[vworld-tech] SNR (was VWorld Axioms)

[ceo]

Crosbie Fitch wrote:
 >>From: ceo
 >>The way I interpreted the comment was that "axioms of vw" is a
 >
 >
 > It is possible that in order to better discuss technological issues 
impinging upon virtual worlds that one first defines the technological 
foundations underlying such virtual worlds.
 >
 > Would it not be sensible to keep that discussion in the same list as 
discusses technology built upon those foundations?
 >

I didn't think it would need spelling out: the majority of people who 
are interested in those things, and those who are experienced in them, 
are MD subscribers. Few of them are also subscribers on this list.

If you want to have a meaningful conversation on a topic, you generaly 
go to wherever the people are who know about the topic and understand it.

I would not recommend attempting to discuss vworld-tech on a Quake-fest 
IRC channel; yes, there are likely to be some there with a passing 
interest, perhaps some with a strong interest. Most of them will have 
nothing to add to your conversation (assuming you have more than a 
passing interest yourself).

 > There are also discussions concerned with what should or shouldn't be
 > discussed, with what a mailing list's charter is, in spite of a dearth
 > of discussion, in spite of risking alienating those participants who
 > dare contribute something they believe to be interesting and on-topic.

This is silly; all I did was to point out that a long-running topic had 
basically gone nowhere. With the benefit of hindsight, I was able to 
generalize on it's content and direction. Nobody is assasinating someone 
just for "daring to contribute".

You seem to imply that you'd prefer a list where bad threads get worse, 
until people start unsubscribing in large numbers because the list is 
just so much crud, because no-one is going to say anything when the SNR 
becomes vanishingly small.

 > Perhaps if it is not patently clear to all that something is off-topic,
 > that if in these times of sparse contribution, 'waffly' or 'whimsical
 > prattling' posts can be given the benefit of the doubt?

1. "times of sparse contribution" is never an excuse for bad posts

2. I gave several streams of posts "the benefit of the doubt" in order 
to see where they went. I voiced concern only after it became plain they 
weren't actually going anywhere.

 > If anything, posts accusing others of 'waffling' or 'whimsical prattling'
 > should probably be deprecated.

c.f. my previous points.

 >
 > I would be surprised if this mailing list is currently aiming for the 
same
 > editorial standards as perhaps an editor might require for
 > contributions to a book entitled 'Virtual World Technology Gems - I'.

Your comment would make more sense to me if, for instance, I'd embarked 
on a crusade to homogenize spellings of the words "whilst" and "while" 
in others' posts. It seems out of place in response to a request for 
more signal and less noise.

PS either the listserver is bust or you need a new email client - your 
posts are coming in unwrapped, forcing me to manually fix the formatting 
before replying.

Adam