[arg_discuss] Admission criteria for private sub-list

[despain at quantumcontent.com]

I think one admission requirement should be having your name show up in
the credits of an ARG, past or present. Part of the problem with this is
credits often aren't available long term. Something the history of ARGs
might be able to help with? I don't know.

I don't think there should be a distinction between a "professional" ARG
and a "grassroots" ARG - if it was an ARG, or anything close to an ARG,
the credits are your ticket behind the curtain.

This doesn't help with the problem of people who are trying to build their
first ARG and want to join. Maybe they could submit an ARG outline or
something, which the existing membership could vote on. Requiring a
certain amount of work would be a barrier to entry, and if you're willing
to put enough time into thinking up a legitimate ARG outline, you probably
'belong' in the group.

Anybody see holes in this plan?

Wendy Despain
quantumcontent.com



>>From the chat logs, there was general interest in a private sub-list

> of the SIG specifically for people to discuss and share things they

> didn't want to:

>

>  - show up on Google searches

>  - be available to players in the normal course of a game

>  - (anything else?)

>

> People cited examples for several different aspects of development, e.g.:

>

>  - peer-review on proposed plot-twists / writing

>  - OOC post-mortem discussion of a game event whilst the game itself

> was still running

>  - non-archived thoughts and questions (less need to worry about the

> exact words used because they aren't going to be quoted back at you in

> the future)

>  - academic discussions

>  - (anything else?)

>

> But for this to go ahead we'd need to decide admission criteria.

> Please could everyone reply to this with ideas / thoughts / etc - if

> you don't, we won't be able to move ahead at all :). If you've ever

> not spoken up because of worries over the publicness of this list,

> please especially help out now.

>

> There are also objections to the idea itself, which we should discuss

> here (or we can wait until we have some basic criteria worked out and

> re-assess how the scheme will work).

>

> Adam

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>