> John Dunkelberg writes:
@:) "a little non-game conversation" is fine. However, since I joined
@:) the list, the signal to noise ratio has been very poor. Perhaps 1 @:)
"real" message for every 2 I receive from the list... which @:) generates
quite a fair bit of traffic... (granted that's a shade @:) better than USENET)
Boo! This group is substantially better than any of the
limited-topic newsgroups I read. You think a 1/2 signal to noise
ratio is bad? You should try rec.motorcycles where it's more like
1/100, if you're lucky! Besides I agree with Mike that the tangents
are interesting - furthermore I think they can actually spark the
creative process and result in new rules ideas or scenarios or entire games.
The Starship Troopers thread has probably got some people thinking of new
empires to add to their upcoming games, for example.
> John Dunkelberg writes:
Wellll... What is noise, and what is a signal? IMO:
* Posts about FT (or DSII, or SGII) rules and house rules are definitely
'signals'. * Posts about SF backgrounds are mostly 'signals'. Since FT is a
generic
game which can be adapted to just about any background, discussions about
and descriptions of possible backgrounds is relevant - especially when
they go into the house rules needed to use FT for games set in that
background.
* Posts about today's weapon systems can be both noise and signals - but
when they use today's weapon systems as a basis for speculations about the
weaponry of the future, I think they are signals. Usually. * Posts about
today's politics are noise... except when they start a discussion about
possible game universes. Usually. * This is a 'noise' post.
Later,
> Wellll... What is noise, and what is a signal? IMO:
Okay...given this table of criteria...who volunteers to burrow through
Jerry's FT-List archives and count up the number of 'signal' posts and
the number of 'noise' posts?
:-)
Mk