|
Post by Neros on Mar 20, 2009 2:19:17 GMT -5
I agree with Wildknight about the "one thing at a time" (but who wouldent).. We should take it one rule/subject/problem at a time.. Or at maximum, 3 or so.. If we start working on 12, we might end up with half done rules, which might end getting pushed backward by newer discussions and lost forever.... Or until someone finds them again... So, before we throw in new things we should complete what we already have (or atleast get it to a test stage).. Maybe throw up a thread and sticky it, which explains the "rules" we are trying to follow here to keep it organized..
Malice seems more active than me (I think he atleast has double as many posts here than me), but I try to give my opinion where I feel I have something to say...
|
|
|
Post by malice on Mar 20, 2009 3:36:54 GMT -5
I thought things were being finalized, but somewhat unofficially. In my eyes the process looked like this:
1. Discuss 2. Present potential solutions 3. Argue/edit/refine potential solutions 4. Second set of potential solutions 5. Everyone says "That seems like it could work" 6. Something is finalized (Was supposed to be play-tested. TWF is apparently having computer problems) 7. New person comes along and says "but, but" 8. Either old Guard *politely* explains to new guy why there are no buts, or they realize that he has a very good point and they need to take a second look at the thing. This shouldn't take as long since they've already looked at it a dozen different ways.
That's actually been how several of the threads have looked, and that process seems OK for getting things ready. However I agree that since there is no senior editor that things aren't "official"ly approved or disapproved often enough.
My solution has been to build on the things I liked or that everyone else liked. The AP system is a good example. It's actually pretty cheap as it is, but the thread doesn't have a lot of nay-saying so I don't argue with it. The trick is not to let yourself think you're the best authority on things. Some stuff is good because everyone BUT YOU said so.
Anyway, DEFINITELY create a small committee of people who have final say on things. But make sure that: IF someone comes along and points out a MAJOR flaw in your design, have the PATIENCE and the HUMILITY to go back and fix it. Most of the time they won't have something that crashes your work. You just have to respect and observe their argument properly the first time instead of letting your irritation post before you thought about it. It's like an illness, you have to catch it early and address it properly or else it's going to get really bad.
At least six times in this 2.0 project I've written long reactive posts and then realized they weren't going to help anything so I just deleted the whole thing and started over. Read. Think. Respond.
|
|
|
Post by dariustad on Mar 27, 2009 2:40:31 GMT -5
It can also be useful to lock old threads (if possible) to prevent really old arguments from being 1) reinvented, 2) reignited, or 3) appended with excess drivel (or 4) all of the above).
I know, I know. Thread locking is "the last thing that should be done" for some people, but when you're trying to move forward with a major project like this, the best idea is to remove the parts you have solved from contention.
Then, once you have a working document (a.k.a. the alpha or beta release), then you reopen everything for peer review.
Right now, the working document should take precedence over individual egos.
My two cents. No change accepted.
Oh, and a "tribunal" is a good idea. Even if all you do is gather together the data and assemble the parts into a rough draft that you then resubmit to the board for review. Given the awkward nature of a forum, three may be too few. Forums are disjointed at best, and if 4 or 5 of you (including TWF) have been the most vocal about the changes, include them all. Assign tasks or discuss quietly to the side, but keep your options controlled and your work load (and personal stress level) balanced.
|
|