[arg_discuss] [sig] Moderation

[Andrea Phillips]

On Dec 14, 2005, at 6:11 AM, Colin Gehrig wrote:

> And from the website: "This SIG has been founded to bring together  
> those
> already designing, building, and running ARGs, in order to share
> knowledge, experience, and ideas for the future. We hope to spark
> renewed debate and experimentation on the uses and pros of ARGs,  
> and to
> help developers new to the genre to develop good products first-time
> round." So now I'm a little puzzled.

This is a good question, and pretty important for the direction of  
the SIG. :) Our intention has been that *anybody* can join the list  
and participate in the discussion. That said, we do want to keep the  
list on the topic of ARG development and design, or at least on  
topics easily related to that. We can't require that you must have  
produced an ARG with at least five sites, one voice mail, and two IM  
chats or anything like that. We're open to commercial and grassroots  
developers alike, and aim to be helpful to both.

It should be patently obvious to everyone that this is neither the  
right place to leave clues for a game, nor is it the right place to  
look for them, and certainly not the right place to ask about them.  
My feeling is that if players are interested in ARG design, then they  
are welcome to join the list; and in fact, such players will probably  
provide valuable feedback in the flow of conversation. At the same  
time, we do want to stay on topic, and I'd like to encourage players  
to respect that.

So let's call it a few simple posting guidelines:

1. New threads should be significant to ARG design/development in  
some way.
2. Replies can be from anywhere, so long as they are at least  
tangentially related to the topic.
3. New threads from people asking questions are particularly  
encouraged, so long as they're in line with #1 above.
4. No playing.

How does this work for everyone?

--
Andrea Phillips
http://www.perplexcity.com
http://www.deusexmachinatio.com