 |
|
the Octopus
|
|
Pythagoras: "are we to send a compilation of all the saved forum postings, or write up a summary, both?"
I've been working under the assumption that we should be working toward providing the best summary we can, with enough material to adequately explain an idea, but getting rid of anything superfluous, unclear, or unnecessary. We're sort of working as filters so that Brian can just absorb the important stuff. If he wanted everything he could just read the forums himself... At least that's what I've been assuming.
------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecce Homo
|
|
Stockholm, Sweden
Apr 1999 time: 06:14
|
|
Ralph wrote in the General Civ 2 forum that the Lists are too hard to read. He reccomended that each suggestion should consist of a title in CAPITALS and not more than a few lines of explanation. Long discussions should take place in the General forum.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Frank Moore
|
|
Pittsburgh, PA USA
May 1999 time: 05:14
|
|
Yin,
I think that you are right, people that post ideas should give as much of a description as needed, even if it may seem too long to some people. The reason is simple, the thread masters main job is to take all the suggestions and incorporate them into one clear concise list. This could be hard to do if the original description is not detailed enough to explain to us what the poster had in mind. I do think that some things make even long posts easier to read such as inerting blank lines between ideas and such.
------------------
Frank Moore - Civ3 Player Interface Thread Master
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
the Octopus
|
|
tfs99: "I suggest that the Moderator (that's you Yin ) should be the one to start new threads once the old one is full."
I strongly disagree. If I am to be managing a thread, I like to be able to set the pace, etc. None of the "advantages" you mention require that a single person start a thread, they merely require that we agree on certain standards. I tried to encourage everybody to do that before, but nobody seemed interested.
I suggest that people consider what elements should be included in a standard template for the beginnings of new threads, post them here, and we can discuss them.
Currently, I believe that keeping the summaries in the discussion threads is the best approach. The summaries allow for good breakpoints in the discussion, which sometimes begin to meander, and refocus people on the task at hand, which is to gather and discuss a wide variety of suggestions.
For the naming convention, I intend to use a decimal numbering scheme to indicate major/minor revisions. I'll be posting a new summary later this evening.
Yin, can you switch the title on my thread back to v1.1? I think keeping the numbers straight will make it easier on posters. Version 1.0 of the threads were in the other forum.
------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JT
|
|
A place, in a place, within a place
Jan 1970 time: 05:14
|
|
Yin: Could you close Sing's units thread? I already made one with a summary of the last three threads.
DONE! *Yin*
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited May 20, 1999).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
tfs99
|
 |
Tucson, AZ, USA
Mar 1999 time: 22:14
|
|
>>>>> Octopus
Re: who creates the new topic
Of course none of things I mention, require that one person create it.
However, one person is in a much better position to enforce standards without requiring that everyone know and get the UBB or HTML code "just right." And as you pointed out, no use in having standards if they are not kept, well, standard.
And since the moderator is the one responsible for locking the old thread, and the one who edits the topic subjects to be standard, it made sense for him to be the one to create a standard new topic "header".
If everyone is left to their own devices to implement the standard, Yin is still left in the position of doing all the cleanup work to bring topics up to par.
Re: having seperate summary areas
I was only thinking long term. If this project is going to go on for months, there are going to be quite a few summaries as time goes by. Seperate summary topics could easily accumulate fifty summaries each. (UNITS is on it's 4th topic already!)
Civ3 n ... Ted S.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
the Octopus
|
|
"However, one person is in a much better position to enforce standards without requiring that everyone know and get the UBB or HTML code "just right.""
Post a template for people to cut and paste.
"And since the moderator is the one responsible for locking the old thread, and the one who edits the topic subjects to be standard, it made sense for him to be the one to create a standard new topic "header"."
No, it makes sense for us all to know what the right standards are, and just do it. There is unlikely to be a lot of "cleanup work". How many times do you think Yin will need to correct somebody before they get the drift?
"If everyone is left to their own devices to implement the standard, Yin is still left in the position of doing all the cleanup work to bring topics up to par."
If we can't trust the thread masters to implement even the most basic things like posting appropriate headers, then we have a bigger problem.
Yin has a big enough job. I, for one, do not want to have a thread started and "get off on the wrong foot" before I am ready for it. I see many drawbacks and almost no advantages to your proposal.
------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JT
|
|
A place, in a place, within a place
Jan 1970 time: 05:14
|
|
I'd like some future tech. I want the game to go to at least 2500 AD, so we need some future tech.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JT
|
|
A place, in a place, within a place
Jan 1970 time: 05:14
|
|
I think we should summarize what's happened so far at the begginning of each new thread, but we should also do what I said before about a seperate thread. That way, if you want to see what people have said so far without wading through 50 posts, you can!
------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
the Octopus
|
|
I don't think that a separate "Future Technology" thread is a good idea. There are already enough cross-connections between various threads without making distinctions like this. If you want to ask the question "what time period should Civ III span" that sounds like an "Other" question, if you want to propose that a specific technology be included in the game, that is a "Technology" question. If there is a second "Future Technology" thread, there will be confusion, and countless "I just posted this in the other thread, but it applies here, too..." (even more than there are now, with our relatively distinct topics).
tfs99: Liberal use of < (less than) and > (greater than) can make what you are trying to do easier. For example:
<a href=/forums/Forum28/HTML/000014.html>Wow, a link!</a>
ought to look like this
<a href=/forums/Forum28/HTML/000014.html>Wow, a link</a>
If that wasn't clear:
When you type &lt; it looks like this: <
When you type &gt; it looks like this: >
Speaking of standard headers, People should look at what I have at the beginning of Technology 1.1 (which I will repost when I summarize for Technology 1.2). I think we can use that as a starting point for our discussion of the standard opening (e.g. "you shouldn't have said that! That's horrible! You totally forgot about _____!" ). Either that, or make a proposal of your own.
------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|