Archived from groups: alt.games.morrowind (
More info?)
"John Henry" <jhd@inNOSPAMsurgent.orgy> wrote in message
news:Xns95E57173D402Fjohnhenrylowgeniusco@216.168.3.44
> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in news:sL_Hd.51179
> $Z%.25986@fe1.texas.rr.com:
>
>> Too bad someone didn't create alt.games.half-life2 right. Most ISP's
>> won't carry it. So, we're all using alt.games.half-life. Would it
>> hurt if a similar thing happened here?
>
> Which similar thing?
Nevermind, you created alt.games.morrowind and I'm sure you will get
a.g.oblivion right
>
> I checked isc.org for alt.games.half-life2, and it has a control
> message archived; this is the ultimate litmus test for the validity
> of a newsgroup. If the message was malformed it *likely* wouldn't be
> archived, but it could be; I don't know how much of those processes
> is automated anymore (i.e. ISC just takes anything with a cmsg
> newgroup header). What is said to be the problem with that group?
> Let me know and I'll followup with the admins here; they're as
> clueful as it gets, so if nothing else I might be able to send a
> booster message or something that corrects any improper formatting
> issues.
It is that there are a few people in alt.games.half-life that state
bluntly that alt.games.half-life2 was improperly created. I know
nothing about these things myself. I've tried several times now to have
my ISP pick up a.g.h-l2 but no go so far. I thought it might be due to
some irregularity in the ng's creation. The originator of the new
a.g.h-l2 agrees there was something irregular in the creation of it, but
not the existence of it. I am just going by what OP have said in
a.g.h-l
>
> Note to 'rather do it in elder-scrolls' people: As discussed in the
> AGMFAQ (www.lowgenius.com/agmfaq.asp), the problem with that is the
> same as it was for morrowind: people generally don't search on
> 'elder- scrolls,' they search on 'morrowind.' There is a small group
> of dedicated individuals (granted it grows with each game) who might
> think to look for ES, but in general, people search for Morrowind
> when they're looking for information about Morrowind. My website
> server logs reflect this, as do various discussions on this group
> over the last couple of years; many people have said that if not for
> this group, they'd have never heard of AGES.
>
> I should hope that this never becomes a matter of 'this or that.' The
> groups are complimentary, there's no reason not to use them both. I
> happen to use AGM because I don't own any of the other games in the ES
> series.
>
> Chances are when Oblivion comes out they'll do the same thing.
> Chances are someone who comes to Usenet looking for advice about
> Oblivion or Morrowind or Daggerfall doesn't know that there's already
> a thriving ES community that covers all those games; they just know
> they want information about the one they're playing.
>
> *Ideally,* back when the earliest ES groups were created, someone
> would have done alt.games.elder-scrolls, and then alt.games.elder-
> scrolls.daggerfall, alt.games.elder-scrolls.redguard, alt.games.elder-
> scrolls.morrowind, etc., but that's not the way it worked out.
> Eventually what will likely happen is game-specific conversations
> will move to game- specific newsgroups, while metadiscussions
> (historical lore about Nim, for instance) and discussions about games
> within the ES series that don't have their own groups will remain in
> AGES.
Frankly, me; I think that a seperate ng for oblivion would be much
better, even as a.g.m is better than a.g.e-s (what you said
)
McG.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram