From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au)
Date: Thu 02 Sep 1993 - 10:43:44 EEST
>
> I agree that the rules aren't the most important part of the RQ
> renaissance, but they are the focus of this list. I'd prefer to see
> the rules discussions stay here instead of filling up the digest,
> which I'd prefer to see concentrating on Glorantha and on finished
> rules ideas, rather than incomplete ideas.
Yar, what he said. RQ Lite is filling up a lot of Digest space, I
think that the rq4 list should be a little rules lawyers ghetto, and
more Glorantha on the Daily.
>
> That's also why I think we can afford to spend time on this list
> working out rules variants. Also, if you are against RQ Lite then just
> ignore the RQ Lite postings. They're marked well enough. I think there
Because many people have opinions about particular versions of RQ Lite.
I kind of like the idea, but hate some of the versions that have been
presented. At the moment there is not really an RQ Lite development effort,
there is an RQ Lite debate about what format it should be produced in. I
find some ideas for the format problematic.
> keep your feelings to yourself. Participate in a positive way or not
> at all.
Participating positively doesn't mean agreeing with what is said, it means
offering alternatives, and ways that things can be improved.
>
> Somebody could lose an eye...
Dangerous, them flying electrons :-)
>
> That's enough soapbox oratory for now.
I think soapbox oratory is something that you can never have enough of.
:-)
> whoah,
> +++++++++++++++++++++++23
> Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
> "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.
>
Dave Cake
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:29:35 EEST