forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

We also have to assume that there are readers who have not seen the posted material. Also, this would give the original authors of the material a chance to revise and improve it for publication in HoF.

Otaku-sempai wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:47 pm

We also have to assume that there are readers who have not seen the posted material. Also, this would give the original authors of the material a chance to revise and improve it for publication in HoF.

What about old content that isn't going to appear in HoF? People will still need to look for that. Also, authors may not revise/improve the content like you suggest. Stuff is pretty easy to find on this website, especially with Stuart's Palantir, especially pdf documents that have been created, general forum content's a bit harder but that's not what I'm talking about here.

If you go with old content then it could literally be dozens of issues before you get through the historic stuff which would be a big turn off; "yeah, I read the first couple of issues of HoF but it was mostly old content so I don't look at it anymore". Or you could go with a 50/50 spread of new and old; a better option, but you're still wading through old content. Other Minds doesn't appear to need to do that, so why should Hall of Fire? Links to peoples' content may be a smarter way to go. I simply don't think regurgitating content that can be found elsewhere, and pretty easily, is the way to go. Personal opinion though and one I'm not supporting with my own content; although I may create new stuff - mind you, I'm collaborating on stuff for Thomas (OM) at the moment, so that will have to wait.

Perhaps, the submission process could ask whether this is new content or old and if old whether its been revised. Then such old material could only be used to back fill if there isn't enough new material. That feels like the best way to go. Using old content to make up for lean times when new content isn't forthcoming.

Rich H wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:38 pm

Perhaps, the submission process could ask whether this is new content or old and if old whether its been revised. Then such old material could only be used to back fill if there isn't enough new material. That feels like the best way to go. Using old content to make up for lean times when new content isn't forthcoming.

This seems like a very good solution to me. Like Rich, I'd prefer to see new stuff where possible. I'm not completely opposed to older stuff as he is (though it would certainly be nice if it can be revised rather than simply lifted off the web), but prioritising new content and only using older material as necessary seems an excellent idea.

Rich H wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:38 pm

What about old content that isn't going to appear in HoF? People will still need to look for that. Also, authors may not revise/improve the content like you suggest. Stuff is pretty easy to find on this website, especially with Stuart's Palantir, especially pdf documents that have been created, general forum content's a bit harder but that's not what I'm talking about here.

What of it? Just because some material has been seen here doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve wider exposure. And if someone does not submit material to Hall of Fire then that is a matter of choice.

If you go with old content then it could literally be dozens of issues before you get through the historic stuff which would be a big turn off; "yeah, I read the first couple of issues of HoF but it was mostly old content so I don't look at it anymore". Or you could go with a 50/50 spread of new and old; a better option, but you're still wading through old content. Other Minds doesn't appear to need to do that, so why should Hall of Fire? Links to peoples' content may be a smarter way to go. I simply don't think regurgitating content that can be found elsewhere, and pretty easily, is the way to go. Personal opinion though and one I'm not supporting with my own content; although I may create new stuff - mind you, I'm collaborating on stuff for Thomas (OM) at the moment, so that will have to wait.

Those are editorial decisions. I would be very surprised if older material was given complete priority over new submissions--nor should it be. New content should be the priority, but that should not rule out articles covering material here.

Perhaps, the submission process could ask whether this is new content or old and if old whether its been revised. Then such old material could only be used to back fill if there isn't enough new material. That feels like the best way to go. Using old content to make up for lean times when new content isn't forthcoming.

Something along these lines at least.

You can publish a weekly issue with "The Story of Deadly Archery". There's enough material for a few numbers of any fanzine!

Falenthal wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:19 pm

You can publish a weekly issue with "The Story of Deadly Archery". There's enough material for a few numbers of any fanzine!

Heh, heh. Nicely played.

Earendil wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:08 pm

Rich H wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:38 pm

Perhaps, the submission process could ask whether this is new content or old and if old whether its been revised. Then such old material could only be used to back fill if there isn't enough new material. That feels like the best way to go. Using old content to make up for lean times when new content isn't forthcoming.

This seems like a very good solution to me. Like Rich, I'd prefer to see new stuff where possible. I'm not completely opposed to older stuff as he is (though it would certainly be nice if it can be revised rather than simply lifted off the web), but prioritising new content and only using older material as necessary seems an excellent idea.

To be clear, I was taking a more Devil's Advocate on the old material, than anything else, although I would prefer it to be used as filler as suggested. I sort of find it a bit 'creatively lazy' to be submitting and using old material. It also kind of suggests there are simply no new ideas forthcoming from the community which feels unhealthy.

LOL!

The first issue hasn't even been released and it is being critiqued.

Oh well. When we started the first run of HOF, it was for the fans of the game and the wonderful world created by the professor. I will continue in that fashion by accepting all contributions from those who would like to be part of it and make sure their contributions look professionally published.

For those with no interest, that is okay, too.

tomcat wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:22 am

LOL!

The first issue hasn't even been released and it is being critiqued.

Oh well. When we started the first run of HOF, it was for the fans of the game and the wonderful world created by the professor. I will continue in that fashion by accepting all contributions from those who would like to be part of it and make sure their contributions look professionally published.

For those with no interest, that is okay, too.

Cool.

We have been working hard on our first issue release. If all goes well, I can give an estimated release date of 9/20/2017.

Look here for upcoming information on when and where you can get your first issue of the new Hall of Fire webzine.