 | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) The one thing that I would like to see, is that if the author agrees, have the DAT available during voting. I think that would allow better access to the models, and also motivate more people to actually try installing LDraw, which in turn can (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
With 64 messages in 4 days, the discussion regarding by proposed changes is good. I'm posting this message to refocus the discussion and tie all the fragments together. Here's a point by point breakdown of my proposal and some thoughts about the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Hey, there's a nifty idea. Further, the FoTM (if structured to encourage explanation of techniques and so forth in the writeup) could end up being awarded to a file that didn't necssarily make a spectacular display but that did demonstrate (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) How about three contests: SotM, MotM and LDR file of the Month? (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) That's unjustified (as in, you haven't justified that view, merely stated it) and dismissive and not really a good attitude to take, in my view. (...) um, 6 out of 17 (see (URL) ) isn't really "mostly". It might be a plurality but it's way (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
