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

[lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca]

I'll volunteer to handle the website, but I need to know what we want/need.

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>