Subj : RE: Shazrad]corrections
To   : All
From : yl112@cornell.edu
Date : Mon Jul 31 2000 05:04 pm

From: yl112@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: Shazrad]corrections



On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Scott Royall wrote:

You're going to have to wait for Yune's response, since she's probably in 
classes right now, her time.  :-p  Yune handles the technical aspects 
since she knows more about this mailing list stuff, so she'll know for 
certain.  We're using eGroups for the mailing list; since we're being 
hosted by a friendly RPG-dedicated server, I'm not sure we can get them 
to do mailing list stuff for us.  Yune is planning on getting her own 
domain at some point, but that will probably be after she's settled into 
Stanford and freshman year.  <wry g>

I *think* the problem may be one of two things:

1.  Handling the list via eGroups *and* giving the echo full access to 
Shazrad involves making Shazrad players subscribe to the echo.  This is 
unfair to players who aren't interested in the echo and are interested 
only in Shazrad.

2.  Or, possibly giving the echo full posting abilities to the Shazrad 
list may make *all* the echo's messages appear on the Shazrad list, which 
again would be unfair to Shazrad-only players.  I know there have been 
times when I

This was intended originally as an off-echo game with possible 
coordination with the echo.  I'd be sorry to lose possible players due to 
technical problems, but if it turns out that we can't figure out a way 
for echo people to post to Shazrad without all the non-Shazrad posts also 
spamming through, then I will withdraw the campaign application from this 
echo.  We saw 6 applications within 24 hours of the announcement that we 
were open, so we won't be lacking for players--and this may encourage 
echo players to look at Andrew's City campaign and the Bottorffs' Sword 
of Peace.  :-)

Yune, please respond when you've a moment you're not doing homework.  :-)

YHL

> Ahem. I'm trying to be nice about the matter, but granting the echo
> read-only access seems rather ugly. It implies those who cannot, or simply
> decline to, subscribe to your list are of a lesser class. That's not fair,
> and there's truly not a valid technical reason for it *if* you have adequate
> control over your site.
> 
> It has always been the goal of the echo to be inclusive, not exclusive.
> 
> Moderator

--
|Fidonet:  yl112@cornell.edu
|Internet: scott@conchbbs.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.


---
 # Origin:  (1:106/357.99)
 * Origin: ConchGate (1:106/357.0)

.