[WF-General] Distinguishing Admin and Player
pug007 at sgi.net
Thu Oct 12 17:48:55 PDT 2000
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.
> > 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
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
More information about the General