To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.castleOpen lugnet.castle in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Castle / 17931
17930  |  17932
Subject: 
Re: Castle World is dead.
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.castle.org.cw, lugnet.castle
Date: 
Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:18:54 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
118 times
  
All you guys want to do with CW is turn it into a game forum, and CW was NEVER about gaming. That’s what I don’t understand.

CW was NEVER about gaming. Never!

I also personally find it annoying that no one has responded directly to Pawel’s post here: http://news.lugnet.com/castle/org/cw/?n=1822 Y’all would rather just gripe about how I am just not going to hand off CW to someone who doesn’t care at all about the original spirit of the project. Um, well -- duh! Pawel, the creator of CW, is basically being blown off. Y’all and can rail against me as pleases you, I more or less don’t care. But snubbing Pawel shows your true colors, at least to me if not to him (and I speak only for myself in this post).

Frankly, I think there may be too much bad blood to do anything with the project now. I will let Pawel decide what he wants to do in terms of his own involvement, as is befitting since CW is his baby and always was. As for myself, I don’t intend to do a stitch of work to help any of you. Certainly, not very much more work if anything at all.

I am sadly reminded of how many of you basically hated Craigo’s ingenious map idea. It was modular, it was infinitely expandable, everybody could have what sections pleased them, etc. -- it should have been prefect! Instead, I seem to remember lots of posts about land-grabs and resistance to the use of Lego motifs and animal shapes for the land masses. What a tedious lot y’all can be...

I was open to new ways to move forward, but no one ever offered either the necessary skills (very separate from enthusiasm for castle stuff -- HTML, CSS, FTP, image manipulation, etc) or made a suggestion that didn’t just sound like D&D style gaming straight off. When Anthony Sava made his suggestion (and while I liked some of his ideas) he was knowingly stepping on my and unknowingly stepping on Pawel’s toes. It was something like a coup attempt to appoint himself de facto admin. That was a rather obnoxious thing to do, don’t you think? Even under a Parliamentary system, there is a Prime Minister -- and at least for a time that person has been me. The funny thing is that if he had been just a little more patient he could have done whatever he wanted under Pawel’s Guild plan and I would have gladly given him the keys to his Guild. Then he and his fellows could have done whatever they wished with it. Maybe that will still happen, I don’t know.

Pawel and I were implementing something that was intended as being VERY hands-off in nature -- pointedly so because I wanted to have to do as little work as possible. There was just a surface hint of organization so that things wouldn’t just careen madly every which way and without at least some vague sense of direction, but that’s about it. Some genius suggested that I would then with minimal effort be claiming authorship of CW -- I ask you: precisely how and why would I try to claim the work of other individuals or groups as my own? If some group had organized a Guild called “The Annoying Jerks of Castle World,” believe me when I assert that they would have gotten full credit for their project.

What’s funny to me is that I wanted to enable something close to the original spirit of CW, but also providing considerable autonomy to individuals and Guilds. Through lack of patience and what amounts to little more than the heckling of yours truly, you have managed to rebel against the autonomy Pawel and I were going to provide. We had read your posts and ideas and were in the act of distilling those many desires into a usable system. Even gaming Guild’s were going to be possible because when Pawel and I discussed the Guild idea on the phone I argued for it recognizing that lot’s of people wanted that to be possible (however little I understand it).

In sum, this is what we have instead: Sava -- dictatorial, without any right to be. Pile on lots of sour grapes. And many of the rest of you have been little nicer than that.

That’s not much to work with in my view. Why should I even try?

-- Hop-Frog



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Castle World is dead.
 
(...) We arnt TRYING to turn it gaming! Long ago, i had wanted to. No, we want to take the community to the next level, instead of keeping it just a little story-board basically. Why not have tips-n-tricks? Helpful articles? On-Line displays? Role (...) (21 years ago, 4-Sep-03, to lugnet.castle.org.cw, lugnet.castle, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Castle World is dead.
 
_It doesn't belong to you!!! (...) They said if someone else was interested in it, they could take control of it. When someone tried, they refused. (...) Oooh, what if we went back on something? (...) Just leave, right, then? Go make a new board. (...) (21 years ago, 4-Sep-03, to lugnet.castle.org.cw, lugnet.castle)

53 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR