Timewaster's Guide Archive

General => Suggestions Box => Topic started by: Spriggan on May 20, 2004, 10:08:28 AM

Title: con article
Post by: Spriggan on May 20, 2004, 10:08:28 AM
2 things:

1) Should this be in RPG?  Other would be a better place.

2) Should we score it?  I think not and it should be just an editorial, but I wount complain if you keep the score.
Title: Re: con article
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on May 20, 2004, 10:10:15 AM
well, I made it RPG because nearly everything he mentioned was roleplaying. HOwever, there was that one card game. And the con has minis too, apparently. So I'll change it. I totally didn't even notice the score. (See what a good editor I am?). I'm going to remove that.
Title: Re: con article
Post by: Spriggan on May 20, 2004, 10:14:00 AM
Well I guess the question is weither or not we'll be haveing more articles on cons.  They're content varies by con and I think it would be better to have all them in the same place.
Title: Re: con article
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on May 20, 2004, 10:20:17 AM
the main source of our "con" articles have been release tournament reports by Prometheus. And those are definitely CCG, especially since his reports analyze his games.

It's not that important to me where it goes. I don't see many of us going to tons and tons of cons.
Title: Re: con article
Post by: EUOL on May 20, 2004, 05:50:10 PM
I suppose I could start doing con reports.  Starting next year, I'll probably start going to quite a few of them.

And keep going to quite a few of them for many, many years.
Title: Re: con article
Post by: JP Dogberry on May 20, 2004, 07:55:16 PM
Well don't ask me. I put down RPG because most of what I did was roleplaying. The con does basically every form of indoor game, such as board, mini, card games, whatever, but I didn't play any of that, so I can't comment. I think having a score or not doesn't make much of a difference, but for the record I give the con 5 clocks.

If anyone's interested, I can write up the story of Q-ship for the forum sometime. It's rather amusing.
Title: Re: con article
Post by: Entsuropi on May 20, 2004, 10:53:49 PM
I'd stick it in RPG since that is where i would go to find it. Or you could just stick it in both sections (LE GASP!) which solves the problem nicely.
Title: Re: con article
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on May 20, 2004, 10:58:57 PM
the form only lets me choose one. You're talking about adding code to the sight. That's blasphemy.
Title: Re: con article
Post by: JP Dogberry on May 21, 2004, 12:03:41 AM
Yes, because adding physical functions to the human body is God's territory.

If, however, you want to change the code of the Site, you probably just need to convinve Tage.

Overall, I think your chances of playing God are significantly better.
Title: Re: con article
Post by: Entsuropi on May 21, 2004, 12:45:58 AM
So, i need to convince tage?

/me gets the Cthulhu-stick
Title: Re: con article
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on May 21, 2004, 08:54:38 AM
yeah, I've brought up making articles capable of being connect to two departments MANY times. Code doesn't change round here. THat's sacrosanct
Title: Re: con article
Post by: Spriggan on May 21, 2004, 08:58:46 AM
well it's not just a simple code change, it would require a change in the database structure.  And condisering how many deparments you wanted to be able to spread an article across there could be some fairly lenghty code, though probaly not all that complex.

Its one of those things that goes onto the "If we ever completly overhall TWG's code again, we'll think about it" list.  Right not it's not worth the effort.  Especialy considering there are only a few articles that would use this feature.