Hi everybody,
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Maybe it's time that we switch to moderation then, or, at least consider it.
If people in general find there's very little value
to GZG-L as it stands, then, maybe it's time for a change. Especially
given the amount of people lost to this list, and the general degradation of
the signal to noise ratio.
I think there would be two hurdles -- one would be the actual logistics
of moderating the list (which should be easy, if I remember majordomo
correctly and if Matt has the time to do the switch over), and the other would
be finding an actual moderator, or moderators who'd be willing to do the job.
That being said, I'm willing to moderate, at least in the short term (I'm
willing to put my money where my mouth is.) (Though, given how often I updated
the list archives, you may not want me to moderate.
(8-) )
There's also the philosophical argument concerning censorship -- but,
I think this could be addressed if there's also an unmoderated GZG-L
list available. It might get a little confusing keeping both lists straight,
but, it's probably the fairest.
Thoughts? This shouldn't be considered a formal RFC -- this is more of
tossing an idea out, and seeing what people think. If people are really
starting to be fed up with the list as a whole, then, this is probably the
most realistic way out.
Thanks, JGH
> Jerry Han wrote:
> Thoughts? This shouldn't be considered a formal RFC -- this is more
I have to respectfully disagree. One of the things I've always liked about the
list is the lack of moderation, not because it allows people to vent their
spleens in rude and unnecessary ways, but because of all the lists and
newsgroups I've been on, this one is probably the most "grown up" in tone that
I've ever seen. I like being able to throw things out to the list, and get
informed responses. I like having a wide variety of experiences and opinions.
The problem with moderation that I see is that if you do implement it, it's
going to be controlled by a group of people who are just as fallible as those
they are moderating. What I mean by that is to say that it's difficult for
moderators to keep their own prejudices out of their task at times (and I'm
not suggesting that I could do better, far from it), and I've been on the
receiving end of that at least once to my recollection in a moderated NG that
I subscribe to. Also Jerry, as you pointed out, it's difficult to find someone
who can do it on an ongoing and consistent basis. I'm on a moderated listserv
for AP History teachers, and I never know when I'm going to get a huge dump of
messages. It's almost not worth it to post a question to that list, because
many times by the time I get the answer, it's too late. I think what we've
been seeing is an unwillingness of people on the list to come right out and
tell someone when they've crossed the line. Do I feel bad about the people
who've left the list? Not really, because I find that to be a somewhat extreme
solution to the problem. It smacks a bit of martyrdom ("I'm leaving, and
you'll never see me again, and this is
why!"), and
of giving up. By unsubbing, what those who've left are saying is that they're
not willing to stand up to those people who cross the line, either by telling
them to shut their pieholes or by just ignoring them. Has the list undergone a
change? In retrospect, yes. Is it too late to deal with that change and
possibly (hopefully) reverse it? I don't think so at all, nor do I think that
the step of moderation is needed at this point. Perhaps what *would* be
helpful would be a FAQ (assuming there isn't one already) laying out some
basic ground rules for discussion on the list, along with a warning that an
offender (be it John, Imre, myself, or you, Jerry) can expect to be
alternatively slapped down
publically and/or ignored from that point forward. Let's face it, we
are (most of us) adults. I think the tenor of the list is due in large part to
the higher average age of people on the list than what you'll find in the
typical newsgroup. Being that is the case, I think that moderation is neither
desirable nor necessary, and I plan on making some killfile additions should a
little blowup like the one seen recently appear again. In the meantime, I plan
on posting some more relevant topics, in the hopes that the discussion on the
group can head in a more constructive direction.
Jerry,
Good suggestion. I would prefer to keep the list unmoderated as there is some
interesting stuff that I think would might get cut as "not enough GZGish".
I had hoped that the informal rules of politeness on this list would keep the
discussions, even the
off-topic, at least civil. If not excessively polite
due to the nature of the medium.
Having been subject to a major blast due to an offhand joking comment I can
empathize with those that are tired of it. Maybe it is not the whole list that
is a problem. Maybe it is just a few members that have not learned from past
experience.
I am not calling for removal, just renewing a request for civility.
Bob Makowsky
> --- Jerry Han <jhan@warpfish.com> wrote:
> At 09:22 PM 4/28/02 -0700, you wrote:
I finally shrugged my shoulders, admitted that certain posters were never
going to say anything that I really cared to hear, and broke out the killfile
myself. First time ever on this list, but what the heck? That's
the way life goes. Life's too short to have to deal with on-line
twits...the ones that I deal with in person are more than enough for me, thank
you very much.
> In the meantime, I plan on
When I get frustrated the the Signal/Noise ratio, that's what I've been
trying to do: start a discussion on something that interests me. Sometimes
these threads take off, sometimes they don't...but it's at least worth the
effort.
Truth be told, I delete about 50% of the GZGlist messages unread at this
point. Things like discussions of Orbital Mechanics, or military minutia,
don't hold any interest to me. That's not to say that I have any objection to
people discussing such matters, mind you! It just means that my interests
quite often do not overlap with the interests of the list in general. Nothing
wrong with that; who would want to be on a list where everybody is expected to
like the same things and hold the same opinions?
We're all part of the list, and it's up to us to maintain its quality. I don't
think that expecting basic civility of the list memembers is out of line
here...and that includes respecting the opinions of others, even those who
disagree with us...and those who insist upon discussing things that make our
eyes glaze over with a single glance at the topic line...and even those who
game with unpainted miniatures, may they burn forever in the deepest pits of
hades.
Sorry, did I type that last bit?
Quoting John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com>:
> At 09:22 PM 4/28/02 -0700, you wrote:
Hey!!! My average age isn't high! It's almost exactly the same as my
age...
{There's also the factor that it does take a minimal IQ to be able to
understand wargames rules... nasty elitist hobby..}
> Truth be told, I delete about 50% of the GZGlist messages unread at
Annoyingly, the only mail reader I can at the list with at the moment is
a HTML-
based one with doesn't do threading, so I can't reap whole threads in one
go...
> We're all part of the list, and it's up to us to maintain its quality.
> I
What about those scum that use airbrushes instead of the One True Way..?
I would vote for moderation the way they do it on the oldtools mailing list.
They have a written list policy as to what is acceptable and what is not.
Should you stray into the "not" acceptable the list moms first give a warning.
The second time they give another warning. Third time they unsubscribe
the offender and block that e-mail address.
Sure, you can get around it but generally it doesn't happen.
As far as I can tell I like John, but his bigotry and
insta-flames are annoying. You can't let any one person,
no matter how knowledgable, turn a list into a flame-fest
and drive off other members. I'm sure he would not continue to behave in this
manner if there were a fair, written policy that was evenly enforced.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:22:31 -0700, Mark Reindl <mreindl@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> Do I feel bad about the people who've left the list? Not really,
I do feel bad when I see someone leave the list because of off topic,
undiplomatic rants. I see no reason why someone can't state their position
without being racist or inflammatory.
On the other hand, I noticed that with most of the people (but not all) that
have said, "I'm leaving now, because...!" that they weren't contributing much
to the discussions. On a couple of occasions I've thought, "Uh... bye...
whoever you are...".
It's a simple matter to find an e-mail program (and most people have one
anyway) that handles killfiles. The one I use allows me to killfile people and
threads. It allows these filters to expire, in case you want to give people,
or a thread, a second chance later.
Still, some posts recently have been very much over the top. I can see why
some folks, even with kill files, would just as soon not bother reading the
list. I've been tempted several times to just unsusbscribe myself...
I don't think moderation is the answer. The best moderation is human, and it
just takes too much time to get messages posted. You need a bunch of dedicated
moderators, and they are fallable.
We do have a list administrator. We need an abuse policy. If someone breaks
the policy (and by this I'm thinking that after they have had some warnings
and such), the person is punted from the list.
Hey! I use an airbrush! You can achieve wet-blending effects and
highlighting without actually doing any wet-blending or dry-brushing.
What is it about airbrushing miniatures that gets your knickers in a bunch? I
didn't think that the Amish could play wargames! What are you, a luddite(1) or
something?
(1) Lud·dite 2. One who opposes technical or technological change.
> On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 10:01, Katie Lauren Lucas wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2002 12:21:23 -0400, Flak Magnet <flakmagnet@tlsdc.com> wrote:
> What is it about airbrushing miniatures that gets your knickers in a
The only thing I have against airbrushing for final effect is that it's hard
to do detailing in the cracks and crevices of a miniature. You can paint those
areas a dark colour, but then you end up painting over it with the airbrush.
For instance, I have done green, brown, and black paint jobs on some resin SG2
figures. If I want to paint the crevices a black (with a wash, most likely), I
run the risk of spoiling what I did with the airbrush. You can't easily redo
an airbrush result by hand. However, if you pull out the airbrush to touch up
an area you will overspray the parts you just washed black.
I've noticed that, we've already started to drift off topic.
Took about 12 hours -- that has to be a record. (8-)
Anyway, I'm just going to comment on some points from various people.
A bunch of the people leaving are old-timers who don't like the
direction the list is taking, so they sign off. They aren't known because
(probably like me), since the list has split off in so many directions, they
don't want to take the time to read anything. (It may be as simple as a
traffic issue -- 300-400% increase over the past 6 years.)
And, for all the people who sign off announcing their disgust, there are those
who gradually just disappear as well.
That being said -- I'm not suggesting moderation to retain people. If
they choose to leave, then there's nothing that can be done about it. People
leave and sign up all the time. The reasons that they leave are educational,
and should be paid attention to, but, we should be paying attention to the
list, and not to client count.
Along those lines, more and more people are announcing that off-topic
posts, flame wars, trolls, and other things of that nature are degrading
the quality of the list. And, nobody has disagreed with that point, even if
there is disagreement on the method of correcting the problem.
Before I get any further, let me say that I'm not blaming any single person
for this. What I am blaming, is the general failure of netiquette, because of
the changing audience of the Internet as a whole (for example,
there's a time to take things off-list, and there's a time to
change the subject headings and there's a time to take a deep breath
and try and avoid the flame war. Help people help themselves.)
Right now, though, it seems public opinion (from the grand total of
8 people who responded (8-) ) seems to lie against moderation. We've
had some suggestions about formalizing and enforcing the ad-hoc policy
we've had to date on the list, using various mechanics. Some people have
suggested that each person is responsible for making their own decisions, and
thus, personal filters and killfiles are key i.e. no action be taken at the
list level.
Further comments? Note, I'd like to stay away from mechanics at this
point -- I think the big question right now is "Is something broken?
Can we fix it, if it's broken? Do we even have the right to fix it?" as
opposed to "Do we use an elected body or trust the list administrator?
What email clients support killfile/filters? etc." Just trying to keep
some focus.
Matt, if you're out there, I'd like your opinion on this -- you
administer a whole whackload of email lists.
Thanks, JGH
I am not for moderation when it takes the form of censorship, or when it's
done secretly.
I am for moderation when it keeps personal attacks and flame-wars from
ocurring unchecked. It requires the selection of good and reasonable
people to moderate, as well as clear-cut and easy to understand rules of
behavior.
As far as nettiquette, I am no Mr.Manners, but I think I do my share.
My favorite ploy is to ask someone to take an issue off-list while
promptly killfiling the git.
I run a list for all genres or micro-scale gaming... I don't control the
type of language used (though the into states that "Swearing isn't prohibited,
but it does make you look stupid. It's your choice.") or the topics. What I do
step in on (as the guy "hosting" the list) is rude behavior that *I* feel
reaches the level of disruption.
But that's the thing... the list is somewhat small, and it's MY list (though
the members contribute more than I ever will) that Yahoo lets me act like a
host (as in party, not internet) on. So I get to decide when
someone isn't invited anymore. So far, no-one has been ejected except
for a porn-site spammer.
I'm not sure if all that made sense or even tied together well... but there's
my 10c.
--Flak Magnet
> On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 14:16, Jerry Han wrote:
> People leave and sign up all the time. The reasons that they leave
> Before I get any further, let me say that I'm not blaming any single
as
> opposed to "Do we use an elected body or trust the list administrator?
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 02:16:00PM -0400, Jerry Han wrote:
So do I. :-)
I don't think the list is broken. There is a fundamental problem with
staying on-topic: there haven't been any new GZG rules for a while.
Discussing figures is all very well, but I suspect there's a limit to how much
one can talk about them. This means that the bounds of topicality will
intrinsically get loosened to "anything related to the games"; and this is not
necessarily a bad thing. I run the Millennium's
End list, which is nominally for discussion of that role-playing game;
but since the company folded a couple of years ago it's devolved in the
same way. As the list-admin, I'll ask people to stop threads that are
getting purely argumentative; so far, nobody has refused to do so.
I don't know who our list-admin here actually is. But I don't regard the
occasional small flame-war - and this current one is nothing compared
with some we've seen - as a sign that the list needs to be administered
in a different way. Yeah, so it's almost always the same people involved: does
this really matter? It's a shame when people unsubscribe, but I don't think
it's possible proactively to prevent them from doing so.
To be honest, I get more annoyed by Dawgie's postings when he forgets to
switch to lower-case than by the flamage. (Mostly because Dawgie has
interesting things to say, and I find upper-case REALLY HARD TO READ.)
I'm not in favour of moderation. I can always killfile someone; and if they do
say something of interest, chances are someone will respond to
it. This list doesn't have the problem that _really_ drives people away,
of a small group of people who take it upon themselves to be snide to everyone
they don't like.
Trying to persuade people to change subject lines to match what they're
discussing never works. What can be worth doing is splitting the list,
as to some extent has happened with gzg-comp and the gzg-aliens lists -
perhaps gzg-politics? gzg-miniatures? You'd get people like me who'd
subscribe to everything, and other people would go for just the ones
that interested them. However, remember the rule of on-line communities:
the value of the community roughly equals the square of the number of
participants. More mailing lists die from non-use because there are too
few people on them than die from over-use. Personally, I don't want to
see GZG-L split, for that reason. (Also, I have a good email client
which can quickly mark-read messages in a thread I don't care about.)
If people want a different list for FT, they can always try the
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:16:00 -0400, Jerry Han <jhan@warpfish.com> wrote:
> "Is something broken?
Really good question...
Lists, like every other social group, go through periods of evolution. This
list is one of them. People are going to come and go. For one thing, new
players will ask questions that those of us who've been around for 6 years or
so will yawn and say, "Not this again!" New people will find the list exciting
and interesting, old hands will start to dump tons of threads. People's tastes
change. So does their amount of spare time. They even -- gasp -- move on
to other game systems.
The list becomes what the majority of the people posting want it to become.
It's a social group. It's a sub-culture. It evolves. Sometimes it's no
longer what you want it to be. You can either adapt, try to change it, or you
can leave.
Is there a problem with that? Is there a problem here? Only if the evolution
of the list takes it on a crash course towards extinction.
The two areas of concern appear to be signal to noise ratio, and flame posts.
There will always be those who don't like the signal to noise ratio. Even on
topic stuff will be a problem. Some people dislike modern military
discussions, yet others find it important for playing Stargrunt and Dirtside.
Is the discussion of Japanese tanks off topic? Yes... except that there could
very well be someone cobbling together SG2 stats for them at this very moment.
SG2 isn't just a science fiction game, its been adapted to other eras. If
discussion of Babylon 5 and Andromeda hardware is on topic, shouldn't a
discussion of the benefits of one WW2 tank over another be on topic? If you
find modern military an issue, wait until FMA comes out and people start
talking about fantasy and magic. For that matter, I think we need more Pax
Limpopo and Pig Tickler discussions!
We're always going to have a problem with signal to noise as the list changes.
A coherent policy would be nice, something that everyone on the list can point
to in a stern manner when someone has crossed a line. For the most part,
though, I find off topic posts self policing. I just wish (and I include
myself in this) people would spend more time thinking about things before they
post off topic. Maybe if you have to put an "[OT]" tag on your message it
really shouldn't be here in the first place...
A coherent policy would also help when someone crosses the line with flame
wars. This is a different problem, but just as tricky to solve. Suggesting the
use of kill files (which I've been guilty of suggesting) doesn't completely
cut it as not everyone can access the list with an e-mailer with that
capability.
Perhaps the solution lies within all of us. The original flame baiter is
always at fault. So is the person who jumps in and feels that he has to reply
in the public forum. But so too are all the people who sit back and say
nothing as the flame war rages, even though it bothers them. I remember back a
few years when off topic threads and flame wars were shot down in their
infancy due to a bunch of folk just saying, "Enough, take it off list" right
away. Perhaps that's all we need.
Or, maybe we need something more. I think the list has grown enough that a
policy should be developed before it is _truly_ needed.
But, to answer the question, is there a problem here? If there is, it's the
same one that's infected Usenet and almost every other list I'm on after it
hits a certain critical mass. From history, it's not one that's easily solved.
On 29 Apr 2002 12:21:23 -0400, Flak Magnet <flakmagnet@tlsdc.com> wrote
:
> Hey! I use an airbrush! You can achieve wet-blending effects and
My own objection to painting miniatures with Airbrushes is based on a single
fact.
A rock-solid, incontrovertable fact: I don't own an airbrush. Yet.
Therefore, all of you who do are heretics. Have a nice day!
Very quick admin post.
> Roger Burton West wrote:
I keep forgetting that. (8-)
> I don't know who our list-admin here actually is.
Matt Siedl, the Matt I'm referring to. (8-)
> Trying to persuade people to change subject lines to match what
I know, but, I keep hopiong that Emily Postnews will go through a resurgence.
You can't force people to follow netiquette, but you can ask nicely. *shrug*
Thanks, JGH
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:16:00 -0400, Jerry Han <jhan@warpfish.com> wrote
:
> Further comments? Note, I'd like to stay away from mechanics at this
as
> opposed to "Do we use an elected body or trust the list administrator?
I don't think that moderation is necessary, or desirable. It tends to cause
more problems than it solves, and it's not going to be 100% effective (until
and unless we obtain a psychic moderator) in any case. One man's fascinating
discussion is another man's boring drivel, and a list like this one has,
potentially, a very broad focus.
Two solutions suggest themselves:
Think Before You Post is the key, I think, and I speak as someone who's been
guilty of PWI (Posting While Irritated) on a few occasions. This covers both
flamage
and off-topicallity.
And secondly, Post Something. If Topic X doesn't interest you, start a thread
about Y. If Topic Z *does* interest you, and you have something to contribute
to the discussion, speak up! And if you realize that you and one other person
are the only ones keeping a topic going, think
about taking it off-list.
SORRY!
sometimes i forget to switch over ROGER.
Quoting Flak Magnet <flakmagnet@tlsdc.com>:
> Hey! I use an airbrush! You can achieve wet-blending effects and
Yeah, you see that's just /LAZY/... :-)
> I didn't think that the Amish could play wargames!
Hey, I'm wearing the clumpy shoes while my leg gets better. It's not a fashion
choice...
Make sure your heresy is a double-action one, they let you control the
air and paint flow indepenently. For doing miniatures, the Aztec heresies are
very nice, and relatively cheap. They have swappable nozzles which means you
don't have to fret over taking care of the needle quite so much.
--Flak
> On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 15:03, John Crimmins wrote:
wrote:
> > Hey! I use an airbrush! You can achieve wet-blending effects and
> On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 03:35, Katie Lauren Lucas wrote:
Lazy, or efficient? *said with same demeanor that Invader Zim said "Worse, or
better?" when it was pointed out to him that the fires he claimed to have put
out after he started them on his homeworld by starting the "attack" before
actually leaving home were actually made worse by his efforts.*
I view it much like using a powder-charge driven power hammer to drive
nails when a regular hammer would suffice. I don't really NEED to use.22 cal
blank cartridges to drive the nails, but if it means I get to include
explosives into an otherwise banal task, then "Wheee!"
Miniature painting doesn't allow for many power tools, nevermind
explosives... to I get my "Tim Taylor-ism" into it any way I can.
Besides, painting up a company of 6mm Shermans in a couple hours with
highlighting, shading and decals rocks!
> >I didn't think that the Amish could play wargames!
On 30 Apr 2002 09:11:48 -0400, Flak Magnet <flakmagnet@tlsdc.com> wrote
:
> Make sure your heresy is a double-action one, they let you control the
As heresies go, I've heard good things about the Aztec. I was thinking of
buying one a few years ago, when my faith in the Way of The Brush was weak and
faltering.
How well can you airbrush non-vehicle minis, though? How much control
do you have, and what kind of effects can you manage.
Still heresy, but I'm...curious. Purely an academic interest, I assure you.
Quoting Flak Magnet <flakmagnet@tlsdc.com>:
> Miniature painting doesn't allow for many power tools, nevermind
<thinks>
You could undercoat a lot of stuff very fast using explosives and paint
cans...
> Besides, painting up a company of 6mm Shermans in a couple hours with
Ah well, if you're painting *dust-specks*...
<Katie ducks>
> > >I didn't think that the Amish could play wargames!
It was a "Friends" reference. (And to the fact I'm recovering from a busted
knee. It's getting better slowly {albeit very slowly}. Soon I will be back to
running around the place again. And heels. So I can loom over people once
more...)
Leave the list as it is, there's a lot of interesting stuff that comes out of
on going threads, even if it wasn't in the original topic.
I prefer good manners between lister but if someone keeps abusing the
privilege, I just ignore that person for a while, which is my choice.
Eventually I go back to reading them, if they are still abusive I just add
them to the kill file.
I'm my own censor
Kev
www.the-spartans.freeserve.co.uk
Yes...I do play with UNpainted miniatures...8-D
No really! Honest! I just glue them to these plastic colored disks I found at
a Garage Sale.
Small light flexible plastic disks, about 3/4" across. Made in 7
different colors. Each one has a number from 1 to 16 on the back. They seem to
be game pieces of some kind. Anyone ever heard of these?
I guess I am too lazy/time pressed to bother painting my toy solders.
Donald Hosford
> John Crimmins wrote:
> At 09:22 PM 4/28/02 -0700, you wrote:
I
> don't think that expecting basic civility of the list memembers is out