Subject:
|
Re: A Gentle Plea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:23:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2104 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, Leonard Hoffman writes:
>
> > Why not make CastleQuest a sub-forum like CW was? its virtually the same thing.
> > then, put a link on the main castle page (i know, have to talk that out with
> > the webmaster) to it.
>
> This is easier said than done. Also, from the web interface point of view
> (going to lugnet.com and searching about rather than news-server or whatever)
> stuff going into .castle.org.cw looks exactly the same as stuff in .castle. So
> creating a subgroup, as far as trying to keep the discussion somewhat
> seperated, doesn't really work.
>
> > I know posts like the roll call take up space etc, but why ban them? unless >its
> > a totally interesting topic that everybody will like, dont post?
> >
> > If the friendliest place on the internet has restrictions like this, i dont
> > want to be a part of it.
>
> umm... This sounds a lot like "if it's ain't my way, I'm leaving." Lugnet has
> rules (restrictions if you will). They are loose rules, but rules
> none-the-less. All of life is about rules and restrictions. Parts of what
> makes Lugnet "friendly" is how the people who apart of it interact with
> eachother, and THAT is governed by Lugnet's rules.
>
> If I wanted to talk about pirate stuff or western stuff, I'd go there. This
> may not be "just a game" to you, but it certainly looks that way to other
> people. What is the problem with discussing in a slightly different forum? Do
> you follow some rule that says you can only post to .castle? Aside from being
> very adamant about this, you haven't said why posting in .fun.gaming is so
> horrible that you would be moved to leave lugnet entirely. Why?
>
> It seems to me a perfectly reasonable idea that development of the game could
> move elsewhere. This is in as much concern for CastleQuest as for people not
> interested; it would stream line the brainstorming/development phase and move
> faster into actual gameplay.
>
> > Sorry for extremely ranting, but this is how i feel on this subject, and i am
> > not going to tiptoe around it.
>
> Expressing how you feel is always a good thing, but remember to temper your
> feelings with reason and a respect of others.
>
> -lenny
>
> and to always connect this back to the brick:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=309229
the reason i dont want this in .fun.gaming is because its suppost to be with
.castle. it is a project for .castle, like CW, IOM and the MM are. in fact, the
MM is a part of CQ.
Yes, i was overreacting there. Im not trying to say that "if it isnt my way, im
leaving," but as i stated, this is meant for ,Castle.
And, this isnt just "not a game" to me. it is not intirly a game. The brick art
is suppost to be the intire purpose of this. if it was a game, it would be
played without bricks etc.
But overall, im going to stop arguing about this.
Anybody who thinks it has potential, step up.
Im already putting the rules together. They will then be modified into
something good.
Aramir
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Gentle Plea
|
| (...) Here are the descriptions of the two groups: lugnet.fun.gaming– LEGO-centered gaming: puzzles, building challenges, role-playing games, strategy games, treasure hunts, etc. lugnet.castle– LEGO SYSTEM Castle™: products (information, opinions, (...) (22 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.castle)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Gentle Plea
|
| (...) This is easier said than done. Also, from the web interface point of view (going to lugnet.com and searching about rather than news-server or whatever) stuff going into .castle.org.cw looks exactly the same as stuff in .castle. So creating a (...) (22 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.castle)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
