Forums vs NG

Hi, this topic has come up before. But I would like to revisit it. NG I love, I love the text interface, etc. But if more disussion at forums, perhaps will visit more often. Comments? chris -- chris shorb

"Chris Shorb" <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:412D9114...@vtesinla.org... > Hi, this topic has come up before. But I would like to revisit it. NG > I love, I love the text interface, etc. But if more disussion at > forums, perhaps will visit more often. Comments? > I frequent the forum now at least as much as the NG. Discussion content is not at the level that it is on the NG, but some of us old-timers should be there (the forum), at the very least to let other passers-by know the game is quite active. Occasionally, the tedium of flamewars makes the (presumably) moderated forums a refreshing change. The old forum format was a total pain (truncated posts, 75 responses per thread maximum, yeesh). The new format is much improved, yet still glitchy. Hopefully, they'll hash out their forum issues as time progresses, and the admins get more familiar with it. Usenet and Google Groups, while extremely Good and Stable, are falling out of the notice of the mainstream. As VTES' main mode of communication becomes more ignored, drawing new players to the game becomes more difficult. Eventually, we're all going to have to make a grand migration off of this island... DaveZ Atom Weaver

Chris Shorb wrote: > Hi, this topic has come up before. But I would like to revisit it. NG > I love, I love the text interface, etc. But if more disussion at > forums, perhaps will visit more often. Comments? Is there more discussion at the WW Forum? There might be more posting, but I dunno if there is more discussion. Call me an elitist ass, but really, I find usenet *soooo* much more condusive to worthwhile discussion. Or even not worthwhile discussion that seems worthwhile. Maybe it is the flashy interface. Maybe it is the lower bar that encourages more yahoos. But every time I look at the forum, I'm like, "Oh. Ok. There are a few of the same usenet folks saying smart things, and a couple not usenet folks saying smart things, but a lot of random yahoos saying nothing at all interesting." And 'cause there are a lot of short posts, and you have to plow through all of them to find anything, it is hard to follow reasonable discussion. And you get stuff, like, currently, the first thread you hit on the main page is titled "First!", and it is 8 messages about how "I posted first!" (which is apparently an exciting element of the standard BBS Forum culture). I mean, yeah, here we have endless discussion of insignificant things, but at least it is, for the most part, a coherent discussion. BBS culture and usenet culture are two different things. And for the most part, usenet culture comes off as much smarter. So for my money? I'd stay with usenet. It isn't a bad thing that the Forum is there. It is great for sucking folks in. But really, I'd think the best option is to suck people in with the forum and then steer them here. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

David Zopf wrote: > I frequent the forum now at least as much as the NG. Discussion content is > not at the level that it is on the NG, but some of us old-timers should be > there (the forum), at the very least to let other passers-by know the game > is quite active. Occasionally, the tedium of flamewars makes the > (presumably) moderated forums a refreshing change. Well, ya know, a good, articulate flame war always strikes me as much more entertianing than 6 posts in a row of "yeah!" But that is me :-) > The old forum format was a total pain (truncated posts, 75 responses per > thread maximum, yeesh). The new format is much improved, yet still glitchy. The new Forum system seems pretty good, although my old, slow computer keeps getting mad, 'cause I don't have Flash... > Hopefully, they'll hash out their forum issues as time progresses, and the > admins get more familiar with it. Usenet and Google Groups, while extremely > Good and Stable, are falling out of the notice of the mainstream. Yeah, see, if we make sure folks know it is there, then it doesn't fall out of the main stream. I mean, heck, GoogleGroups is really easy to get to--it doesn't even require a special set up like usenet. I'd like to see a link to the newsgroup on googlegroups prominently posted on the WW web page--Idon't know why that isn't done, personally. I mean, yeah, ok, web forums are flashy and all, but really. > As VTES' > main mode of communication becomes more ignored, drawing new players to the > game becomes more difficult. Eventually, we're all going to have to make a > grand migration off of this island... Meh. If some more effort was put into getting folks here, the world would work better. I mean, again, I think it is a great thing that the Forum is there (and I think it is a fantastic thing that you are putting the effort into answering questions for folks there), if instead of isolating the Forum from the NG, effort was put into funnelling the Forum *into* the newsgroup, everyone would benefit. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BD535A49.1914D%pd...@lightlink.com... > David Zopf wrote: > > > I frequent the forum now at least as much as the NG. Discussion content is > > not at the level that it is on the NG, but some of us old-timers should be > > there (the forum), at the very least to let other passers-by know the game > > is quite active. Occasionally, the tedium of flamewars makes the > > (presumably) moderated forums a refreshing change. > > Well, ya know, a good, articulate flame war always strikes me as much more > entertianing than 6 posts in a row of "yeah!" But that is me :-) > I think you are kind of overstating the lack of content of the forum here (maybe its derived from experience with other forums)... I know its partially in jest, but still, it might leave a usenet reader with the wrong impression. That "First" thread by william was some nut kid who happened to post on the new forums, and in a whole bunch of places. Childish, yes, but harmless. I don't even think he plays VTES. Most threads on the Forum are new players asking rules questions, posting decks for critique, or looking for this or that resource. There isn't a whole lot of strategy, tactics discussion, nor is there much debate over the relative strengths of particular cards. I think the population that is currently there doesn't use it for that purpose because they aren't yet versed enough in the game to do so. Those that are, post here. > > Hopefully, they'll hash out their forum issues as time progresses, and the > > admins get more familiar with it. Usenet and Google Groups, while extremely > > Good and Stable, are falling out of the notice of the mainstream. > > Yeah, see, if we make sure folks know it is there, then it doesn't fall out > of the main stream. I mean, heck, GoogleGroups is really easy to get to--it > doesn't even require a special set up like usenet. ...and the awful web based interface, plus eight hour lag time will turn a lot of people off. > I'd like to see a link to > the newsgroup on googlegroups prominently posted on the WW web page--Idon't > know why that isn't done, personally. I mean, yeah, ok, web forums are > flashy and all, but really. > Flashy attracts traffic. My problem is that people won't pull themselves into this, the biggest discussion forum ,off the first ten links from any given search engine. That can be a problem when you're competing for a potential player's attention... > > As VTES' > > main mode of communication becomes more ignored, drawing new players to the > > game becomes more difficult. Eventually, we're all going to have to make a > > grand migration off of this island... > > Meh. If some more effort was put into getting folks here, the world would > work better. I mean, again, I think it is a great thing that the Forum is > there (and I think it is a fantastic thing that you are putting the effort > into answering questions for folks there), if instead of isolating the Forum > from the NG, effort was put into funnelling the Forum *into* the newsgroup, > everyone would benefit. > I see a place in the short term for both, but the funnelling should be going the other way. The forum is honestly a less intimidating place, if only because the flame wars are absent, and the foul language is curtailed. No new player who lurked here would honestly dare post too much, I think, what with the experienced old-timers who are really all too ready to dish out the heavy-handed response. Think about it...who is new and regular to the usenet group, other than The Doctor, in the last three to six months? I cannot think of a single soul, and that is pretty troubling. The forum already has about five new posters (one a day) since it went up on 8/21/04. DaveZ Atom Weaver

Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:<412D9114...@vtesinla.org>... > Hi, this topic has come up before. But I would like to revisit it. NG > I love, I love the text interface, etc. But if more disussion at > forums, perhaps will visit more often. Comments? Sorry, but whats to love with newsgroups? I use google to watch newsgroups (as do all people I know), and I can´t get why it is good to have to wait 3-9 hours for a post to show. Explain again please.

I thought of what might be a good solution... a best of both worlds sort of thing. What if WW hosted an archive of only those usenet forums specific to its products, which included a good web interface for posting, and updated the NGs in real time like a standard newsserver does? Take the poor Google interface and lag time out, and integrate the two into one location, at the WW site, and you've got an excellent situation. Old-timers using Forte Agent (or whatever) could leave their habits unchanged, and new players would see all sorts of discussion going on. It would be unmoderated (obviously), but highly visible, being hosted at the game owner's site. More timid participants would be one or two clicks away from the moderated foum. Is this sort of thing possible? I think it would be, but then I'm no Web Admin (alas, I'm just a poor chemist)... DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Henrik Klippstr?m" <as...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5a3b0aea.04082...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Google != USENET Posts show up on USENET instantaneously. Google has a delay between the time the posts show up on USENET and when Google's archives/ indices are updated to reflect them. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

David Zopf wrote: > I think you are kind of overstating the lack of content of the forum here > (maybe its derived from experience with other forums)... Yeah, it kind of is. I'm involved in a few other BBS Forums occasonally (one of which tends to involve me and Andrew Davidson as allies against the world...), and they tend to be pretty low grade, in terms of signal to noise. The VTES Forum, while certainly less wonky (likely due to less traffic) tends to not be that much different. But then more than anything, I suspect that is a combination of the interface and the culture of web BBS (that is closely tied to the culture of Instant Messaging and Text Messaging. Those darn kids today). > I know its > partially in jest, but still, it might leave a usenet reader with the wrong > impression. That "First" thread by william was some nut kid who happened to > post on the new forums, and in a whole bunch of places. Childish, yes, but > harmless. I don't even think he plays VTES. Exactly. Which is what happens on web BBS systems more often than not. I mean, yeah, I'm not going to condemn the whole system for that or anything, but it is certainly telling that when I go specifically to check out the Forum based on this thread, the top most thread on "new threads" is that particular thread. Which again, is very tied into the BBS Forum culture (one of the other BBS Forums I frequent specifically had to ban "First Post!" messages, and making one will get you warning points, just like Flaming folks and using naughty language). I'm not, like, super down on BBS Forums. But I find both the interface and culture of usenet *much* better. And I realize that BBS Forums are the future. But it strikes me as a much better option to try and keep usenet up rather than embracing the dumbing down of the internet. > > Most threads on the Forum are new players asking rules questions, posting > decks for critique, or looking for this or that resource. There isn't a > whole lot of strategy, tactics discussion, nor is there much debate over the > relative strengths of particular cards. I think the population that is > currently there doesn't use it for that purpose because they aren't yet > versed enough in the game to do so. Those that are, post here. Which strikes me as a reasonable system--if we secretly used the Forum as a priming ground for the newsgroup, everyone would benefit :-) > ...and the awful web based interface, plus eight hour lag time will turn a > lot of people off. Ahh, yes. Completely true. I totally spaced on the suckiness of GoogleGroups (which is not insignificant) compared to a nice newsreader. And the Forums do have a much nicer immediacy to them. But then, as a guy who uses dial up and doesn't have the most up to date web browser, I'm totally irked by the reload times and the "You need better Flash!" messages that I constantly run into. But then I'm secretly and anti-technology luddite. > Flashy attracts traffic. My problem is that people won't pull themselves > into this, the biggest discussion forum ,off the first ten links from any > given search engine. That can be a problem when you're competing for a > potential player's attention... True. Is there a way to fix that? > I see a place in the short term for both, but the funnelling should be going > the other way. The forum is honestly a less intimidating place, if only > because the flame wars are absent, and the foul language is curtailed. No > new player who lurked here would honestly dare post too much, I think, what > with the experienced old-timers who are really all too ready to dish out the > heavy-handed response. Think about it...who is new and regular to the > usenet group, other than The Doctor, in the last three to six months? I > cannot think of a single soul, and that is pretty troubling. The forum > already has about five new posters (one a day) since it went up on 8/21/04. Yeah, see, that is a not insignificant problem. But my experience with BBS Forums, moderated or no, is that they aren't really any better--there is just as much flaming and rudeness (if not more, when the traffic goes up) *and* a lot more just plain noise. I mean, heck, the Heroclix BBS? Makes usenet look like an idyllic pasture. And that is a moderated BBS with warning points and banning all over the place. [ quoted text not captured ]

Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > Sorry, but whats to love with newsgroups? I use google to watch > newsgroups (as do all people I know), and I can´t get why it is good > to have to wait 3-9 hours for a post to show. Explain again please. See, that *is* a problem. Usenet was designed to be read through a newsreader (like the incredibly common Outlook Express or any number of other free, downloadable newsreaders), where you aren't using a web based interface and you don't have to wait 3-9 hours for a post to show up. GoogleGroups is kind of lame. It is true. But with a newsreader, usenet is fantastic. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BD539029.19167%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > > > Sorry, but whats to love with newsgroups? I use google to watch > > newsgroups (as do all people I know), and I can´t get why it is good > > to have to wait 3-9 hours for a post to show. Explain again please. > > See, that *is* a problem. Usenet was designed to be read through a > newsreader (like the incredibly common Outlook Express or any number of > other free, downloadable newsreaders), where you aren't using a web based > interface and you don't have to wait 3-9 hours for a post to show up. > GoogleGroups is kind of lame. It is true. But with a newsreader, usenet is > fantastic. Ah. Yeah I kind of knew that. The reason I don´t use a newsreader (like Outlook) is that there was some nasty viruses spreading by them a while ago. But I guess I could try again (without using the adress book-function).

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<rRmXc.7659$Y94....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>... > It would be unmoderated > (obviously), but highly visible, being hosted at the game owner's site. > More timid participants would be one or two clicks away from the moderated > foum. Is this sort of thing possible? I think it would be, but then I'm > no Web Admin (alas, I'm just a poor chemist)... I'm pretty positive no game studio will actually host an unmoderated forum (or other sorts of unmoderated discussion boards) on its own webspace. No amount of disclaimers would avoid the damage done to the company image by a poorly behaving forum community. "Yeah, they are real bastards at white-wolf, everyone stinks there." Hardly worth it. Bye, Daneel

I think it was David Zopf <david...@snet.net>, who once wrote: > I see a place in the short term for both, but the funnelling should be going > the other way. The forum is honestly a less intimidating place, if only > because the flame wars are absent, and the foul language is curtailed. No > new player who lurked here would honestly dare post too much, I think, what > with the experienced old-timers who are really all too ready to dish out the > heavy-handed response. Think about it...who is new and regular to the > usenet group, other than The Doctor, in the last three to six months? I > cannot think of a single soul, and that is pretty troubling. The forum > already has about five new posters (one a day) since it went up on 8/21/04. *cough* ;) Guess I don't post all that often, but that's not because I'm afraid I'll get flamed or anything. I prefer to leave it to the experts here. :) Rogar

In message <a23a105e.04082...@posting.google.com>, dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Tell me again how every webforum out there survives, then? Either they're heavily moderated into oblivion (meaning the only things you see are "F1RST POSSSTTT!!!111" crap, with NO discussion), or it's moderated only in name, and only for random streams of profanity -- in which case, you get the same stuff you get on USENET, except that they don't use the Seven Words. Webforums have the disadvantage of crummy threading, crummy mechanics, slow loading, AND 12-year olds can use them (FIRST POST!), meaning that every tard-meme is repeated endlessly. USENET has the disadvantage of being hard to find, and you need a decent client so you can use your own ISP's newsserver instead of Google. Which of these is easier to overcome? -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > Ah. Yeah I kind of knew that. The reason I don´t use a newsreader > (like Outlook) is that there was some nasty viruses spreading by them > a while ago. But I guess I could try again (without using the adress > book-function). Outlook does indeed spread email infections, and is globally not very good to read newsgroups anyway. Cream of the crop newsreading software are referenced here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/gnksa-evaluations.html -- Francois Gombault GPG key: http://hopeless.homelinux.org:2080/~francois/gpg/08A1B422.asc NON-FLAMMABLE, IS NOT A CHALLENGE -- Bart Simpson on chalkboard

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<6caui0tp80cgu5vis...@4ax.com>... > >I'm pretty positive no game studio will actually host an unmoderated > >forum (or other sorts of unmoderated discussion boards) on its own > >webspace. No amount of disclaimers would avoid the damage done to the > >company image by a poorly behaving forum community. "Yeah, they are > >real bastards at white-wolf, everyone stinks there." Hardly worth it. > > Tell me again how every webforum out there survives, then? From an economic, social or other type of perspective? I can only give educated guesses, as this subject is not my primary field of expertise. I must confess though, I am not completely sure about the relevance this subject has in the light of our current discussion. > Either they're heavily moderated into oblivion (meaning the only things > you see are "F1RST POSSSTTT!!!111" crap, with NO discussion), or it's > moderated only in name, and only for random streams of profanity -- in > which case, you get the same stuff you get on USENET, except that they > don't use the Seven Words. I'm not sure what you're trying to get here. I participate in different forums with different levels of moderation, different user populations and different types of content. I'm quite sure you do the same (since you probably based your comment on personal experience rather than groundless opinion). I wouldn't like to assess any points you may have made in this post until I'm sure about their exact contents. > Webforums have the disadvantage of crummy threading, crummy mechanics, > slow loading, AND 12-year olds can use them (FIRST POST!), meaning that > every tard-meme is repeated endlessly. Forums can become filled with dead threads of the same questions getting asked over and over again (careful moderation can prevent this). Or they can be deleted in a time-based manner like the old WW forums were. > USENET has the disadvantage of being hard to find, and you need a decent > client so you can use your own ISP's newsserver instead of Google. Well, I don't consider these too disadvantegous. Nevertheless, it is not _that_ hard to find; all sorts of folks make it here. > Which of these is easier to overcome? I'm not completely sure what sort of overcoming you refer to (or what you imply with it). I'm open to discussion, but please try to be more specific (or just rephrase your point) because this time I'm not completely sure what you meant. Sorry for the inconvenience... Bye, Daneel

Francois Gombault wrote: > Outlook does indeed spread email infections, and is globally not very > good to read newsgroups anyway. ??? I dunno about the email infections (I have a Mac--don't get viruses...) but Outlook works just fine for reading newsgroups. I do so all the time. I'm not, like, championing Outlook or anything, but it is incredibly common (i.e. many, many computers come with it as standard equipment) and is as good of a newsreader as you need. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 Aug 2004 16:11:15 -0700, dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) scrawled: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<6caui0tp80cgu5vis...@4ax.com>... >> Which of these is easier to overcome? > >I'm not completely sure what sort of overcoming you refer to (or what >you imply with it). I'm open to discussion, but please try to be more >specific (or just rephrase your point) because this time I'm not >completely sure what you meant. Sorry for the inconvenience... i think he is trying to say that both types of forum have down-sides. if you wanted to choose just one forum, you'd want to 'fix' or overcome it's down-sides. which of the two forums types is easiest to 'fix'/overcome the problems with? salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

> > Outlook does indeed spread email infections, and is globally not very > > good to read newsgroups anyway. > > ??? > > I dunno about the email infections (I have a Mac--don't get viruses...) but > Outlook works just fine for reading newsgroups. I do so all the time. I'm > not, like, championing Outlook or anything, but it is incredibly common > (i.e. many, many computers come with it as standard equipment) and is as > good of a newsreader as you need. I got to second that. Have been using Outlook as my newsreader for ages now. It's incredibly easy to setup and has a friendly interface, unlike some of them downloadable newsreaders out there. With a good firewall/virusscanner you're not gonna get bothered by email infections crap, unless it's some new hot worm virus which is gonna catch you anyway if you have at least some amount of e-mail traffic.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:55:51 +1000, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > i think he is trying to say that both types of forum have down-sides. > > if you wanted to choose just one forum, you'd want to 'fix' or > overcome it's down-sides. > > which of the two forums types is easiest to 'fix'/overcome the > problems with? Actually, I was only referring to the unmoderated vs. moderated angle. I did not really address the forums vs. newsgroup issue. I think that a company won't host any unmoderated discussion board/forum/whatnot on its own website simply because it will want to control the content at least minimally. I listed practical reasons, but there may be legal ones as well. Bye, Daneel

I might use the new forum over at WW if the darn system would let me log in and post. Even with the help of tech support, I can't do it. Just have to keep posting on here. -- Colin "Eryx" Goodman http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

"Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> wrote in message news:<cgshhk$4dm$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, I do have "at lease some amount of e-mail traffic". But again, I guess I could try use Outlook without using the adress book (which is the funtion that the viruses use to spread I guess)

Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > Yes, I do have "at lease some amount of e-mail traffic". But again, I > guess I could try use Outlook without using the adress book (which is > the funtion that the viruses use to spread I guess) ??? The Adress book isn't a problem. I mean, yeah, if you get a virus, it might use your address book as a means to get e-mail addresses to send itself to, but using the address book isn't, like, going to make you more likely to get a virus. If you get a virus, you get a virus--the address book is not really involved (until, ya know, you already have the virus and that virus spreads itself by sending itself to everyone in your address book) any more than, like, using a computer is involved. I mean, yeah, if you don't have addresses in your address book, a virus can't use them to propagate itself. But by the same token, if you don't use a computer, the virus can't use it to propagate itself. Just don't get a virus. Don't open files randomly tacked on to e-mail. Get a good virus blocker. [ quoted text not captured ]

Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Viruses screw up your computer. SirCan was one I had a few years ago. I couldn't run any .exe files. Guess how lame that was. Trojans are programs that replicate by e-mailing to everyone in your "address book" and spread throughout the web. Trojans sometimes also carry "payload" in the form of either viruses or opening up security vulnerability on your computer so offsite users can use your computer for whatever. Most trojans look in any number of types of files, just to find e-mail addresses. E-mail addresses are very easy to find, just look for the @ symbol. Anyway, this was a long winded way of saying that not using Outlook Expresses address book function will not prevent your computer from hosting viruses or trojans. I use Netscape Communicator 4.1 for my newsreader and e-mail program. All my in coming POP3 mail is filtered by Norton. Also consider using anti-sypware stuff. I like Adaware and the resources found here: <http://aumha.org/a/parasite.htm> Way off topic, sorry. On Topic - maybe I need to go on the forums and find out why folk don't come here. I bet they have good reasons, for them. best - chris -- chris shorb

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BD57E797.1924E%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > > > Yes, I do have "at lease some amount of e-mail traffic". But again, I > > guess I could try use Outlook without using the adress book (which is > > the funtion that the viruses use to spread I guess) > > ??? > > The Adress book isn't a problem. I mean, yeah, if you get a virus, it might > use your address book as a means to get e-mail addresses to send itself to, > but using the address book isn't, like, going to make you more likely to get > a virus. If you get a virus, you get a virus--the address book is not really > involved (until, ya know, you already have the virus and that virus spreads > itself by sending itself to everyone in your address book) any more than, > like, using a computer is involved. > > I mean, yeah, if you don't have addresses in your address book, a virus > can't use them to propagate itself. But by the same token, if you don't use > a computer, the virus can't use it to propagate itself. > > Just don't get a virus. Don't open files randomly tacked on to e-mail. Get a > good virus blocker. I know all of this. My point was: no adresses in adressbook = viruses (that spread by sending itself to all adresses in adressbook) that you HAPPEN to get (in spite of counterefforts) cannot spread. My other point is that I can´t see any solid arguments for not using forums instead of NG. IMHO!

Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > I know all of this. My point was: no adresses in adressbook = viruses > (that spread by sending itself to all adresses in adressbook) that you > HAPPEN to get (in spite of counterefforts) cannot spread. I mean, yeah, I suppose, but it seems likely that any virus that wants to find e-mail adresses is going to find them, address book or no. It just strikes me as kind of wonky to not use an address book 'cause you might get a virus that might use it to propagate itself. But, ya know, me. I guess my point is that the virus issue isn't really a problem with Outlook or the address book function so much as a problem with the world, and using Outlook or its adress book isn't making you more vulnerable to viruses than any other internet program. > My other point is that I can´t see any solid arguments for not using > forums instead of NG. IMHO! That's easy: A) Formus have a much klunkier interface. They are slower as they reload, you have to fight through pointless flash adds and unecessary graphics. If you don't have a cable modem, they are *much* slower. B) Forums tend to be infected by the same culture as instant messaging and text messaging--people are much more likely to respond with short, pointless messages and not even attempt to spell/write in a coherent fashion. Point (A) is a significant, concrete issue. Yeah, if you have the super latest web browser and a cable modem, the reloading delays and flash adds loading and whatever is a minimal issue, but still an issue--it still takes time for the images to load, where with a nice, sleek text based newsreader, none of this comes up, as it isn't necessary. Even with a cable modem, the interface is still goofy--you have those little boxes to write in, short, pointless messages tend to take up as much visual space as medium sized coherent messages. Lots of flashy lights, bells, and whisltes that look nice, but degrade the actual functional use of the system. Point (B) is kind of an abstract issue that might not even be something that many people notice, but if you notice it, it is annoying. People tend to interact with Web Forums like they do with Instant Messagers--they tend to use silly, unecessary contractions and completely ignore even remotely coherent language structure. I mean, sure, not everyone, but enough that it is irritating. Usenet has an established culture, mostly of, "You are writing an article or a response to an article for people to read and respond to. You should try and be coherent.", which is a far more satisfying environment to have discussions in. Yeah, sometimes Usenet has flame wars, but at least they are coherent flame wars, where Web Forums tend to have just as many flame wars, but far less articulate flame wars. I mean, yeah, none of this may be a bother to you (or anyone, for that matter), but they are both significant reasons *not* to want to use a Web Forum as opposed to Usenet. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BD58A02D.19265%pd...@lightlink.com... > > My other point is that I can´t see any solid arguments for not using > > forums instead of NG. IMHO! > > That's easy: > A) Formus have a much klunkier interface. They are slower as they reload, > you have to fight through pointless flash adds and unecessary graphics. If > you don't have a cable modem, they are *much* slower. > > B) Forums tend to be infected by the same culture as instant messaging and > text messaging--people are much more likely to respond with short, pointless > messages and not even attempt to spell/write in a coherent fashion. > While perhaps generally true of online forums, I'm compelled to mention that your points, regarding the White Wolf VTES Forum sepcifically, are absolutely inaccurate. The forums load quickly, even on a dial-up connection, because there are no heavy jpgs on the forum pages. There are no flash ads at the WW forums (hell, they don't even have banner ads). The 'culture' varies as widely there as it does here. DaveZ

David Zopf wrote: > While perhaps generally true of online forums, I'm compelled to mention that > your points, regarding the White Wolf VTES Forum sepcifically, are > absolutely inaccurate. I've been there. It takes time to load. I get messages that say "you are missing capability X, so you can't view this flashy image. Click to continue." Everytime I look at a new thread, I have to wait for the images to load back in (and by images, I mean sidebars and smiley faces and crap, as well as whatever it is I can't look at). And I have a pretty fast dial up connection. I mean, I don't have to wait a long time. But enough that it is irritating compared to Usenet. [ quoted text not captured ]

I think it was Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com>, who once wrote: > Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > > My other point is that I can´t see any solid arguments for not using > > forums instead of NG. IMHO! > > That's easy: > A) Formus have a much klunkier interface. They are slower as they reload, > you have to fight through pointless flash adds and unecessary graphics. If > you don't have a cable modem, they are *much* slower. Also, there are some people who regularly work from a text console that doesn't even have a browser with all those flashy things like graphics. ;) Rogar

>> My other point is that I can´t see any solid arguments for not using >> forums instead of NG. IMHO! > >That's easy: >A) Formus have a much klunkier interface. They are slower as they reload, >you have to fight through pointless flash adds and unecessary graphics. If >you don't have a cable modem, they are *much* slower. Some forums I really dislike as they are just painful to read. The old WW forums were certainly that way with no visual structure to segregate topics enough. The Path of Blood's forums are easily managed. I'm not sure how many forums can get away with breaking up threads into topic groups while having enough activity in each group, but it solves to a high degree having topics can pushed back so far that you forget about them. I recall forums like the old "Boston" one breaking things up into groups as well, but I don't recall the same level of activity in every group. The new V:TES forum looks fairly standard, better than the old. If I could only get something there I couldn't elsewhere, it would probably be tolerable, but I'm not aware of that being the case. With the newsgroup, to an extent, you can not keep up with it for a while and come back and have all of the posts in front of you (at least with my newsgroup reader). Leave an active forum too long and you lose interesting threads. >B) Forums tend to be infected by the same culture as instant messaging and >text messaging--people are much more likely to respond with short, pointless >messages and not even attempt to spell/write in a coherent fashion. I don't see the obvious difference to the newsgroup, only that such trivial messages are easier to process with the newsgroup. I see the biggest difference being that this newsgroup is so well established. People interested in content will tend to congregate. If I thought there was some source of wisdom clearly superior, I'd probably spend more time there than here. Roughly, I see the newsgroup having the best content but having the drawbacks of contentiousness and the "depth"* of nonsubstantive posts. * Probably get as many trivial posts wherever you are, but the newsgroup is much more prone to the 300 post thread that got completely sidetracked that will be filled with people restating their positions or otherwise not adding anything useful. With most forums, people eventually give up on pointless debate. Yahoogroup, though I've only checked in on occasion rather than ever being a member, has the advantage that the messages go right into e-mail. Seriously, I consider this an advantage. It's much easier to keep a dialogue up when you don't have to hunt for posts. But, it has always appeared to me to be a lot like the newsgroup in content only dumbed down to a degree. There are times I've preferred The Path of Blood as it seemed to have the content and lose a lot of the noise. Then, there are times I get frustrated by certain people who frequent it and would rather read the newsgroup or hope for a local conversation. It clearly "wins" among forums. Forums, not just V:TES, tend to have a problem with drawing mainly from certain groups of players. The regional bias (as pretty much every region has one) influences the entire forum and discussion that challenges that bias can get crowded out. A similar effect can happen when you get forum leaders. Often, forum leaders end up being people who post *a lot*. Okay, there's not necessarily a problem with that if for no other reason that someone will always be in the post lead. But, what's the correlation between number of posts and insight? Too often, I've seen a really smart player of a CCG who barely comments and may get disgusted by the forum and leave. It's so frustrating to not be able to bring together all of the top players or to not be able to at least review their thoughts when they have their secret discussions (the last being the case with one CCG I played). The newsgroup seems to be more oriented towards personalities than leaders, seems to tend towards a more heterogeneous style. Again, it's not that forums necessarily lack diversity of thought, it's that they often favor one sort over another due to a form of exclusivity. Having said that, my perfect forum (in the general sense of any public discourse) would have exclusivity ... and diversity and probably most difficult to achieve after getting the first two - activity. Even if it means I can't post to it. I would love to see top players and theoreticians do nothing but hardcore analysis without the useless flames, the fluff posts, the funny posts, tournament announcements (which can be handled elsewhere), rules questions answered (though with certain rules discussion when a ruling is tricky). I'm much more interested in discovering something than trying to argue my position on something. It's not impossible. We had at least one playtest list that worked that way, though I would have preferred more activity, like far more decklists posted especially during playtesting. I think how these forums come about and having a forum be really good involves the posters respecting each other. Disagreement is fine since the source may be regional metagames (which serious players are trying to eliminate by sharing analysis) or simply a tentative disagreement pending an opportunity to test a theory or having someone provide evidence for a view. Rather than the usual "I disagree with you, therefore you are a dumbass" take that one often sees, you might get the "why do we disagree? let me try out your theory/deck and give you feedback on my results" Holy Grail of analysis. Not that people have time to analyze everything under the Sun, especially not with V:TES, where also analysis might not matter much anyway.

Curevei wrote: > The new V:TES forum looks fairly standard, better than the old. If I could > only get something there I couldn't elsewhere, it would probably be tolerable, > but I'm not aware of that being the case. It is, as web forums go, pretty standard--not extra good or extra unweildy. Perfectly acceptable for what it is. But still, I find the interface issue just that--an issue. I mean, yeah, the load log and whatever isn't huge or anything, but compared to Usenet (which has no load lag at all), it is something that makes me prefer Usenet over web forums in general. The VTES Web Forum isn't any better or worse than other web forums. But it is still a web forum. > I don't see the obvious difference to the newsgroup, only that such trivial > messages are easier to process with the newsgroup. The VTES Forum, to this point, is pretty civil and coherent, which is an advatage the VTES Forum seems to have over similar forums Ihave been invovled in. But youstill get stuff like "First Post" kinda stuff. I suspect that if/as the VTES Forum increases in traffic, it'll increase in incoherence. But that is just me. > I see the biggest difference being that this newsgroup is so well established. > People interested in content will tend to congregate. If I thought there was > some source of wisdom clearly superior, I'd probably spend more time there > than here. Sure. Not that I am a huge font of wisdom or anything, but for my money, the interface issue is enough of an issue for me to actively not want to go to the Forum, and instead continue here, as I like it better. > Roughly, I see the newsgroup having the best content but having the drawbacks > of contentiousness and the "depth"* of nonsubstantive posts. > > * Probably get as many trivial posts wherever you are, but the newsgroup is > much more prone to the 300 post thread that got completely sidetracked that > will be filled with people restating their positions or otherwise not adding > anything useful. With most forums, people eventually give up on pointless > debate. Sure--but that is where I prefer Usenet culture to Forum culture. Usenet does get just as many nonsubstantiave posts, but they tend to, for my money, be much less irritating, as they tend to be more coherent. And easier to avoid, really. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BD58A02D.19265%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > > > I know all of this. My point was: no adresses in adressbook = viruses > > (that spread by sending itself to all adresses in adressbook) that you > > HAPPEN to get (in spite of counterefforts) cannot spread. > > I mean, yeah, I suppose, but it seems likely that any virus that wants to > find e-mail adresses is going to find them, address book or no. It just > strikes me as kind of wonky to not use an address book 'cause you might get > a virus that might use it to propagate itself. But, ya know, me. > > I guess my point is that the virus issue isn't really a problem with Outlook > or the address book function so much as a problem with the world, and using > Outlook or its adress book isn't making you more vulnerable to viruses than > any other internet program. I use webmail. With adressbook online. No viruses. > > My other point is that I can´t see any solid arguments for not using > > forums instead of NG. IMHO! > > That's easy: > A) Formus have a much klunkier interface. They are slower as they reload, > you have to fight through pointless flash adds and unecessary graphics. If > you don't have a cable modem, they are *much* slower. > > B) Forums tend to be infected by the same culture as instant messaging and > text messaging--people are much more likely to respond with short, pointless > messages and not even attempt to spell/write in a coherent fashion. Actually, these ARE good, solid arguements. [B] I cannot do much about - some people don´t bother to think before they post, but [A] is maybe something WW could keep in mind when launching a new forumsite?

In message <20040830133937...@mb-m19.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: >disgusted by the forum and leave. It's so frustrating to not be able to bring >together all of the top players or to not be able to at least review their >thoughts when they have their secret discussions (the last being the case with >one CCG I played). You mean, like, at GenCon North America? [ quoted text not captured ]

Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > I use webmail. With adressbook online. No viruses. Oh. Ok. That makes perfect sense then--your issue isn't, like, with Outlook persay (as it seemed to be)--it is with mail programs in general. Yeah, like, if you don't have *any* mail program, then yeah, using Outlook (or any mail program for that matter) could seem like an issue. > Actually, these ARE good, solid arguements. [B] I cannot do much about > - some people don´t bother to think before they post, but [A] is maybe > something WW could keep in mind when launching a new forumsite? I dunno--in terms of the interface (the culture issue is certainly a personal one, but a not insignificant one--others may find Usenet culture irksome. I have gotten in lengthy arguments on web forums based completely on my method of quoting relevant text to which I am replying) my issue is with web forums in general. I mean, like, if you are looking at Usenet through google or whatever, there isn't that big of a difference. It is still a web based interface that involves pages loading and whatever, 'cause even if it is just text, it is text in HTML, so it takes a second to load. With a newsreader, there is *no* web interface at all--everything is pure text, and desgined to be pure text, and so no, like, loading and HTML and whatever. It is very clean and simple, as that is all it needs to be. With a web interface, Usenet is klunkier (especially on google, where it takes 3-9 hours for posts to show up--on a newsreader, posts show up instantly). But still less klunky than Web Forums, 'cause not only do you have HTML text and whatever, but you also have the attractive, yet unecessary graphics and images and whatever. It slows things down. Yeah, not a lot, but for my money, I'm here for the text, and the extra flashy graphics and bells and whistles (graphic smilies, personal avatar images, whatever) are just added hinderance. [ quoted text not captured ]

>It's so frustrating to not be able to bring >>together all of the top players or to not be able to at least review their >>thoughts when they have their secret discussions (the last being the case >with >>one CCG I played). > >You mean, like, at GenCon North America? Something like that. Now, where's the transcript? Maybe I need to clarify that the point isn't to produce a rich get richer scheme but to spread enlightenment to the world.

In message <20040831114937...@mb-m17.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: >>It's so frustrating to not be able to bring >>>together all of the top players or to not be able to at least review their >>>thoughts when they have their secret discussions (the last being the case >>with >>>one CCG I played). >> >>You mean, like, at GenCon North America? > >Something like that. Now, where's the transcript? ... If someone wanted to take notes, they could've =) I'm just pointing out that GenCon was as close as it gets to an 'all the top players in north america' type of thing, with some input from Europe, even. >Maybe I need to clarify that the point isn't to produce a rich get richer >scheme but to spread enlightenment to the world. I don't know about you, but I see a lot of experienced players keeping almost no secrets (i say almost because everyone has one, and the only reason they have one is because they haven't played it THEMSELVES yet), both on the forum, in person, etc. Look at the draft thread. A lot of us were openly discussing exactly WHEN we would've broken the deal if we were Christian in the final, in order to go for the sweep and ensure victory. That's not exactly a rich-get-richer type of thing, and I don't think either V:TES or its players have ever been about that. There were also several loud, drunken discussions over at the RAM about the quality/virtue of different strategies/cardtypes, including whether irresponsible bleed should be conducted in as irresponsible a method as possible (ie, Goratrix becomes an Anarch, bleeds for 5 with Conditioning and Loose Cannon, steals 2 from the blocking Methuselah, and steals 2 with his special to help cover the cost. If you land on your prey, play Trap/Song of Serenity and actually do some damage. Hope to not be cross-table ousted before your prey runs out of Deflection). [ quoted text not captured ]