From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 21 06:16:14 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id GAA25546; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:16:14 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id GAA25536 ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:16:13 +1300 Received: from phaeton.ihug.co.nz ([206.18.111.166]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA11412 ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:04:06 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981121055957.007d34f0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: phaeton@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:59:57 +1300 Subject: Messaging in general Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Keith Smith To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. In the last couple of days a serious flame war erupted on the dq list. It hasn't been the first but I hope it's the last. For those of you involved, I only have this to say. Could you please try to avoid a repeat performance and please think about what you're saying before sending. If you must abuse each other please do so in private mail. It's not nice to read and it's scaring people off. I'm on the administrative list (that which handles list requests) and in a few hours after the flare-up, I received two requests from users wishing to unsubscribe from all three dq lists, one of which stated that the abusive messages was part of their reason to quit. This implies that all that results is: a) bad feelings b) people being put off expressing their opinions for fear of being flamed I've seen extensive flame-wars on Usenet groups and it's not a pretty sight. Also, if this sort of thing happens again I'll be tempted to suggest that: a) the reply-to field is set back to be direct to sender instead of the group (this should minimise the spread of the fire) b) that the list becomes moderated. I for one would not like to see either happen as it'll slow down the free exchanges of ideas which was what the list was set up for in the first place. Also moderation can be seen as censorship if not done correctly. I don't really care who started what but all I can suggest is, that if someone has a go at you then just reply calmly. Let the flames die at that point. There, I've said my piece. So lets go back to rules and campaign discussions please. Thank you Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 21 11:16:04 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA25821; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:16:04 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id LAA25811 ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:16:04 +1300 Received: from homeserver (p22-max27.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.76.149.150]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA21280 ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:03:58 +1300 Message-ID: <006a01be14d1$b5131680$96954cd1@homeserver.Home> Subject: Re: Messaging in general Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:04:10 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "rodking" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: "rodking" X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. A bit of brutal honesty.... Keith has commented on the recent flame war and the possibility of moderating the list. I do not beleive this is a good idea because the possibility of subjective moderation, especially in the arena of game ideas, then rears its ugly head (not that I beleive the current administrators are like this fortuneatly). Flame wars have and will occurred before, with most parties backing off in an adult fashion beyond a certain point. At some point everyone says something that raises another hackles but most people eventually let a matter drop. A number of the more talented commentators are especially guilty of using sarcasam or an ad hoc assessment of anothers pesonality or motivations to colour their posts. In this regard Jim and Martin are probably the worst offenders, although both usually have something useful to say (yea I know, have ya shot 'cause I can be sarcastic on occassion as well...). In this regard Jim is, in my opinion the worst - good content but poor communication technique. BUT there is a difference in their type of posts: Most of their sarcasam et al is unintentional and is not designed to raise hackles. If spoken to about it they will usually see your point (viz delivery style). Then everyone backs off and ideas are exchanged once again in a more polite fashion. Moderating the list would subjectively limit content in this regard, simply becuase people have skins of differing thickness or don't like some language. In general, if we have problems with content delivery we should take it up with the deliverer as adults. Thats the field cleared in regard to valid posts - don't modeate. But what happens if we get content like Barts, which include accusations of child molestation? If we aren't going to moderate the list we do have a responsibility to stand up and tell people his type of activiiesy are not wanted or needed. If the type of behaviour continues, which is probably litigous, the person should be requested to publicly apoiligse - or voluntarily leave the list (but not be kicked off - we all have delete keys...) From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 21 13:34:43 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA25896; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:34:43 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA25887 ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:34:42 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA12707 ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:22:36 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:18:03 +1300 Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 21 Nov 98 13:23:32 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 21 Nov 98 13:23:29 GMT+12 Received: from [161.29.1.101] by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31) with ESMTP; 21 Nov 98 13:23:22 GMT+12 X-Sender: hrabjj@hra1.marc.cri.nz Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:20:40 +1200 Subject: Re: Childish Behaviour? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Bart Janssen To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Jim wrote >This is a community. A principle of living in communities is that we have >some basic and underlying concepts that determine our behaviour. One of the >most basic of these principles is that you are allowed to defend yourself, >unless there is an agency that is available to protect you. >Very few of you people offer public support when I'm attacked in this way, >although you expect it not to happen. I recieve private emails offering >support, but very few of you are actually prepared to do anything more than >take the apparent moral high ground, and excercise finger waving. >I do not start these personal attacks. You've got to be kidding right. Yes my reply was childish and very nasty. No I did not start the abuse. I find it remarkable and informative to see George and Paul leap to Jim's defence, yet never critisize his behaviour Bart >I see no reason why I should have to >suffer them, in the face of a community to cowardly to offer public outrage >when they see such behaviour. I am allowed to defend myself and my >reputation, particularly if you won't do anything to offer such a defence >for me. >Jim. > >---------- >> From: Mandos Mitchinson >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >> Subject: Childish Behaviour? >> Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 11:14 AM >> >> >> >You Jim are the most revolting piece of trash I've ever had the >misfortune >> >to interact with. I presume you are the product of child abuse and this >> >persona you manefest is the best your counselors could achieve. It is >> >sad and pathetic that you can find no other way to interact with >> >humanity than abuse and conflict. I guess pity is the only reasonable >> >response, but I never claimed to be reasonable. >> >> >> Is it time for a new list >> dq.bash.other.players.in.a.childish.fashion@dq.sf.org.nz ? >> >> We can pop Bart and Jim in there until they cool down. >> >> On the other hand we could all just try and be more reasonable and think >> more before we write. >> >> Mandos >> >> >> >> -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- > >-- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 21 19:59:11 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA26271; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:59:11 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA26260 ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:59:10 +1300 Received: from [209.78.49.247] (p55-max12.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.78.49.247]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA19465 ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:47:01 +1300 Message-Id: <199811210647.TAA19465@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: flamis@pop.ihug.co.nz (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:48:22 +1300 Subject: Re: Darkness From: flamis@pop.ihug.co.nz (Jacqui Smith) To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. >I can understand it - it decreases the albedo of everything in the volume of >effect by some factor. It probably also decreases the brightness of any light >sources in the area by the same factor, but from memory this is not explicit in >the description. At rank 16+, all objects in the volume become perfectly black. If that were all it did, then objects within the area of effect would appear as black silhouettes against a lighted background. This could look seriously weird if a darkness is cast on a sunny hilltop! I prefer a different explanation - a darkness spell negates a percentage of the light passing though or created in a volume. The effect (to risk being slapped over the coals for using a technological analogy) is like turning down the brightness on your monitor screen... Jacqui -- See message headers to unsubscribe from --