[WF-General] Distinguishing Admin and Player

[Pug]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:23:43PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > Do you really want to go back to 100+ emails/day from the Lists and spend
> > months discussing the Underworld, then get into massive flame wars over
> > Orcus? :) 
> 
> Indeed I do.

Sadist. ;)

> > If by "written up officially enough" means "on the site somewhere",
> > it may work, but I would definately suggest against going over all of our
> > discussions again that haven't been written down in some mission statement.
>  
> No, I won't accept stuff as "finalized" that is not at least written up
> in Wiki.  Anything that exists only in someone's head is fair game.

Oh, that's OK, then. I thought you were meant it had to written on one of
those various Battle Plans or whatever we've written up, which would mean
very little. :)

> Yes, I know this probably means that some of the decisions made in the
> past may get overturned.  I'm sure that seems worrisome.  But does it
> make any sense to go with an approach today that won't pass a concensus
> test today?  

Okay, fine with me. However, I think we should have some time to prepare, and
start it over a weekend. That way, prominent people in each Area can post some
summaries of various topics to start the discussion off well.

Let's take as an example Perm Death in Belchfire. I would send a mail to
Rules@, outlining the passing concept, summarizing the discussion
we had last time, with the conclusion, and provide a link to the thread.
That way, instead of rehashing everything all over again with the exact
same arguments, we can kind of *build* on our old stuff, while still
having a new discussion about the topic, and possibly reaching a new
decision.

In fact, I think it'd be fun to throw out some of our old idea that are
"finalized" for discussion in this manner.

-- 
"Life, death, genocide, that's all small beans. All the important battles are
fought upon the fields of Nomenclature."	http://egrep.org