• AbstractConceptsGraveyard

::/home/robh/unity/unityfiles/text/AbstractConceptsGraveyard:1082895424:: Moved by SimonBooth on Sun 25 Apr 2004

Moved by SimonBooth on Wed 01 Oct 2003

Moved by SimonBooth on Tue 29 Apr 2003

expired lock:

Moved by RobHague on 2003-03-11

<<< not really an abstract concept, but I can't think where else to put this -- AldenSpiess >>>

<<< Is the above (until ...) considered harmful, beneficial, ok, irrelevant? MikePitt >>>

• <<< I quote:

  To express myself a little more clearly : we are building a world where some certainties are needed - for example, that the game will always take place in Unity, that there will always be a Unity, and IMHO that there is always a club to assume characters are members of (as it is a useful way of introducing plots, bringing in new characters, explaining why characters arn't around, providing a particular type of NPC etc). Because of this I oppose any move which would make us think the club was founded for sinister motives, destroy the club or substantially alter its purpose in the game. This isn't to say that the club, its founders or what have you shouldn't be involved in adventures, just not modified without general agreement.

  Think of the club much as you would think of The Enterprise in Star Trek, destroying it is bad, finding out that a designer added a rouge AI in the weapons control system 30 years ago is fine. -- BenChalmers

  This met with general agreement, and I'd like to agree with it again.-- SimonBooth >>>

  <<< Indeed. And I wasn't planning to do anything outside the scope of that. I'd just like a lock on 122 the building so that someone doesn't say something about it that contradicts my plot.

  I'm not going to blow it up. Have some faith in me, please. -- AldenSpiess >>>

  <<< See StyleOfPlay -- MikePitt >>>

  <<< Apologies if I've offended you, Alden. I didn't mean to. I certainly didn't mean that you might destroy the club; I was agreeing specifically with Ben's sinisterness comments, not specifically the destruction ones. I only kept those in because I didn't want to take someone else's words out of context, and because the whole of it does bear stating somewhere other than on a now-obsolete page. Also, if I may use Mike's terminology, I took you to mean you'd like to own the 122 building, as opposed to locking it until after your plot; and I do feel that the club should be everybody's (as indeed should the map, so people should prod me as needed) -- SimonBooth >>>

  <<< No worries - obviously any one person owning 122 the bulding would break style of play. I would just like a temporary lock on 122 until my scenario has completed. If anyone needs to modify it before then let me know - I'm sure it won't be a problem. -- AldenSpiess >>>

<<< damn, there goes my plot about the Glory of Molasses... -- SimonBooth >>>

<<< BenChalmers would have me belive "Ia" is a word heavily used in the summoning of monsters. Suddenly the song 'GlorIa' makes far more sense. -- AldenSpiess >>>

<<< BenChalmers thinks StevenKitson is just cribbing plots from JossWheedon -- BenChalmers >>>

<<< Do I see a AbstractConceptsGraveyard on the horizon? What a wonderful idea. Suggestions, anyone? -- AldenSpiess >>>

<<< Good call - the world would be great without Suggestions. -- SimonBooth >>>

<<< Can someone explain to me the glory joke? MikePitt >>>

<<< Is the whole SomethingSomethingGraveyard thing getting a bit wierd? Oh, and if Glory is turning up, I'm glad JackProctors in New York... -- RobHague >>>

<<< The Graveyard thing happened while my back was turned; what would be wrong with just a single big Graveyard page? And do we really need to keep everything? (Of course if we have versioning we could just delete it nd know it would always be there). And no plot of mine would ever be as messy as Glory (how long was she on Earth, then? Twenty-four years or six centuries?). --StevenKitson >>>

<<< 1) It got too big. 2) It would be nice 3) wibble -- SimonBooth >>>

<<< In the long term, versioning would probably be the best way to go. However, I can't program it at the moment (due to the fact the IBM might would get shirty about it). If someone else wants to do it, feel free, but bear in mind that the on-disc format of Wiki pages may change (both Ben and I like the idea of it being in XML, which would then allow us to do more complex things in a more sensible way). Until there is proper version control, multiple Graveyards seems like the best compromise; as Simon says, the single DiscussionsGraveyard page was getting unwieldy. Automating the process (with, say, an extra edit box on the Edit Text page to dump stuff in) would seem like an easy stop-gap; again, if anyone wants to implement this, feel free. -- RobHague >>>

<<< I'm looking at modifying the work MoinMoin wiki to do versioning properly using CVS - might that be useful? -- Steve McIntyre >>>

<<< It might, in one of two ways; either we could take that code and adapt it to UnityWiki, or we could scrap UnityWiki altogether, and switch to MoinMoin. I'd rather the former, as I'm quite enjoying it as a project (my enforced haitus non-withstanding), and there were also reasons that I didn't use MoinMoin in the first place (primarily that the SRCF doesn't have distutils installed). However, if the consensus is to move to MoinMoin, probably hosted somewhere other than the SRCF for the reasons already mentioned, then I'm happy to go with that (of course, I'd petition for a return to UnityWiki once it's been rewritten as a lean, mean XML-and-versioning machine).

In theory, it should be relativly easy to migrate the data, as they're both based around PikiPiki. However, there are a couple of mutual incompatibilities; I think MoinMoin does certain formatting things in a different way, and, if I recall, there isn't markup for comments, which we've come to use quite heavily.

Opinions?

-- RobHague >>>

<<< Well, I vote we stay with UnityWiki. Presumably you can apply patches we send you without IBM worrying too much... -- SimonBooth >>>

<<< Yes, because the copyright will be held by whoever's written it. The easiest way to get a patch is to check an updated version into CVS; I can then just log on to the SRCF machine and do CVS update. As mentioned on the UnityWiki page, if anyone wants CVS access, get a SourceForge user ID and mail me, and I'll add you as a developer. -- RobHague >>>

<<< I wasn't necessarily suggesting a move. It's just once I've done the changes for MoinMoin then it should be relatively easy to do the same for UnityWiki. And our MoinMoin has comments - I nicked your code! -- Steve McIntyre >>>