27 Apr, 2012, aelyah wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Idealid - it is ok if the author wants to withdraw her article. Given enough participation, authors will "clamor" for the privilege to have a featured article on the same topic.

The site shouldn't alter the article unless it violates the user agreement. The site has other tools to minimize/maximize the impact of the article on the community as featured articles, to include the author or not in a random article module on the first page and so on.

The author decides whether to alter the article or not based on the feedback received and the gap between the actual and intended impact.

The site could contact the author and discuss the article or could buy the article if needed :)

Just some options :)

/A.
27 Apr, 2012, Jhypsy Shah wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
I might be interested in doing some comics. XD
27 Apr, 2012, aelyah wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Jhypsy, we are thinking so much alike it's scary :D The first version of mudsings was built around a shop selling in game goodies for points, for exactly the same reason: muds can get exposure and benefit from participation. I got stuck on "provisioning" as I had this grand idea of a "service based mud integration architecture". Duh - just thinking like an engineer :) Also the shopping cart software didn't allow for vendors and even the points integration was poor.

Now that I read your note I see that we could probably leave the provisioning/fulfillment to the muds, once they get the order.

So, with a bit of luck, I plan to add this weekend:
- the ability to define a project and solicit funds (paypal)
- the ability to define a group project and solicit contributions (points). If the project fails, the points are returned to the owners.
- a marketplace where users can list items - why not a sword or a trinket in your game? - initially with paypal and probably within the week with points

Would you be willing to betatest ?

Notes - paypal/project - only one per user, 100% of funding goes to the pm, caveat emptor user agreement
- points - the site gets a "cut" of the points
- marketplace - as lpc has a "you cannot make money" license, would it be legal to sell in-game trinkets ? That was another issue I couldn't solve at the time and took the shop out.
- dispute resolution ? ("i did 't get that sword with light and power in its name" :) )

Thoughts?
27 Apr, 2012, Dean wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Jhypsy Shah said:
Like ya said, alot of the MUDs seem to be traditionally non-commercial. As far as I know it's still not common for MUD dev's to sign an NDA? Maybe that creates a barrier to possible collaboration? I've wondered that..


Given the purpose of NDAs in general (or at least, based on my experiences with them to date), I can't see how possibly this would break down any barriers to possible collaboration. If anything, I can see it doing the opposite. Given that we are talking about non-commercial MUDs, there's also the cost factor of drawing up a legally binding NDA and the ability to enforce it at a later date.

Quix said:
This will come across as rather flamey, but it's cold this morning, so deal. :)

The author will be mocked and called a Lucas or Spielberg if they try to modify an article that's already been published. That's why editors exist, to catch mistakes before they hit the (virtual) press.

Honestly, I don't get this recent obsession with being able to "withdraw" or "change" what's already been published. Has the age of electronic writing turned everyone into spineless nits that can't ever just declare something "done" and move on? Once something ever hits the internet, it's 100% pointless to "withdraw" it, because somebody (somewhere) will have an archived copy that can be found, no matter how many lawyers you send out trying to burn them all.


Editors are only human, so some things still get through. :tongue:

I think there are benefits to being able to modify an article after the fact (re: being published). I might for example write an article that, at an unspecified period of time in the future, remains largely relevant except for a small part. Instead of writing a new article entirely to address that part, I could just modify it in the existing article to bring it into line with the rest of the piece. If the only reason an article is being withdrawn or modified is because the internet got its pitch fork and torches out though, then yeah, I would agree that it is pointless to do either.
27 Apr, 2012, Jhypsy Shah wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
writers can be fun. XD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRJ2xl-B3...

..we were messing around with the idea a few years ago of combining popular tags for game and anime reviews and previews, with whatever stoopid we came up with that day.
28 Apr, 2012, Tyche wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
This will come across as rather flamey, but it's cold this morning, so deal. :)

The author will be mocked and called a Lucas or Spielberg if they try to modify an article that's already been published. That's why editors exist, to catch mistakes before they hit the (virtual) press.

IR was where I first learned of AmberMud.
28 Apr, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
IR was where I first learned of AmberMud.

Ouch. And he typed it twice as well, so the 'm' isn't just an accidental typo. But a fairly knowledgeable bunch have signed up on the IR forums (including you), and if we're reading the articles before they're made public we should pick up on things like that.
20.0/27