[arg_discuss] ARG SIG in 2007

[Brian Clark]

Happy to be involved in whatever format (and I'll be up for GDC in March,
which seems like a good meta time for some face-to-face).

Downside of IRC (can you tell I've PMed?) is that it tends to produce noisy
conversations full of short ideas and lacks the emotional nuance of voice
communications. Conversely, it's more difficult to filibuster and less
likely to succumb to the tyranny of the long-winded. 

-----Original Message-----
From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On
Behalf Of James Jones
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 6:01 AM
To: 'Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG'
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [arg_discuss] ARG SIG in 2007

I vote for IRC as well. I help run an IRC network and I am sure I could get
something arranged.

-----Original Message-----
From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On
Behalf Of Paul Williams
Sent: Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:41 p.m.
To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG
Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] ARG SIG in 2007

Being the IRC nerd I am I also "vote" for IRC. I have experience (and 
also run my own IRC network) in getting things like webchats, logging, 
inter-channel connections and whatnot setup. Most corporate firewalls 
don't block packets, like you mention, but rather just the common ports 
(6667, 6697, etc etc). A CGI:IRC  program should be able to solve any 
issues regarding not being able to access through a corporate firewall, 
or even just a random port number being opened for client connections.

But this is all off-topic ;)

Being quite new to the SIG has left me somewhat on the outside of 
things. I'm not a puppetmaster. I've only played (am playing) one ARG, 
that is considered to be out of the ordinary for most ARGs. However, I 
am all for getting involved in the development of ARGs - which is 
probably why I haven't unsubscribed from this list yet. I'll be at the 
chat to lend whatever it is I can to it. :-)

~ Paul Williams

Adam Martin wrote:

> On 31/12/06, Gupfee <gupfee at gmail.com> wrote:

>   

>> I would prefer an IRC chat, myself.  Telechat has several problems

>>     

>

> Sorry for the confusion, but Skype was cited only for the

> chatroom-based messaging system part, not the voice part. Most of the

> IM systems these days have all the same features, Skype isn't really

> anything special, just a free cross-platform one that happens to be

> particularly good at punching through firewalls (e.g. the last place I

> worked blocked all outgoing and incomnig IRC traffic through

> packet-inspection, but skype went through fine - they had a corporate

> policy of not allowing any IRC in particular).

>

>   

>> Can you tell I'm a fan of IRC? :)  I know there are many of us who are

>> channel operators on chat-solutions.org, where most ARG-related chat

>> happens these days anyways, so if you want any help setting up a

>> channel or the like, please let me know.  I'd be happy to help.

>>     

>

> Thanks, if everyone's happy with IRC that would be great.

>

> Adam

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

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

>

>   


_______________________________________________
ARG_Discuss mailing list
ARG_Discuss at igda.org
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/01/2007
2:50 p.m.
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/01/2007
2:50 p.m.
 

_______________________________________________
ARG_Discuss mailing list
ARG_Discuss at igda.org
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss