[WF-General] Distinguishing Admin and Player

Pug pug007 at sgi.net
Thu Oct 12 18:29:07 PDT 2000


On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:09:09PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Pug wrote:
> > 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. :)
> 
> If it exists in Wiki and is written up with enough "meat" to justify the
> decision, then it should merely be a matter of cut-and-paste (of either
> the text, or the hyperlink) to get it into the official Belchfire Spec.
> Of course, you'd want to repost the link to the mailing list to get
> further input.

Right, I didn't think of that. My previous fear was just that you were
talking about some kind of previous document or whatever.

> I'm working on some thoughts regarding how this can be done all within
> Wiki, but it will require assistance of the Infra team.

Oh gods, this brings back horrible memories. Like when I moved all of
/website/rules to /website/rules/worldwerks with changed links. Or when
I put back up all of Az and Kass's content after they took them down.
Or when I took them all down AGAIN after we got a lawsuit threat and realized
that all the stuff kinda sucked...

> > 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.
> 
> Or we can just wait until a newbie brings up a topic, and use that as
> the motivator to start the discussion.  Since the goal is to answer all
> the questions a new developer might have, then by definition this should
> be a decent motivator, right?  ;-)

Right, but I was trying to avoid that to keep to somewhat orderly and avoid
some kind of stampede.

> > 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.
> 
> Good idea, I think that is exactly the kind of thing that other
> (new|old) developers would love to see.  Especially if it is on a topic
> that has been recently discussed anyway.  You know the topics that
> everyone likes to chat about.  I think with the focus of producing a
> solidified concept for the Belchfire Spec, these discussions would
> be more productive.

Yeah, we get into discussion in #forge like this every so often, which often
get pretty interesting. I like the idea of trying it on the Lists, in fact.

-- 
"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 mailing list