[MUD-Dev] Re: META: What are you looking for in this list?

[J C Lawrence]

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:15:05 +0200 
Ola Fosheim Grøstad<olag at ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> J C Lawrence wrote:

>> The problem is that we loose the people still in StockMUDWorld
>> who then have no idea what we are talking about

> Why do you consider that to be a problem?  I don't!  

Attrition.  We are too few to do it all ourselves, and if we
alienate the very people who produce candidate members we have
doomed the list to irrelevance.  We have to maintain a usable link
back to the baseline.

> Basically, they will see whatever there is to see whenever someone
> actually finish something worth using?

Our production rate of new designs into code is not high...

> There are plenty of "algorithmic simulation" approaches that have
> never really been discussed on the list from what I can tell. I
> would really like to see more discussions breaking free from the
> traditional MUD/DnD RPG "luggage".  It would actually have been
> nice to see new list members not belonging to the traditional MUD
> community.

I'm actively considering posting the next monthly MUD-Dev advert
(suitably reworded) to rec.games.programming, rec.games.design, and
possibly an IF group as well as rgm.announce/admin.

> The advantage with a list with a broad focus is that it is capable
> of sustaining a continuous dialog. The disadvantage seems to be
> that unrelated threads are competing for attention, thus those
> threads dealing with a more subtle and difficult subject which
> demands special attention and quite a bit of reflection may die
> off prematurely. Which is too bad... :(

<nod>  'Tis a shame I've noticed as well.

> I think it would be beneficial if the list focused more on the
> issues which aren't discussed on other lists.  

I (and others) have discouraged this as we see one of the major
benefits of a more open topic definition as the cross-pollination
between fields.

> ...I think it would've been neat if you created an additional
> mailinglist dedicated to the more specific issues of a design. A
> mailing list with a low posting threshold dealing with issues like
> "how do I make a socket nonblocking", "what is the benefits of so
> and so alignment system", "what graphic engines are available?",
> "is there a better way to do this?" etc.  A group with a lower
> posting threshold would be good because then maybe people would
> exchange reusable C++/java code stubs and eventually start to
> collaborate on a lowlevel mud-library.  I wouldn't like to post
> code to mud-dev as it is, simply because the nasty sides would
> affect my pride (unless I just type it in directly to illustrate
> something). However, I wouldn't mind too much in a dedicated
> first-aid/source-exchange list because it wouldn't be unusual :)
> and code wouldn't be expected to be perfect. I guess what I am
> suggesting is a more noisy "think aloud" companion list for new
> designs in progress.

Yes, I've thought of doing something like this several times, but
have been fearful of diluting MUD-Dev and of controlling the noise
level on the companion list.  <ponder> I have a few ideas for the
next but one list software release which may help here (if any of
you are familiar with Citadel you'll know where I'm heading).

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                               Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------(*)                     Internet: claw at under.engr.sgi.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...