Caltrops - The Elder Scrolls





	[quote name="jeep"][quote name="Zseni"]Not as long as I'm here, bringing down the general level of discourse. What I want is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page">Wikipedia</a> full of Caltrops posters, with everyone having the same ability to edit each others' posts and manifesting articles and forums alike in a conglomerate which individual users differentiate for themselves (this person answers "articles" with "articles," this other one uses "talk"; another posts "articles" and "talk" alike to "article" pages, etc. Articles branch off each other; people post reams of chat logs as addenda to articles or to comments of articles, etc. etc. etc.) [/quote] er...ok. I build this kind of stuff at work, I got some hosting (Chet based!), I can play this game. It really isn't hard to make these things, you know. Most of them come prepackaged for nothing. [quote](But divide the articles into pages.)[/quote] maybe. [quote]If there were a Caltropsian wikipedia, my belief that Caltrops is an RPG would be fully implemented (forced on others) by turning content creation and forum chatter alike into a massive round of <a href="http://www.nomic.net/">Nomic</a> a la miasma, with video games and fag jokes as strange attractors. Instantly.[/quote] New rule: no more ether before posting. It doesn't really give you magic points back, and it makes your shit all silly. [quote]Since all the rules would have to be made live and modified by those who follow them. The new forum overlord is not a person, it's the developing ruleset (weak, socially-enforced limiter) and the limitations of the technology at hand (strong arbitrary limiter.)[/quote] status quo it is, then. I hate BBCODE, btw. [quote]Well I'm just interested in seeing how the community develops itself.[quote] er...did we already do this? I think I voted with my feet around the institution of the purple color, just not into it. Different kinds of collaborative software will create different questions, many of which HAVE to be answered beforehand (no really, that's the "limitation of the technology at hand"). The existing software implementations of this don't have owned documents that people can edit anonymously but sign the edits as anyone else or a new person at will. A person who creates CMS software has an interest in tracking the changes to the content and who made them, the anonymous accounts are usually read-only if they are allowed at all. That said, it isn't impossible to break an existing program in this way. [quote]How quickly is it decided that there must be some unchangeable documents[/quote] Now: there will be some unchangeable documents. There will be logins for people to post content as themselves, and as much manipulation by anonymous visitors as possible. The deal breaker is the identity stuff, if the ids are serialized (numbered in the database) but not exclusive (anyone can use your name, but to the server, only you are you) it would work the way the present system does but also allow for some fixed content. I'm not sure any of the software I've used does this in a way that's invisible to the users (there are always ids somewhere in the page source of most of the existing php software for this...annoying) [quote]how soon will someone appoint himself to the office of sherrif[/quote] I'd use the same people you have now for admins, even the crazy ones. Sheriffs are overrated, I hate westerns anyway. Bring on the arrogant, violent samurai. [quote]whether a decision is made to route around a crazy sherrif or to fall in under him, how interested people can stay in the political day-to-day, what gets fought over.[/quote] Yeah you can have this kind of sandbox to play in. [quote]Wikipedia supports itself (internally, as a group project or community) by having a purpose; cutting it loose from that purpose and the laws built up to protect that purpose would be an awesome spectacle of human behavior. I got my panties in a wedge over the Purple Junta and the Crazy Admin; I have my panties in a wedge now that, because of the design and publishing structure, ICJ has to make time to make edits for people perfectly capable of editing their own articles. I won't be fully happy until there are no differences between forum and content besides self-assigned ones, and no differences between admin and user at all.[/quote] wikipedia is a nightmare. I think my hosting deal with Chet is 'no porn,' and for the most part I've stuck to that. On the one hand I'm in the Chet camp where I think editing your posts is a sign of weakness, but on the other hand it's really, really tough to have edits for anonymous posters and block people from editing themselves simultaneously. It may be impossible. [quote]Sticking points: someone has to be the site contact. The massiveness of the proposed system smothers itself without an actual purpose to inflate it. People are generally content with the current system with ICJ as Real Admin and BDR in some nebulously threatening Forum Cop (stuffing donuts down his beleaguered craw, reading posts obsessively to justify his titular badge) role. Nothing intelligent can ever be discussed at Caltrops.[/quote] Actually ICJ and ES and BDR et al. do a good job and could admin any community type site as far as I'm concerned. In fact the biggest sticking point is my new favorite toy, zope, won't run on Chet's servers. I may be able to solve that as well. It's too hot to sleep, I'll take a stab at a mock-up. /jeep/[/quote]