I don't like the idea of the Looney's hosting it, for a number of reasons. It's just one more thing they have to worry about at a time when they really can't. Yes, even if you say you'll devote the time to it, they still have to oversee it in some way. By not having it under their control means it's simply Not Their Problem, and while that seems harsh, it also seems somewhat fair. It's a fan site, and should be kept separate. After all, if someone has a problem with something on it, and complains to the Looneys, if it's under their care, they *will* have to deal with that somehow, and they simply do not have the time or resources available to do that. However, characterising your option B as "Oh, no, jut leave it on the sucky site" is unfair. Yes, I think that something needs to be done, but the Looneys are not the people you should be talking to. The person you *should* be talking to and offering help to is Mike Sugarbaker, who is running the site. He has been active on the site recently, and I'm sure if you contacted him, he'd be willing to talk about options. regards, Timothy On 8/14/07, David Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am writing to ask (a) if the Looneys could host the Icehousegame.org > wiki and (b) what others think about them doing so, if they are willing. > > It is becoming more and more of a problem, day in and day out, trying to > do anything on the wiki. At this very moment, I am "stuck" trying to > save the wiki code for a whole new game elsewhere, becasue the site is > not responding. If it's traffic-related throttling, then it is going to > get a LOT worse (I hope) when the IGDC submissions are announced > worldwide(web). If it's just a crappy hosting service, that's easily > solved by moving to a new host--and I've never found Wunderland or > LooneyLabs to be slow to respond or down on a daily basis. > > If the answer to A above is "no," could you let us know why, in the > event that we can solve any objections? Money, administration, > maintenance time: I am about ready to offer any or all three, if it gets > me a wiki site with 99% uptime. > > (Obviously, if the consensus on B above is "don't do it; leave it on its > current, terrible host" then never mind.) > > David > > _______________________________________________ > Icehouse mailing list > Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse >