seem to be missing. You make a follow up post to something without quoting it. I read your post. For whatever reason, I don't read the previous post (for instance, in goole groups, when you click on the thread, you get brought to the most recent post). I look at your post, I don't see what you are talking about 'cause you didn't quote the relevant text you were responding to. Why are you assuming that I am going to want to go back and figure out what you are talking about, even if I can? You are trying to communicate with people here. Why provide them with obstacles to understand what you are talking about? > But it's only necessary as long as people use readers that make it > difficult to view a parent post, right? Wrong. Even if the post is just up above in the tree, you are assuming an awful lot that someone is going to care enough about what you are saying to go back and check what you are talking about. Most of the time, people will just ignore your post rather than go and figure out what you are talking about. -Peter

p...@lightlink.com wrote: > MathiasTCK wrote: > > The thing is, this really sounds to me like people saying, my reader > > doesn't provide a service for me, so I'm asking you to do it for me. > > Could I not make the same argument, and every time someone complains > > about this issue, instead of telling them to quote a response, instead > > tell them to switch readers? > > Here is what you seem to be missing. You make a follow up post to > something without quoting it. I read your post. For whatever reason, I > don't read the previous post (for instance, in goole groups, when you > click on the thread, you get brought to the most recent post). I look > at your post, I don't see what you are talking about 'cause you didn't > quote the relevant text you were responding to. Why are you assuming > that I am going to want to go back and figure out what you are talking > about, even if I can? I don't know how you choose to read the posts you choose. Most of the time I don't read everything in any group (sometimes I get bored and do). Anyway usually I read a post because the subject line interested me. If I read a short response, and it interests me but I feel I need more context I check it's parent. If I'm interested enough in a subject that I choose to post, I will generally glance back over that whole thread, to avoid reposting something. > > You are trying to communicate with people here. Why provide them with > obstacles to understand what you are talking about? > > > But it's only necessary as long as people use readers that make it > > difficult to view a parent post, right? > > Wrong. Even if the post is just up above in the tree, you are assuming > an awful lot that someone is going to care enough about what you are > saying to go back and check what you are talking about. Most of the > time, people will just ignore your post rather than go and figure out > what you are talking about. That may very well be the current behavior of most users. But that's self fulfilling. If the custom was different, (people spent more time checking parent replies and less time quoting text) then it wouldn't be a problem. I'm not arguing that this isn't the current custom, I'm asking people to explain why the custom is necessary given the choice of readers available. -Mercuriel

> But regardless, again, if you want people to pay attention to you, why > would you not make the effort to make it easy for them? Why would you > assume people are inherrently interested enough to go through the > effort to back track in the conversation. I like the effect of users looking at the tree structure of a conversation. I often don't answer a post, expecting others to do so. If there a conversation on a general subject I'm interested in I like checking out each leaf, seeing where the conversation left off. If a leaf I was expecting to be answered never got answered I will then go back and reply. If all you do is read the newest message, and depend on it for your context, many promising leaves get abandoned. -Mercuriel

MathiasTCK wrote: > If all you do is read the newest message, and depend on it for your > context, many promising leaves get abandoned. That may very well be the case. But it is foolish to assume that people are going to put the effort into wanting to figure out what you are talking about if you can't be bothered to put the effort in to provide them with a quoted context for your comments. -Peter

MathiasTCK wrote: > That may very well be the current behavior of most users. But that's > self fulfilling. ??? If you don't provide quoted text and context, people have to put effort into figuring out what you are talking about. Why do you assume someone will put that effort in if you are unwilling to put in effort to make it easy for them to do so? > If the custom was different, (people spent more time > checking parent replies and less time quoting text) then it wouldn't be > a problem. It would still be a problem. As many people don't want to check parent replies. And may people don't have access to parent replies (deleting already read posts is a feature, not a flaw). If you want people to know what you are talking about in a threaded discussion medium, you quote relevant text. > I'm not arguing that this isn't the current custom, I'm > asking people to explain why the custom is necessary given the choice > of readers available. I'm pretty sure it has been explained quite adaquately. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree, because that appears to be the current custom. It is foolish to expect people to do more then is customary. But, again, I'm not asking why should we quote, I'm asking why do we make it customary for people to quote when they are replying to a short article, and a quick view of the parent would immediately make the context obvious. As you would see if you checked this tree. Your last post chose not to quote that part, readers who didn't read the thread might miss that you ignored that aspect :) -Mercrueil -Mercuriel

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Not everyone sees the discussion in the same organizational manner. > Lots of newsreaders delete messages that the owner has already read, > and if what you are responding to has been deleted like this, it isn't > there to look back to. > I do agree with quoting relevant text, however... my gut-reaction to this line of reasoning is: so get a better newsreader. Hell, if your newsreader can't handle threaded messages, use Google Groups for christ's sake. If a newsreader can't handle threaded messages, and it can't hold onto old posts (or at least download them to display when you're reading a message from the thread), then I say your newsreader sucks. And if you're actually setting your newsreader to delete old posts and to never download any posts other than what you're reading, I have to ask, why? An 80 GB hard-drive costs less than a 40MB drive used to be. Dial-up connections are fast disappearing entirely. The bandwidth and storage space required for a USENET post isn't what it used to be, in comparison to the capacity that most people have for storing or downloading those posts. Quoting posts is still a good idea, but I have to question any points of netiquette that are based on outdated hardware limitations. > But more importantly, if you want someone to pay > attention to what you are saying, you shouldn't make them do extra work > to understand what you are talking about. If I see a post that contains > no quoted text that it is replying to, and I don't know what they are > talking about, I have two choices: > > A) Go back and search previous posts to try and figure out what they > are talking about. > True, though with Google Groups, it's simply a half-flick of my finger on the mouse wheel. Takes less effort than scratching my ass. And, it's true that many people don't use Google Groups. Some might not have mousewheels, and a few poor souls may be stuck in the stoneage with a crazy square mouse with one ugly button in the middle of it and no way to even right-click. But my question is... if your draconian newsreader is so hard to use (not yours in particular, Peter, just a general question), why not get a better one? And if a better free newsreader is not available, and if Google is so easy to use and full of useful features like threading, why not use it? And no, I'm trying to write a commercial for Google Groups - there are things wrong with it. I'm just wondering if the alternatives are all that great either. > > No. You can't. You can expect people to say "This post has no quoted > text it is responding to. This person is a fool. I have no need to pay > attention to them." and then have your possibly well thought out and > interesting comments ignored. It isn't worth the extra effort to avoid > this? > Though sometimes the text with no context is funnier when read on its own.

"MathiasTCK" <Mathias...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137720419.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > James Coupe wrote: >> Please, please, please, please, please quote some of the previous >> article you are replying to. You can do this by hitting "Show Options", >> "Reply" on the article you are replying to in Google Groups, and then >> trimming the quoted text. > > I know that the majority agrees. But I still don't see why. Maybe in > the older days of usenet it was necessary. It's still necessary. Logic, both then and now, is not to assume that others are using any particular advanced graphic feature when reading new. There's a number of reasons for that: personal preferences, platform limitations, people being forced into a particular computing environment where they might not be able to access what you can access. Probably others I'm forgetting. In the case of threads, there's no graphic representation I've ever seen that works well when a thread gets large and "bushy" enough. Including google. > I don't trust people to quote the relevant parts anyway, That seems a non-sequitar. What has the fear that someone else will mess up in one way got to do with asking people not to mess up in a different way? People should quote. AND they should quote relevant parts of the article you're responding to. > When it's a short response to a short post, I don't see the need. That's actually when the need is greatest. If you don't know what someone is replying to, there's not much you can do looking at a short post which says nothing but, ""Me, too! I took one in the shorts, too!" except wonder whether the person posting it has any clue what that looked like to everyone else on the newsgroup. > and using google groups its so easy to view the conversation as a tree. ... > If > whatever news group reader people are using is inferior to google > groups in this fashion then why are they using it? Because "whatever news group reader people are using is superior to google in other ways. Different newsreaders have different strengths. Google is not perfect - or everyone would use it. > Plus depending on someone else's quotes loses track of the larger > conversation. It can. But if you need more context, it's _always_ easier to find it if someone has quoted. What really deprives readers of any sense of what's going on is when people post a quoteless answer to a question in a large thread. Or a quoteless direct response to a comment. If it's a generic thing he's answering or if he's confusing about how he responds, people will never be sure what point he's trying to make. How does THAT help anyone keep track of the larger conversation? > The conversation starts ignoring what people don't quote, which is > silly. I don't understand the comment. The conversation _always_ starts igorning whatever isn't responded to, whether it's quoted or not. That's pretty typical: people only want to discuss the controversial, not what they can agree on or what is really irrelevant. > The majority does agree though, and it is polite to follow the > conventions of said majority in a public forum. It really does help. You don't have to quote every word of every sentence like I often do. Just enough to give people an good idea of what you're responding to. Fred

"MathiasTCK" <mathi...@gmail.com> writes: > But, again, I'm not asking why should we quote, I'm asking why do we > make it customary for people to quote when they are replying to a short > article, and a quick view of the parent would immediately make the > context obvious. Which one of these makes more sense: - One person makes extra effort, hundreds of people have it easy. (Quoting relevant text.) or - One person has it easy, hundreds of people have to make extra effort. (Looking up the reply chain.) Think about it this way, and it makes perfect sense. -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

>Please define 'buffy-ish'. Frankly I don´t wanna bother do so. See an episode of Buffy and you get the idea.

James Coupe skrev: > In message <1137670994.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > as...@hotmail.com writes: > >Thanks LSJ. No, I don´t feel the dynamics of the disciplines > >interacting with one another in VTES are "pretentious, bombastic, > >inflated in style or manner; immature, crude, > >superficial". What made you think I felt so? > > Please, please, please, please, please quote some of the previous > article you are replying to. You can do this by hitting "Show Options", > "Reply" on the article you are replying to in Google Groups, and then > trimming the quoted text. > > Just posting responses without providing context makes your posts much > harder to follow. Hi. Sorry. I have no idea what has happened to Google-newsgroups in the last months. Nothing work as it did earlier. Everything is just much, much uglier and harder to understand. And no explanations anywhere.

MathiasTCK wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>Faulty premise -- it is not true that "any user" can just "view up" >>one message in the tree. > > Virtually all user's have a choice in what reader they user, right? No. But even so, I have a choice between Google and a real newsreader. I choose a real newsreader when I can, since I have to read every message in this group, and doing so with a real newsreader is several times faster than doing so on Google. >>ATM (since I am reading and posting via my personal ISP's news server), >>I cannot "view up" the whole tree for this conversation, for example. > > Eek, that sounds like a big drawback to your reader. It's not. It's flexibility. I've set it up to optimize my reading of the newsgroup, since I have a lot of forums to read (and occasionally other things to do as well). >>>>Every post should be able to stand on its own, and be understood. >>> >>>Yeah that's what I'm asking, why can't we expect people to be able to >>>view one step up in the tree? >> >>Because that's not how USENET works. >> >>It's how Google works. > > I have to admit, it's been a long time since I used a newsgroup reader > that wasn't google, is google the only one that allows you to easily > navigate a tree, I recall otherwise but perhaps I am mistaken. But Google doesn't allow you to easily and quickly scan through all the posts. Or, at least, not as easily as most real newsreaders. >>USENET (for which Google offers a gateway and an archive, but doesn't >>replace) is a medium for transmission and *temporary* storage of "posts" >>(basically a grown-up mailing list with slight latency and retention >>add-ons). >> >>See also replying to email. >>Just because you can see the whole conversation (because you're using gmail, >>for example) doesn't mean the recipient can (even if his email address >>ends in "@gmail.com"). Or that the onus for digging out context should >>fall on the recipient rather than the sender, even if he does have the >>ability. >> >>That's why gmail includes context by default, and why google groups >>should as well. >> >>But just because google groups has a shortcoming in that regard doesn't >>mean you have to accept it -- you can quote context with a slight bit >>of additional effort. > > The thing is, this really sounds to me like people saying, my reader > doesn't provide a service for me, so I'm asking you to do it for me. > Could I not make the same argument, and every time someone complains > about this issue, instead of telling them to quote a response, instead > tell them to switch readers? My reader can be configured to layout the posts in toto (at least inasfar as their retained on my machine and/or the news server). But USENET was not designed to be dependent on permanent retention. And using that configuration (an option in my newsreader, mandatory in Google) is not optimal for my case. People aren't saying "do it for me". They're saying "do it so that you don't make *everyone else* do it for you". See again the email example. >>>I think anything that creates a barrier to entry is bad for a group. >> >>True, but this convention does not create a barrier to entry. >> >>>Any unnecessary rule is bad, etc. >> >>True, but the convention is not unnecessary. > > But it's only necessary as long as people use readers that make it > difficult to view a parent post, right? See again the email example. [ quoted text not captured ]

MathiasTCK wrote: > But, again, I'm not asking why should we quote, I'm asking why do we > make it customary for people to quote when they are replying to a short > article, and a quick view of the parent would immediately make the > context obvious. Because then you are basically saying "I'm too lazy to put in the minimal effort to make sure that people reading what I post know what I am talking about without doing extra work, yet I expect them to do the extra work that I'm not willing to do to understand what I am talking about" which is both selfish and arrogant. > As you would see if you checked this tree. Your last post chose not > to quote that part, readers who didn't read the thread might miss that > you ignored that aspect :) No, no. *I* chose not to quote that part, as I didn't think that it was relevant to what I was discussing. See, you quote the parts of the discussion that is relevant to what you are saying, and omit the parts not relevant. There are even instructions on how to do this in the "how to post" portion of the google groups help section. Have you read that? -Peter

Chris Berger wrote: > I do agree with quoting relevant text, however... my gut-reaction to > this line of reasoning is: so get a better newsreader. Full well indicating that the newsreader issue is the less important issue of "why quote relevant text" (the more important being "I want people to know what I am talking about so they will not ignore my posts"), it isn't a matter of a better newsreader. If you read a lot of newsgroup posts (like, say, you are LSJ, who reads them all), it is much more convinient to have posts already read get deleted so it isn't difficult to find new posts. Sure, you could download and archive every post ever made just in case someone doesn't quote relevant text. Or, you could just ignore their posts. Which do you think is more likely to occur? On google groups, for instance, if a thread is particularly lengthy, finding all the new messages in a given thread takes some doing. And it is easy to miss some. If the ones you already read weren't there anymore, all the posts in the thread are new. No searching or figuring out what is new. > True, though with Google Groups, it's simply a half-flick of my finger > on the mouse wheel. Takes less effort than scratching my ass. Sure. But if I'm trying to communicate an idea or formulate an argument, it is in my own best interest to make it so you don't have to exert even that minimal effort. If I set up my discussion such that it takes my readers effort to follow what I am saying, I am basically saying: A) "I'm too lazy to put the effort in so that you know what I'm talking about--you do the extra work to have the priviledge of following my incredibly interesting and relevant statement." B) "Oh wait. On second thought, please ignore me." Quoting relevant text in your discussion, regardless of actual interface issues, is one of pure self interest. I want people to know what I am talking about, so they will possibly pay attention. Thus, it is in my best interest to make sure that it is easy for people to understand what I am talking about, and quoting relevant text is one of the best ways to do that. Much like using reasonable grammar and punctuation. > Though sometimes the text with no context is funnier when read on its > own. This is often completely true. But often completely unintentional. -Peter

I wrote: >There are even instructions on how to do this in the "how > to post" portion of the google groups help section. Have you read that? Just 'cause it seems relevant to the discussion, from the google groups Help section on posting: "Summarize what you're following up. When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start typing your message, please STOP and do two things first. Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant. Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there. Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article. And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does, they'll get the gist of what you're talking about." -Peter

MathiasTCK wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > Please, please, please, please, please quote some of the previous > > article you are replying to. You can do this by hitting "Show Options", > > "Reply" on the article you are replying to in Google Groups, and then > > trimming the quoted text. > I know that the majority agrees. But I still don't see why. Maybe in > the older days of usenet it was necessary. I don't trust people to > quote the relevant parts anyway, and using google groups its so easy to > view the conversation as a tree. > > When it's a short response to a short post, I don't see the need.. If > whatever news group reader people are using is inferior to google > groups in this fashion then why are they using it? Here is a good example of why- From the Tupdog challenge thread "Fouez wrote: > Too bad Tupdogs are not unique. Mooooove along, nothing to see here..." He replied to the wrong message and didn't quote what he was responding to. So, instead of being witty and pithy, he just looks, well, not so witty at all. You might want to take note of that. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > I do agree with quoting relevant text, however... my gut-reaction to > > this line of reasoning is: so get a better newsreader. > > Full well indicating that the newsreader issue is the less important > issue of "why quote relevant text" (the more important being "I want > people to know what I am talking about so they will not ignore my > posts"), it isn't a matter of a better newsreader. If you read a lot of > newsgroup posts (like, say, you are LSJ, who reads them all), it is > much more convinient to have posts already read get deleted so it isn't > difficult to find new posts. Sure, you could download and archive every > post ever made just in case someone doesn't quote relevant text. Or, > you could just ignore their posts. Which do you think is more likely to > occur? > Agreed. Quoting is good. In terms of newsreaders, though, I still think that there's a happy middle ground that takes into account threaded views and doesn't simply show single posts with no context. I haven't used a newsreader other than Google Groups in a long time, but the last couple that I tried were all wildly disappointing to me. I suspect that newsreaders still have a ways to go in the useability department. Either that, or there's a "perfect" newsreader out there that no one knows about. ;) Adding quotes into your messages is always better. I was astounded when I saw on a particular webforum "only quote if you need to - it wastes bandwidth". But I'm not sure I agree with some other USENETiquette that is based on limited capacity. For example, I don't think it's always 100% wrong to top-post. Most of the time, inline quoting is better, but if your post stands on its own, but would like to include another post in it's entirety for reference, top-posting is the best way to do it. But I would never top-post anything in this group, for fear of getting lynched. And speaking of posting - I really need to finish my Blood Brothers newsletter instead of continuing this post any further off topic.

Chris Berger wrote: > Agreed. Quoting is good. In terms of newsreaders, though, I still > think that there's a happy middle ground that takes into account > threaded views and doesn't simply show single posts with no context. Most newsreaders show threaded messages. But many people delete messages already read (as that way it is much easier to find the new messages, especially in a big and particularly active thread). And sometimes, like on google groups, a message will not show up for a period of time for reasons that are unclear, so it is possible that your reply to a post will show up before the post you responded to will show up. And even then, that the thread is there doesn't mean it is a good idea to require your reader to refer back. I realize that you, Chris Berger, understand this, but I'm just being clear for the sake of my own pedantic prigishness :-) > Adding quotes into your messages is always better. I was astounded > when I saw on a particular webforum "only quote if you need to - it > wastes bandwidth". That is madness. Who are these freaks? > For example, I don't > think it's always 100% wrong to top-post. Heresy! > Most of the time, inline > quoting is better, but if your post stands on its own, but would like > to include another post in it's entirety for reference, top-posting is > the best way to do it. But I would never top-post anything in this > group, for fear of getting lynched. Heh heh. Who would do that? I'm unconvinced that it is ever a good idea to top post, mostly 'cause in the instance you describe (I wanna say something short and witty, and want to include someone's entire other post as reference), not editing out the stuff that is irelevant to my short and witty post smacks of lazyness. -Peter

In message <1137723485.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, MathiasTCK <Mathias...@gmail.com> writes: >But it's only necessary as long as people use readers that make it >difficult to view a parent post, right? I find trying to find parent posts in Google extremely difficult in long, complex threads. This is even more complex if people have chosen to X-no-archive their posts and I'm trying to re-read a discussion or dig out relevant points from a set of posts in the past. Question: what do *you* do when someone responds to an X-no-archive-d post and the post isn't available anymore to read on Google? Google's interface isn't perfect, and quoting helps get round most of its imperfections. This is not just about "Click up, stupid" and attempting to boil it down to such and rather misses the point. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1137749950.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Not really. Buffy, and its spin-off Angel, varies in tone quite considerably - both as the series evolves and as different writers and directors take over. Some episodes are goofy, others are quite dark as prime-time TV shows go. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1137723485.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > MathiasTCK <Mathias...@gmail.com> writes: > >>But it's only necessary as long as people use readers that make it >>difficult to view a parent post, right? > > > I find trying to find parent posts in Google extremely difficult in > long, complex threads. This is even more complex if people have chosen > to X-no-archive their posts and I'm trying to re-read a discussion or > dig out relevant points from a set of posts in the past. Question: what > do *you* do when someone responds to an X-no-archive-d post and the post > isn't available anymore to read on Google? > > Google's interface isn't perfect, and quoting helps get round most of > its imperfections. This is not just about "Click up, stupid" and > attempting to boil it down to such and rather misses the point. I would add that, in my experience, the strongest benefit of Google Groups, and what I always turn to it for, is finding an archived copy of a ruling or dialogue on strategic uses of cards. And it's much easier to do this where the individual message has enough context in it that it comes up with intuitive searches.

I've always wanted to see a card game that brings together the various parts of the world of darkness, giving a player the oportunity to choose which 'faction' to control (ie Shapechangers or Mages, Changelings or Vampires etc) and have them interact using the one game system. Not sure if I want V:tES to be it, no idea how it would be done. But I'm sure the game designer(s) have their own ideas anyways.

d31m escreveu: [ quoted text not captured ] I wonder how VTES players that are annoyed with the introduction of Hunters as crypt allies would feel if such a game (WoD) was created and its rules were similar enough to permit players to mix and match, allowing WoD CCG Mage or Werewolf or whatever decks to contend against VTES decks. Of course, not every VTES playgroup would be inclined to arrange such games (say, 4x VTES decks against a WoD werewolf deck), but I believe most would. But once you look closer at it, it would be not very different from releasing VTES small sets that address the possibility as Nights of Reckoning will do with Hunters. And still, people feel it would detract from VTES as a "vampire game"... best,

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1137749950.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > as...@hotmail.com writes: > >>Please define 'buffy-ish'. > > > >Frankly I don´t wanna bother do so. See an episode of Buffy and you > >get the idea. > > Not really. Buffy, and its spin-off Angel, varies in tone quite > considerably - both as the series evolves and as different writers and > directors take over. Some episodes are goofy, others are quite dark as > prime-time TV shows go. And is being buffy-oriented a bad thing or a good thing? ~SV

Screaming Vermillian wrote: > > And is being buffy-oriented a bad thing or a good thing? I'm not quite sure what these people are talking about. Buffy is the best show ever. Best. Show. Ever. -Peter

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1137976977.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not much a fan of "me too" posts, but I have to make an exception in this case. Buffy deserves all the mad props it can get. B.S.E. indeed. - Pat

[ quoted text not captured ] Usually it is a bad thing, but the issue is often brought up as a troll-like reaction to something different someone has done within a vampire game. Short tempers aside, for the (too few) Buffy episodes I've seen, the thing is that the series are way far removed from the world of darkness setting - so Buffy becomes an easy example on how someone who "didn't understand the setting" could "disrupt" the whole thing. I don't like Buffy - or at least didn't like what I've seen of it - but there's no reason for such comparison to Hunters being introduced. The only real similarities to Buffy to this is the fact that, well, Buffy is a vampire hunter and [pick a signature character from Reckoning], surprise!, is also a vampire hunter. That's such an alien idea, isn't it? What, people hunting vampires? Crazy. Never seen nothing on TV, comics or movies on that topic. Have you? ;-) Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

In message <CZSdnQKWQr_...@comcast.com>, Pat <patrick.lusk.nospa m...@comcast.nyetspam.net> writes: >B.S.E. indeed. You have mad cow disease? [ quoted text not captured ]