Standardizing the List Process

[the Octopus]

This thread is an attempt to agree upons some standards and practices for the Thread Masters so that the process of putting this list together will be smoother for everyone. While the opinions of the Thread Masters are important in this discussion (we have to live under whatever system we establish, after all ), the input of the contributors is valued as well, since if our standards aren't giving you what you want, then we're doing the wrong thing.

There are a number of issues that we need to discuss. I intend to prod all of the Thread Masters to come to this thread and contribute. Even if you say "I don't care about ____, whatever everybody else decides is fine", this is important because then we know that we will not be doing something that is objectionable to you. We can't assume that people don't care if they don't post, because there is no way to tell the difference between that and you simply being away from the 'net for a few days.

Why are standards important? First of all, everyone should look at these forums from the perspective of somebody who says: "Wow, I just heard that Firaxis is making Civ III, and that they're compiling a list of suggestions to include in the game over at Apolyton! I'm there!!!". If that person shows up at this forum and is confused, and can't easily figure out how to contribute to the list, then we have all lost, because that person may have had the best idea yet. If every Thread Master does things differently in each different thread, the likelihood of that person getting confused increases exponentially. However, if we all agree on some simple standards, and make sure that we all try to do the same things in the same way, then it is far more likely that this forum will be easy to use for everybody who wants to contribute, and that is what we all want. Second of all, once we have standards, it makes it easier for us. We won't have to worry if we are doing the right thing or if there's a better way, because we will have the yardstick of the agreed upon standards to meaure ourselves by. If we establish as our standard the "best" methods for doing things known at the time, then we will all know that we are doing the best job we can do by sticking to them. And, we will know that if there is a better idea that comes along, we will all try to adopt it (because the person who notices the good idea would make it part of the standard) instead of just one person.

Currently, there are five issues that I am aware of:

1) How many posts before we start a new thread?

When we first started, yin established a rule of "50 posts per thread". I think that number was just what he came up with off the top of his head. Now that we have had some experience with this, some people are saying that we should lower it. We should agree on a number. With yin going to Denver for a while, this will be important to agree upon quickly, since we will have to "police" ourselves to keep to whatever the best system is.

2) Where do we post summaries?

We've agreed on the practice of summarizing your thread at least as often as you start a new one (nobody objects to more frequent summarizing, of course). The question has arisen as to where these summaries should be posted. The original practice was to put the summaries at the start of the new thread, but some people are beginning to object to that, since they think that as the summaries increase in length the download time will become prohibitive. Others think that the summaries inside the threads give the thread focus. We need to agree on a system.

3) Summary style.

We don't need to agree on anything right away here, but I think we should start critiquing each other's summaries, so we can make sure that they are easy to use (both for people following the discussions and for people who need to do the actual compiling of the list, i.e. us). I think we would probably benefit from standardizing things like the format (we all seem to be doing it differently).

4) Thread header or disclaimer

I think it is important to start off each thread with a brief explanation of what is going on, so that people new to the thread or the forum can quickly get up to speed. I also think it's important to explain what we will eventually be doing with the list and how we will be assigning credit, so that nobody feels "ripped off" or "cheated" if the way their idea is represented in the final list doesn't meet with their exact desires. If people know what they are going to get ahead of time, they have no right to complain. I have attempted to do this in my <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000038.html>Technology</a> thread. I am obviously open to suggestions for improving it, or to somebody else's proposal for a different header altogether. I haven't noticed anybody else do this. I think it is important, both for the reasons I've already mentioned and also to make the thread look somewhat "official", rather than just the work of a bunch of disorganized obsessed fans (we're organized obsessed fans, dammit! )

5) Thread naming and numbering

This discussion exploded a little bit in the War Room thread (primarily because of my reaction to yin implementing a scheme before the Thread Masters had reached consensus on which system we liked).

So far, I believe there are three systems:

<u>Decimal Numbering</u> - like 1.2 or 3.7. We can use the numbers to the left of the decimal point for major changes, and the numbers to the right of the decimal for minor changes. When I originally described my feelings about this system, I said that we could use the "major revision" number to synch up when we compiled a "master list" together. For example, if we compiled Units 1.6, Technology 1.37, and Diplomacy 1.9 (no insult intended to any topics not mentioned ) in the master list version 1.0, we would start all of those threads into the new major revision (i.e. Units 2.0, Technology 2.0, Diplomacy 2.0). This way, you can tell at a glance which version of the master list a particular thread went into. It looks as if we are rolling over threads pretty fast, so it seems like we should start numbering from 1.00 if we want to truly maintain a "decimal" system (instead of saying 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, ...).

<u>Numbering System with Roman Numerals</u> - i.e. Units II and Diplomacy VIII would move to Units III and Diplomacy IX.

<u>Numbering System with Arabic Numerals</u> - i.e. Units 2 and Diplomacy 8 would move to Units 2 and Diplomacy 9.

I am not aware of any other proposals for systems, but obviously if you have a good idea, we want to discuss it.

It seems like we have settled upon naming our threads with a basic keyword in all caps (e.g. TECHNOLOGY or DIPLOMACY). I think everybody seems reasonably content with that system. If there are other proposals, we could discuss them, though.

In summary: I would like to see all of the thread masters participating in this thread, hashing these things out. These are minor issues. We need to be able to prove to each other that we can discuss these issues, agree on solutions, and act as a group if any of us are to have any confidence in the ability of the other Thread Masters to hang together and work as a team on the long hard road ahead of us.


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[the Octopus]

Hmmm... I just looked at the thread list, and on the first page, there are only 7 threads that don't have words in all caps. The all-caps thing was supposed to draw attention to the suggestion threads, but if every thread is in all caps, it kind of defeats the purpose... (I do realize that a lot of the threads are real suggestion threads, but not all of them).


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[HarryKattz]

I'm new here, this is my second post. Just can't resist butting in

1). If you drop to under 50, us newbies will be reading a lot of threads every visit.

I know this is impossible this late in the game, but a branching tree system would be better for this purpose than these giant multipost monsters. It would have allowed us to home in on our interests faster.

2). I can handle to way you're posting summaries now, but it would be nice if the summaries could be posted as HTML pages reachable from the CivIII page. This way I could keep up easier when I'm in a hurry. Also provides filler for the rather sparse CivIII section. Links from the web summaries to the background forum thread would be nice.

3)No problem with any of the styles.

Octopus, you're the resident PERL programmer aren't you? Once it becomes time to take the votes, standard formating will become essential for you

4)Pass

5)They all work, but the major revision method gives the most information.

[JT]

I'd like the Roman Numerals to start, with parentheses after that syaing "master ver. 2" or whatever the version is.

------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"

[Koyaanisqatsi]

1) I'd say 50 is fine if we're moving the summaries out of the active thread, or around 30 if they're included.

2) Out of the main threads, on actual web pages. Like I said in the other thread, whether they're hosted by us or by Apolyton doesn't matter, although they'd be easier to update if we ran them. The summary pages would be linked in the headers, of course.

3) Yin mentioned that he liked the way I put together the tech plan in the technology thread, maybe people should look at that. I think that kind of summary would be good if someone in the thread wants to make one, and then there should also be a list of discrete points as well.

4) Don't really care, don't think it's a major (or even really necessary) feature. The thread topic should tell people what's going on in the thread, and the summary should bring them up to date.

5) Really don't care about this either, but for the record, I think decmials are unnecessary. Arabic would work, but roman numerals look better.

[DanS]

As we go along, I think it is important to summarize the threads (very generally, not point-by-point) and make a jumping point in the announcement. This will bring people up to speed quickly. jfs99 has expressed his unwillingness to do the extensive upkeep it would take to maintain the launch pad (which is super-functional) if it is not really used. It's important, so I would put it in the announcement, first.

NUMBER OF POSTS PER THREAD -- Keep it at 35 and summarize often. Some threads need longer runs because there are more topics discussed and need threshing out. Can we say roughly 30-60? We don't want to create a burdensome amount of work for threadmasters of popular threads.

TYPE OF SUMMARIES -- Launching pad in the announcement, short topic summaries in the announcement (i.e., not ideas, only topics discussed).

SUMMARY STYLE -- Need to keep it at 2 or 3 sentences. We can say what we need to say in that amount of space. Otherwise we lose people. On the other hand, these summaries need to be clear, otherwise too many ideas will be reposted.

ATTRIBUTION -- I think people want to have their name next to the idea, when BR takes a look at them. This is vanity, but a little recognition never hurt anyone. Also, if BR wants an idea fleshed out, he can contact that person directly. Also incentive for possible beta testers.

NUMBERING & TITLES -- Damn the Romans, but their numbers sure look good. We got a little carried away with different formats on titles. A small thing, but it will help us bring people into the threads (a menu).

[Jeje2]

Hi,
My response to Octopus is::


2. Where do we post summaries?
Apolyton, who is so kind to us, has their Civ3 site. On that site there is the Suggestions part. Think if they were so polite that we could make our summaries to the Suggestions part. (This has also negative sides, but this is just an idea.)

Currently I am in favour of posting it to the beginning of each thread, as the second post.


1. Number of posts
If summaries are in the thread I recommend a length of 30 postings.
This means more threads, but they would be shorter.
(My last summary was over six pages on MS word)


3. Summary style
This is difficult, since it is so easy to hurt someone.
I have read all the summaries in "THE SUMMARY THREAD" and I will comment on one of postings now.

CyberShy is responsible for city improvements. When I hit his long list of buildings I looked at it, but after the list there were the buildings by purpose. I liked it a lot. Now I could study them by group. (CyberShy I hope I didn't offend you by this.)

So what I'm trying to say is that make your topic into groups. This way it is easy to discuss about that inside the group.
OK, I have used the 1.2.3 system, what is your opinioin?
I have reduced the major numbers to nine, which is still too many. In this system if someone has no interest in war he can skip the part 2 War over easily and read the Interaction part, which are in part 3.
Feel free to judge me, I can live with it.


4. Thread header
Argh! You are right, as usual. I will ad it to my next thread.


5. Thread naming and numbering
I vote for 1.9, 1.10, 1.11. Then in July it would be 2.3 etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread master for DIPLOMACY:
Jeje2

[Travathian]

Ok, heres my 'I dont care, I'll just go along with everyone else' post.

Except, I hate Roman Numerals and I think sumaries should be a seperate posting for people to refer to, then go to the post in which the discussion is taking place. Just stick a link to it on the first entry, and ask everyone to go read it before posting new ideas. Or have all of the sumaries listed in a seperate forum entirely.

[JT]

Thank you for that thoughtfelt creedbreaking, Octo.

Maybe I think the 1.1, 1.2 system is nuts, but I don't post it.(I don't think it's nuts, however.)

PS: The creedbreaking was the shooting down of the Roman Numeral idea.

------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"

[the Octopus]

JT, there is a difference between my personal opinion and my official capacity. I personally dislike the roman-numerals-with-parenthesized-arabic-numerals system. I think that is nuts. People accuse 1.7 of being too complex, and I'm not allowed to think that's totally off the deep end? I dislike the Roman system, and I think your Roman+ system is a really bad idea. Calling it "nuts" was a bit of poetic license.

I did not pledge that I would not have opinions. I did pledge that I would be fair. I have not broken that creed. People should realize that there is a difference. I know what I am doing and can keep the two separate.


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[the Octopus]

Actually, I tried to exclude most of my personal opinions from the opening post, and let a few other posters get in before announcing mine, so that it would be more clear that I was differentiating the two. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear, or if I have failed to maintain a sense of fairness to these proceedings. However, everyone here must realize that we can be critical of each other and still work together successfully.


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[JT]

Well, there are some words better than "nuts" that you could have used.

------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"

[the Octopus]

1) I'm still undecided about the post count. I was going to go along with reducing it if other people thought it was the right move, but I think that HarryKattz has a good point, we need to balance the number of threads and the number of posts per thread, so this issue isn't as simple as I thought.

2) I like the summaries in the thread. I like people to be able to refer to the summary when they are making comments. If the summary is in another thread or on a different website altogether, then a second window is needed. If the summary is the first post in the thread, then it is right below the text-box for the reply. However, I can see that the summaries are getting longer and longer (and that will obviously continue). Is this becoming a significant dowload problem for people? I have a 33.6 connection at home, and I'm not really noticing a problem. More often than not I am slowed down by the unresponsiveness of the server, not the speed of my connection. I also think that having the summaries in the thread provides focus to the thread, and brings people back to "reality" and prevents a thread from meandering. In addition, if summaries are presented simply as a link, then it is a lot easier for people to say "ah, this must not be important, I'll just skip it, and maybe read it later". If the summary is a couple of screens of text, it's harder to do that.

Some of the Thread Masters may also be unfamiliar with HTML and unwilling to learn, which may be an issue. If we are going to embark down the road of using HTML for the list itself, we'd better be damned sure that Brian wants to read it that way.

3) I think people should read what Ted wrote in the War Room. Also, this is a minor point, but there were a few items that read something like "now that we have _____, we need _____ to support it", rather than "if we have _____, we need _____ to support it". The first one implies that a certain direction has been taken with the game, the second one doesn't, which is more impartial and appropriate for the list.

4) I don't think I need to say much more here. It's important to include in every thread because most people won't read the FAQ before they jump into the threads. In fact, most people won't read anything but threads that have titles that sound interesting. We need to orient them there, because that is likely to be their first exposure to the list. If we can work out a system where the List threads are obvious by their names, I do question the utility of the "Launch Pad". I don't want to say that it wasn't a good job, but I don't know if there's a point, and I am a big proponent of never doing pointless work.

About crediting particular ideas: I think it's a bad idea. This is a group effort, and lots of people have similar ideas, and lots of people are going to suggest ways to make ideas better, etc. If we went with a "first person to make a suggestion gets credit" system, that totally denies the reality of the situation. I should then get credit for an open AI interface, but that makes no sense. I was merely the first person to see that the thread was open, so I posted it.

5) I like the 1.09->1.10 system, followed by 1.9->1.10. I don't like the Arabic or Roman systems. (Also, I think JT's IV(3), LXV(19) system is nuts). I don't see any system that can be used to link the Arabic system to major list revisions.


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[Atahualpa]

Why not merge some threads in different forums. Graphics/Units/Atmosphere get an own forum...
It would be much easier to handle.

ATa

[evil conquerer]

Since this seems to be the official place, I'll reiterate (again ) my opinions on everything:

1) 40. It only takes around a week to get 30 posts. If we set it at 30, then that's a lot of work for the thread masters to start the new thread every 30 posts. If we set it at 50, then the threads get unacceptably (IMHO) long.

2) No opinion.

3) No opinion, but try not to summarize everything in bold (no names mentioned, but you know who you are )

4) No opinion.

5) I quote from my earlier post in the thread master's war room:

I like the system where the versions for the threads go v1.0, v1.1, etc. The decimal place goes up one number for each time the thread is closed @ 50 posts. Then when the master list is made, it takes the most recent version of all of those threads. After the master list, the threads start over at v2.0, v2.1, and so on. After the next master list is compiled, all the threads start over with 3... you get the picture. This makes it easier to remember which version everyone is on, because master list 3 goes with version 3 of all the threads. Otherwise you could have version 14 of the technology thread be only version 2 of the master list, while version 5 of the units thread (for example) would be on version 3 of the master list. See how confusing that gets?

[This message has been edited by evil conquerer (edited May 24, 1999).]

[the Octopus]

Atahualpa: "Why not merge some threads in different forums. Graphics/Units/Atmosphere get an own forum..."

I'm not sure I agree with that, multiple forums might make things more complicated. Also, Mark has been indulgent enough giving us this forum, I don't think we should push our luck.

However, there does seem to be a trend to want to "splinter" the discussions rather than keep them together (for example, the thread <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000074.html>But, do we really need this many topics?</a>, which was curiously started by Stefu, who is is the Thread Master of <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000027.html>RELIGION (ver1.0): Hosted by Stefu</a> which broke off from <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000070.html>SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT</a>. Another example is Monolith94's desire to start a cross-platform thread. I think people are confusing "strength of feeling" with "need for a thread". As I said elsewhere, I have a hard time thinking of anything beyond Linux, Mac, and NT that would show up in the cross-platform thread (I'm not trying to pick on anyone here, this is just the most recent example).

Having said all that, I don't know how we can resolve this "issue", or even frame it. Is there a problem? If so, is there a solution? If there is a problem, is it a crisis, or just something to be concerned about long-term? Have any thread masters noticed problems with their threads specifically (for example, the recent <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000069.html>RESOURCE MANAGEMENT</a> thread vs. <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000071.html>REGIONAL MENU & CITY MENU IDEAS - hosted by Shining1</a>)?

Do we need to establish a process for determining which threads are needed, and which have overlap with other threads, or too narrow a scope?


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[yin26]

Regarding thread closing, I will make it simple:

Thread Masters please e-mail me that you'd like your thread closed. Please include the title of the thread to make it easier for me. Please post in your thread that the thread is closed (THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED) and then please start a new thread, using the (v1.1) method--no more switching that around!

This will allow Thread Masters to decide if starting a new thread at a certain point is counterproductive.

As for the rest of the issues on the table, let's continue with the Thread Titles as we have it now (unless there's some good majority feeling that we should change it). For thread summaries, PLEASE study the other Thread Masters' styles and see for yourself what you think is best--we will make some formal decisions on style a bit later.

Something to think about, though: Heavy use of links in your posts will not translate when we put the final list together because I want Brian to get a .doc file so he can print it out and use the list off-line. So, unless there's is something I'm missing on this point, please get in the habit of a least thinking about how you are going to write summaries w/o using links.

Finally, I just sent Octo an e-mail in which I explained that I received serveral e-mails voicing concern that I should not elect any one person to head the standardization of our work: I should do it since I am the most impartial (I'm not running any threads) and I started this whole damn thing ( ), so I should be the one to gather opinions and implement necessary changes.

If you haven't already, Thread Masters, you will receive an e-mail from me with more detail about these issues.

However, unless there is some argument to the contrary, Octo's thread here seems to be generating some good discussion, so please continue discussing things here (and by e-mail, as I'll explain in my e-mail).

At any rate, I'm VERY happy to see more time being spent on the issue of Organization. I have, of course, a few dedicated Thread Masters to thank for trying to keep us on the same page in regard to how we organize.

Yin

[yin26]

Let me just clarify the links issue:

Links are necessary now in order to lead people to the right places w/o wasting space in your summary--my only point is that you should make sure that you realize the final summaries you'll have to write can't use links: So I don't want to surprise anybody.



[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited May 24, 1999).]

[yin26]

By the way, I was just looking at Octo's Tech summary (great work, btw, Octo). I think this is the right way to summarize: CAPITAL letters with the idea/issue and then a concise summary--not more than 5-6 lines if possible. Many of you are doing this now or a slightly modified version, but I offer a piece of Octo's summary as a potential stadard for us to follow:

1) REDUNDANT TECHS -- have multiple different ways to achieve the same in-game effect (say, a 2-1-1 unit or a "makes one unhappy person content" building) with different technological paths (for example, either "Religious Fanatacism" or "Professional Standing Army" techs might allow the 2-1-1 unit over the 1-1-1 unit). This allows different civilizations to take a less "cookie-cutter" approach to technological development, since there are no longer an "vital" technologies.

2) MULTIPLE PATHS TO A PARTICULAR ADVANCE -- Instead of having rigid prerequisites, allow several different ways to achieve a particular advance (for example, the prerequisite for "Labor Union" might be "Capitalism" and "Assembly Line", because the workers band together naturally to fight for rights, OR "Communism" and "Mass Media", because the communist activists are able to convince large numbers of workers to bargain collectively. However, "Capitalism" and "Mass Media" wouldn't do anything to advance "Labor Unions" without the other techs.).

3) RANDOM!!!! -- As long as there are multiple paths to each tech, there can be a probability that each path may or may not exist in a particular game. This adds to the excitement, and also the realism, since you can never quite be sure what your scientists will come up with until they come up with it.

4) CONCEPTS vs. APPLICATIONS -- Instead of an "all techs are equivalent" way of looking at the world, break techs into "concepts" and "applications". A "concept" might be "Gunpowder", while an "application" might be "Musket" or "Tunnel Construction".

What do you guys think? This is essentially the same format I used to give Brian the SMAC list, and he enjoyed that one a great deal...so if it aint broke... . Your thoughts?

[the Octopus]

No doubt people will question my impartiality about this next statement, but I feel compelled to make it anyway: It is a foolish precedent to say that a discussion can only be productive if yin takes an active and leading role. I feel that we Thread Masters should be able to self-govern ourselves in a better fashion. If there are concerns about that way I've been "running" this thread, I am concerned that no one has voiced them to me. Why is it so difficult for us to understand that disucssions are important, and that I have been as aggressive as I have in pursuing this because I believe that the issues really need to be resolved, not because I'm trying to establish some kind of pecking-order? Making this whole process completely dependent on yin is downright stupid (and I'm not going to attempt to find a more diplomatic way to phrase that, because it is completely accurate). The semi-chaos caused by yin's business trip should be more than enough evidence for that.


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[yin26]

Octo,

I understand your points, but it has to be important that if people generally agree to do something a certain way, we should follow it. Of course, I'll need to invest more time to stay on top of all the issues and opinions, and yes this business trip SUCKS!, but I need you to follow the majority sentiment here on this.

I feel your arguments for the need for more structure have contibuted greatly to this project, as has your thread here and the example I just quoted for summaries. If you are really angered by this majority feeling, please e-mail me so we can discuss it further.

Octo, "stupid" or not, that's what people are most comfortable with, so that's what we should do. Can you work with me on this point? And it would do no good to make a general election for this work because then we are in the same position all over again.

Rest assured, I am committed to making this project work. In fact, I'm at a 24 hour Kinko's in Denver right now doing this at $12/hour for the computer charge. I AM dedicated to you guys and your opinions--and this in the only business trip I'll be taking for a while, so please have faith that I can act in all our best interests in getting us to agree on things.

Remember, the cooperation and willingness to decide on these issues STILL rests on you guys. I'm just going to do a better job of nagging you all.

[tfs99]

>>>>> Octopus

I hesitate to post this, but since you expressed concern that our concerns have not been voiced to you, I thought you might want to see, verbatim, some of the concerns I have expressed to others about the situation.

Even so, I still would not have posted this, except I became concerned when I saw your earlier use of words like "foolish" and "downright stupid".

When you read this, consider the source and keep it in perspective. Just the thoughts of one person.

Civ3 n ... Ted S.

From an e-mail to JT:

I also was offended by Octo's use of the word "nuts". I'm glad you responded the way you did. It's things like this incident that led me to write the following to Yin yesterday when he nominated Octo for his position:

"I can't support the idea of Octopus in this position. He seems rather rigid and insistent on getting his own way. He also seems overly belligerent."

However, it seems that Octo has plowed forward despite Yin's caveat about his position requiring unanimous consent. Oh well. Kind of ironic when you consider his vehement criticism of Yin for doing the same thing!

I've held back from posting in the "Standards" topic, mainly because of the
comment that Octo made. Also because I think he's jumped the gun. Although I do believe he is earnest, I question his ability to arrive at a consensus.

With his "nuts" comment, he's demonstrated that he will not let his opinions stand on their own merits, but also must put down and attack others as well. This might be appropriate if we were debating these ideas. However, it certainly is NOT appropriate when one assumes the mantle of leadership.

From a response to Yin:

Don't put it to a vote solely on my account. If no one else objects, I'll withdraw my objection.

From another response to Yin:

I appreciate your response. But the last thing I want to get involved in is locking horns with someone like Octo. It's bad enough at the Game Forum on SMAC with the "blah-hating" Nazis and snooty "veterans" and would be totally counter productive for the CivIII task at hand.

It seems to me that even acting in an unofficial capacity would put me straight in Octo's line of fire. He's already dissed the idea of a central launching pad. So I'm seeing a bit of red over that one.

Even "diplomatic patience" has its limits. I am not one known to back down.

[This message has been edited by tfs99 (edited May 25, 1999).]

[Shining1]

Standardisation is something for later, though it seems most threads are doing pretty well. So long as an occasional summary arrives at the summary thread, everything else seems okay.

Despite the Yinnish way (sorry Yin, couldn't resist ) Octo has gone about pushing this, his summary formating is actually quite good. Bell's is better, but I don't know the HTML, and, to be honest, don't see the need for it. And yin makes the point about not including HTML stuff in the final list.

May I suggest that any threadmasters running threads that seem to have two more or less seperate issues in them summarise them seperately? And that thread summaries be kept organised so that one area only is covered at a time, rather than just presenting a list of suggestions. It takes a bit more work, BUT the results are worthwhile - you get a 'work in progress' that contributors can easily understand.

I would strongly push the idea of summarising everything at the start of a thread, and editing that post regularly. This way saves space (nothing is repeated) and makes the current summary very easy to find.

Otherwise, the main problem seems to be the proliferation of threads in this forum - it is getting difficult to find things.

Shining1

[yin26]

First, I have just accepted Octo's resignation. Please see your e-mail.

Second, does anybody have a good idea for making things easier to find on the forum?

------------------
CIV3 DEVELOPMENT LIST COORDINATOR

**(un)Officially Making Lists for Firaxis Since SMAC Enhancement 3!**