[War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re: Okay, so...)

[Michael Downey]

Well you are probably a better expert on it that I could ever be.
Couldn't we just have a members-only wiki? Someone here be an admin
that OKs all members so only WAR players can edit the wiki? Is that
even possible?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:43 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> To be fair, I have managed smaller wikis that have been spammed. I'd
> be careful about a wiki.
>
> Btw, I am now leeatwar on AIM.
>
> :P
>
> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>
>> 1. Cool.
>>
>> 2. By thine command.
>>
>> 3. As I have nether, I don't care which one you pick.
>>
>> I'm not volunteering to do it because I am software-inept, but the
>> Wikia idea seems simple It's free (I think?) simple (for people who
>> aren't me) and accessable. I think someone brought up the worry about
>> vandalism, but is that *really* a concern? No one in our group is
>> going to do it and I don't think people go trolling for wiki sites of
>> eight members to vandalize.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, exactly.
>>>
>>> That's 50+ posts in UNDER 2 hours, guys.
>>>
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>> Okay, what I've determined from the last 2 hours:
>>>
>>> 1. We're going with the near-future setting. Seems to be the consensus
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> 2. We're not going with post scales, etc.
>>>
>>> 3. I'm seriously thinking of making AIM mandatory. No, not kidding. I can
>>> use AIM or MSN, but everybody seems to use AIM already.
>>> What's next:
>>>
>>> Who wants to volunteer to do advertising, web design, graphics?
>>>
>>> Even just one person per task would be good.
>>>
>>> While we get that started...Actually, no. BEFORE I start work on the
>>> timeline and stuff, I want to see people lined up for that stuff. Only way
>>> it'll get done.:)
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any quibbles on timeline date? My persnickety side wants to
>>> start in an off-year (2013, 2017, etc) like last time.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My argument would be that it relies on us to not have a subjective
>>>> viewpoint -- which, speaking from an educated standpoint, is naive at
>>>> best. Anyway, John's not interested, so the point is gone.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>