🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C69n2...@polaris.async.vt.edu> js...@polaris.async.vt.edu writes:
>Guidelines for posting to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.announce

>Since we're just starting out,
>please feel free to e-mail me at js...@polaris.async.vt.edu if you have
>any questions/comments/criticisms about the guidelines.  I'll be glad to
>talk to you.

Well, in an effort to stir discussion, I've posted this in addition to
mailing.

>Now, on to the guidelines:

>Any announcements of game releases should be either from the publisher 
>directly or first hand.  If you have mail ordered it, please wait until 
>you receive it, and if you see the box, check that it's the Real Thing.
>This will help keep rumors down and ensure that this group will be a 
>reliable source of information.  

Not a bad idea to wait until you are holding the game to announce its
release.  I don't know how many times I've read that Pirates Gold has
been released...

>Game reviews should be as objective and comprehensive as possible.  This
>doesn't mean that there should be no opinion, but it should be as limited
>as possible and confined to comparisons that other people can verify.  I
>will not post every review sent, since after one or two that meet the 
>requirements above, discussion will be more appropriate in another niche
>in the games heirarchy.

Well, it seems we have something of a difference of opinion here.  Without
strong opinions, this group is likely to be VERY dry.  Believe it or not, it
IS possible to have strong opinions without being abusive.  (We have
proven this time and again on comp.virus.)  Usually when people start
getting out of hand, the moderator tacks on a little note "reminding"
people to be civil.  If the tone of the replies continues to be abusive,
they get canned by the moderator.

There should be no strict limit on including opinion in informal reviews of
games.  If a game sucks, we oughta know about it!  Of course, the best
reviews will back up their claims with solid reasoning.  Similarly, if a
game turns out to be the best thing since heated underwear, let us know!!
I'd much rather read a mixture of scathing and exstatic articles than a
collection of dull, dry neutrality.

>I will limit the number of articles posted about any one specific game
>over short periods of time.  If identical information is submitted, only
>the first article that completely describes the information will be 
>posted.

Seems reasonable to me.  However, if someone posts an article that includes
all the info from a previous article, but expands further, I'd say let it
through, even though much of it may be redundant.

>The following types of articles cannot be accepted: articles which ask a
>question,

Seems reasonable for an .announce group.  Are there any plans to add a
moderated .misc-type group??

>voice an opinion (game reviews have limited freedom with respect
>to this particular point),

Well, I think I already covered this.  A group without opinions is not
going to be all that informative.  We need someplace to exchange opinions
without every other article just saying "You're wrong" without any thought
put into it...

>I hope that this is the start of something really fine.

Me too!

  -- 007
-- 
 000   000  7777 | sbo...@jarthur.claremont.edu
0   0 0   0   7  |----------------------------------------------------------- 
0   0 0   0  7   | Childhood is short...            [Calvin & Hobbes]
 000   000   7   | ...but immaturity is forever.