Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (
More info?)
bizbee wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:58:20 -0800 in
> <cg3v72-duu.ln1@hydra.dagon.net>, dagon@dagon.net (Mark Rafn) graced
> the world with this thought:
>
>
>>Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I see the new group has been created - I was checking for new groups,
>>>and lo and behold, alt.games.everquest2 is now up and running. Didn't
>>>take long, eh?
>>
>>Unfortunately, the new group is already nerfed. Some vandal sent a fake
>>creation message before it was discussed or refined, so it has no charter, a
>>pointless description line, and a lot of news servers won't carry it.
>>
>
> uhhh... <this> newsgroup doesn't have a charter...
>
>
>>Unfortunately, it's going to make it hard to make a real group with that name,
>>when the time comes.
>
>
> Then why not use that one?
Because of the other lines in the newsgroup setup, about it being a
vanity group and so on, its likely that a lot of newsgroup servers won't
carry it. While its also likely that you can send a message to your
newgroup server's administration and request it, most usenet readers
won't even know it exists, and if they do, how many will actually bother
to make that request?
IT could work, if we make a concerted effort here, that every time
someone posts an EQ2 question or comment, they get jumped on and
informed about the EQ2 newsgroup, sort of like what happens now every
time anyone top posts.
Trouble is, there's a lot less consensus here about the desirability of
that newsgroup; many, myself included, would rather keep both EQ1 and
EQ2 in this single newsgroup, and just see people include the name of
the game in their message header. So you'd probably see a lot of
counter arguement if you really pushed the new newsgroup. (by "a lot" I
mean far more than the people who attempt to defend top posting)
On the other hand, it would be fun to see whoever tried to grief poor
Foxeye by doing this get his comeuppance by having the new newsgroup
actually become popular.