[MUD-Dev] Re: META: who are we?

[Holly Sommer]

On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Marian Griffith wrote:

Raph:
> I am somewhat curious, because I know that there are a lot of people on
> the list who just listen but do not post much. I was wondering about
> those people, and what they are interested in seeing on the list.

Marian:
> Since I do occasionally post  I suppose I am not really the person to
> anwer this question. However, I am also the odd girl out on this list
> so I thought it would not hurt to have my say.

Not true. There are two of us, I think, which makes us "even" rather than 
"odd." ;)

I would have replied sooner, but I had to serve jury duty on Wednesday, 
and a whole flood of mail has come in since then (kind of overwhelming :)

Raph:
> How many of you are from a Diku background, like me? 

I began with Merc 1.0, and have stuck primarily with that, as a PLAYER. I 
was also about the lone torch-bearer with NiMUD for over 3.5 years. 
Additionally, I have a "social imm" stint at Rehobaom's Legacy (ROM 4+, 
now aka Athens 1.0). Only recently have I dipped my toes into LP (MudOS, 
specifically, on a new mudlib called Dragon Mudlib... from which I 
anticipate my MUD staff will diverge, as soon as they reach their first 
non-beta release... RSN).

> And might be interested in stuff that is codebase specific? 

I'll answer this with a yes and a no. 

Yes, to "here's how we accomplished this on XXX, and here's how it might 
scale to YYY." (implementation). No, to "how do I do XX in Envy?" 
(RTFM/snippets).

I find theory entrancing, but only when it is apparent that said theory 
will be put to use. Pure sciences don't hold as much appeal for me as 
those which have applications. I guess, in that respect, I'm more an 
engineer than a scientist ;)

> How many think the list is too theoretical, 

The phrase which was uttered shortly after I was asked to join of "mental 
masturbation" sticks with me still (no pun intended), and I feel it 
applies, quite often. This is, however, probably just a reflection of my 
engineer-as-opposed-to-scientist approach. Lots of the stuff here is Way 
Cool (tm), but I don't get the impression that much of it is being 
APPLIED or USED.

I'm hoping that my suspicions can be proven wrong :)

> frequent posters and by the volume of past history and discussions that 
> seems to be requied knowledge in order to participate?

Not intimidated at all by the unspoken required reading. However, the 
volume and verbosity is often more than I can take, and I find myself 
wondering "don't most of these folks have jobs which require their 
attention?" :)

I'll listen quietly, and chime in when something is:

a. of interest to me
b. unclear, and I feel I need to understand it
c. glossed over, and I regard it as important
d. incorrectly portrayed
e. realy kewl, and y'all need to know about it

I am guessing that is how most everyone else operates, too... just that 
some people have verbal interests in more things than the rest of us :)

-Holly