I would agree that "Choosing Games" should be general, more of a guide than some sort of elite inclusion list. Perhaps you should re-write it that way?
Also, I did read all of the vamping-up of categories discussion, and from I saw, it went nowhere. People said "oh we should do this" or "we should do that" or "wow, that's a great idea", but no one DID ANYTHING. The whole point of a wiki is that anyone can edit it. So, once you think of a good idea, GO DO IT. No whining that nothing got done. Go fix it yourself.
On 4/13/07, David Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OK, I have pondered this some, and I have some strong words regarding
the "Choosing Games" wiki page's current conceptual make-up.
* Given: Publishing a pyramid game has so far been controlled through
Looney Labs' ability and willingness to print.
* Given: The vast majority of Icehouse games have been created after
Hypothermia went out of print.
* Given: I haven't heard of or seen an Icehouse Game Design contest
since I've been an owner of pyramids.
* Given: Many Icehouse games can't translate to a computer format--and
I'd argue many more SHOULDN'T (whatever happened to getting together
Given the above, I posit that a game will NEVER qualify for Choosing
Games again, unless some kind of democratic upsurge of proponents Admin
Requests it enough (and an admin pays any attention to those tags). In
effect, the Choosing Games is a "Past Masters" list and nothing more;
it's fossilization flies in the face of wiki principles; and it's the
FIRST scent of elitism I've EVER smelled around a Looney product. Yes,
I've nothing against a "Suggested Games" page on the wiki--perhaps even
something with digg-like elements or kudoes or any one of the bajillion
web devices for ranking page content. But a title like "Choosing Games"
should be about CHOICE, not "gatekeeping" or "qualifying" or "popular".
I have to be published to qualify? Fine; I'll start PODing all my games;
and only put cross-links on the wiki, to my Buy It Now site; and then
they ALL will get on that page, right? So long as I am charging for the
game, it can "qualify" as a Choosing Games game? *blech*
I started this who thing by suggesting we vamp up the Categories... then
that we go all-in with an actual custom database that tells a user EVERY
game he or she could play with a given collection. But I wish I'd kept
my mouth shut, if the whole discussion is going to come full circle
with "resolutions" like:
* We can't make more meaningful Categories; just let users flail about
with vague ones. (FYI, I have discovered that, yes, I can make new
Categories trivially--I did so for Roleplaying Games--so it's only a
matter of combing through obsolete Categories, to relocate games to new
* Database integration into a wiki is "impossible" or "too hard" (even
though a wiki IS a database).
* A game must somehow "qualify" for inclusion on the ONE page that
half-assedly accomplishes database-like sorting.
Do I sound pissed? I am. The whole direction of this greater wiki
discussion just stinks.
I want the wiki to be a powerful, usable tool for new players; I want it
to put all these cool games in folks' faces, so that they go out and
complete their collections; I think the democracy of a wiki makes folks
feel like Looney Labs is an open and liberal company in which they can
directly participate (even though, yes, the wiki is technically
But I am only one voice. Who else feels as I do, and how many of us
"qualify" as a majority vote? See, I think, when you're trying to push
exclusion with regards to ANYTHING regarding Looney Labs... well, I
think *one* NAY vote IS a majority veto.
Hoping for a return to Looney attitudes;
Icehouse mailing list