Newsgroups: alt.pub.dragons-inn From: gujn@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Jeremy Nelson) Subject: Re: ADMIN: Desperately need to rationalise.. ideas? Message-ID: <1992May23.031111.11069@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> References: <1992May22.173952.20602@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 03:11:11 GMT Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) writes: >In article <1992May22.173952.20602@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gujn@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Jeremy Nelson) writes: >! So instead (as mechanistic as it may seem) an abreviation of t1 for >! table one, (t2,t3 etc...) r1, r2, for royal chambers group 1, group 2, >! o1, o2,o3 for outside groups etc... >No thank you! First, a person may be involved in actions of more than >one group, second, we would only get more articles asking what is >going on (this is, after all, the Internet). >The problem now seems to be that everyone is in the pub and talks We will be needing a FAQ sheet anyway, it is not vey clear from the name of the group what it is about. > Subject: [Pub] Nightstalker: orders an ale > Subject: [R.Chamb.] Ghost: frightens everyone > Subject: [Tourney] Black Knight: kills White Knight >And after that there would still be too many people left in the pub... ;-) >So perhaps you would consider: > ------------------------------------------ > DRAMATIS PERSONAE: > Maud. . . . . . A tourist wearing a hawaiian > shirt, leather moccasins and > a hard hat. > Dwarf/NPC . . . The dwarf that tunneled to > the wine cellars. > Serene. . . . . Barmaid. > ------------------------------------------ >at the start of your article. This way one could very quickly >skip over articles he is not interested in. He would just have to >read a couple of lines at the top. I have had great difficulty keeping track of who is at what table anyway! Let alone making a list every time :) I don't necessarily disagree, and that would work, but only if we can get a list of who is where from somewhere :) And the only other things is that many posts are very short... 10 lines of intro and 2 of content. :) Admittedly once all the messages were prefaced this way it _would_ be easier to keep track of things. >! I know the above has been mentioned before but we really need some >! semi-formal detailed system. >We need absolutely no semi-formal anything. The good thing about >this group is that there are no formalities (or at least very few). Fair enough. Come on everyone else... more ideas....