Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > J., > > More or less that's what i'm saying. i don't think (at this point, at > least) that a separate group for dev. discussion is necessary. There hasn't > been any hew-and-cry from the purely user front over the discussions so far. > > For the sake of expedience and general community accessibility why not keep > the technical issues of CyB's going forward in this primary location. If it > gets too tech, or posting space becomes an issue, there are always private em > ails > between parties; and the files section for this group could be a good > repository for specific pieces of code that the authors are seeking help or i > nput > with. > > The VASSAL reference is just to illustrate the point. i think that Vassal > probably has some great features that i would like to explore, but because of > > its overall learning curve for using the utilities themselves, and the abunda > nce > of tech-speak in the bulk of its postings, it is at times a bit inaccessible. > > If i had been able to see the genesis of these strings of conversation, as > opposed to trying to jump on very much mid-gallop, then i think that i'd be > more inclined to wading through it. That's a contradiction on the surface i > know, but i did begin experimenting with both programs (C. and V.) at the sam > e > time -- ultimately choosing CyB as my goto. The more i sift from the Vas. gr > oup > the more my interests are maintained, but if i need to actually get work done > it's CyB hands down. > > And it's because of (IMHO) CyB's comparative ease of use that tech-sprek in > this group is more interesting than obstructive. If Vas. had ever been just > a > PBEM app that made the leap to online functionality, and i had been able to > witness that progression "firsthand", then wading through a sea of postings > about string arguments or whatever might be less of a mountain. However, eve > n in > that group there are the user posts for specific information on how-to's whic > h > are answered right along with if-sub-goto-whatsits, blah, blah, blah... > > My point is simply that even though we may not speak the language, please > don't assume we're not interested in the conversation. > > -S.-
I see. Thanks for the explanation. -- J.
