| |
<Snippage>
Anthony Sava's original message to Richard Marchetti:
>
> Now to be fair, I will have to say that if I were to become the CW
> admin, I'd make some serious changes. Such as a total cosmetic make
> over, revamping of the navigation set up, as well as an update to all
> the links and the removal of broken links (and perhaps even CW members
> who have been MIA for over a year).
I don't find it too bad. The overall site navigation is fine. The initial
welcome screen looks flat and slightly boring. The artwork is fine, though.
The real problem, I find, is that there are MANY incorrect links.
I find it mildly frusterating, and I am sure the novice would find it even
worse.
There has to be a happy medium. Perhaps, at this point, a total make-over
isn't the answer.
Here's what I see would be a solution (In my opion, etc.)
1. An update to the initial welcome screen
2. A Fix to ALL the links. (I know that pretty well all Anthony Sava's links
are all pointing to his old Geocities account, and not his OZbricks one).
3. Udating it or at least open it to new members, or new stuff older members are
currently working on.
4. Add some new areas, like a Hall of Fame for creations and sigfigs - a great
place to showcase them, no?
I'd also work on getting new blood,
> and perhaps even more community mini-IOM-like events, some of which I've
> been discussing with others like Leonard Hoffman. Castle World would
> remain a place to showcase Balladeers and their works, but if it were
> given to me, I would make it my own.
>
> Anyway, that's all I have to say. I hope whatever choice you make,
> Castle World will benefit from it. Ben Medinets, Lenny and I all agree
> that getting Castle World back in its feet is one of the core stepping
> stones to getting Lugnet.castle back into the main stream.
>
> --Anthony
So maybe a drastic change isn't totally the right idea. The spirit of the post
was to bring life back to the CastleWorld.
CastleWorld is just one facet of bringing more interest to the theme.
Having resources in place is really key to helping the core Castle fans
maintain their enthusiasm for building, and to encourage them to keep on
building.
Hopefully having their stuff high-lighted and praised, will encourage them
to at least locally display their stuff in public, and attract others in
their community to do like-wise.
So what is the real goal of it all? I think it would be to get existing
builders to continue building, and to encourage others to start building or
return to building.
<more snippage>
> In the main, I think we may be discussing merely the name "Castle World," the
> available space on Ozbricks, and the email account. The CW site "as is," and
> which I have taken some time to archive, was originally entrusted to me as
> something that should not be changed -- even in it's appearance. Drag, I
> know. The only change I insisted upon was to change the main page menu to
> reflect existing artwork as already provided by Craig Hamilton -- which is
> the page you see here:
I think Richard makes a valid point. Their has been a lot of effort on past
"care-takers" on the site, so a total make-over would in many cases erase
their past efforts. And their efforts, in the past, at least, have been
something that the current community might want to learn from and emmulate.
>
> <http://www.ozbricks.net/castle/>
I think the art work was really great. As I said earlier in this post/rant, I
personally find the initial welcome page to be flat, other than the
art work.
> I wanted to honor the past by properly archiving it. My CW link buttons are
> based on the same artwork. And I'd like to keep that much going also -- in a
> way, I have branded it already, so let's not change the branding! Because I
> think he contributed a lot of good things to the community I was even
> considering an additional section of Craig's old webpages. It is my
> observation that much of his stuff was greatly admired and it is now offline.
> Absent his own objection, I would archive it online also. I also have what
> may be the only existing sketches of TIOM's intended map beyond the hands of
> either Craig or Pawel themselves -- those maps could also be archived online.
>
> The existence of an archive does not disparage the possibility of an ongoing
> project that could break out in a new way. We could absolutely have both the
> Castle World "archive," and a new Castle World besides. The new Castle World
> would be the main page, and the archive would merely be a link from that
> page.
I think you are right about this. Both the old archive of Castle world and
the new one have to co-exist, and must co-exist. If we erase the past,
we cannot learn from it and move on. We remain stagnant.
> My concerns are not to compete with something else that may be in the works
> and also not to diminish what has gone before. I was offering CW cooperation
> to whatever was in development, I'm not at all sure we should work it to
> further divide what's left of us in Castle. Even if I did move forward with
> CW in some way, I'd probably maintain at least some kind of advisory
> position, I think. As it stands I am curator of the CW sub-newsgroup on
> lugnet also, and I would probably keep that -- it being much simpler than the
> maintenance of the CW site itself.
Another good point. Let's not make this issue a reason to further divide
the community.
>
> BTW, maintaining the CW site basically makes you everyone else's ({expletive
> deleted}): they send you pics and text and you have to pop it up as HTML.
So far, the format, and your (Richard Marchetti) efforts have been really
good in getting stuff on in that format.
> And these people have innumerable difficulties understanding the simplest
> things too! It's quite the hassle and not nearly as rewarding as you'd
> think. I would actually suggest that maybe we should just archive the site
> for now and see what other's have planned. Maybe CW has seen it's day. I
> dunno...
I surely hope not!! Maybe it isn't the experience you'd care to repeat, but
I think that your efforts up to now have been great.
>
> FWIW, I have no problems having these discussions in public -- in fact, I
> prefer that. When people have these private discussions, others are sure to
> feel left out -- esp. when they learn of them later. I don't feel that way
> about private discussions myself, but others might. Plus, I'd very much like
> others to be informed of what is under discussion and this stuff is
> absolutely on topic for the CW sub-newsgroup. It would be my impulse to post
> these two emails to lugnet: your email to me, and also this response. Do you
> agree?
>
> -- Richard
> I just thought you'd like to know. Everything's in the open with CW as long
> as I am in charge. Post your thoughts here, don't write to me privately.
> That policy subject to change upon someone else being in charge.
>
> Please post followups accordingly.
Open posts vs. private posts...
that is an interesting topic.
I will respect your wishes and bring out my opinions regarding castle world.
At the onset, especially in the initial planning stages, I don't see the
problem with key personnel exchanging personally e-mail. Doing it this way
reduces the "noise".
However, there is always a time and place for open discussion, epecially
when it involves CastleWorld.
Lastly, Richard Marchetti (Hop Frog), expressed his wish to maintain
curatorship of CastleWorld itself. I don't think that is a problem.
Your efforts on the side-bar are very good. Also, having your input
with regards to CastleWorld would maintain the organization structure
that we (in the Castle Community) are trying to keep.
Thanks, Ben
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Castle Builder's Guild
|
| The following private correspondence took place today via email. It is posted here in the spirit of openness and to further conversation about castle group projects. Subj: Castle World Date: 8/13/2003 1:27:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.castle.org.cw, FTX)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
