User talk:Jgravitt

Add topic
From Looney Pyramid Games Wiki

Thanks for contributing Take That!. You may use the infobox to link from your name to your user page, but it looks as if your user page has been Eeyore'd. Would you like to tell us any more about yourself there? Happy editing! — Rootbeer (Tom) (U | T | C) 21:28, 2 Jun 2005 (GMT)

Staging areas[edit source]

As you've found, you may create pages in your "User talk" area as a staging area before moving them to their final homes. That works, but if you would like a staging area, I suggest you simply create subpages of your user page as needed, such as User:Jgravitt/IceGlotz, and move them to their final homes when they're ready. Cheers! — Rootbeer (Tom) (U | T | C) 22:26, 2 Jun 2005 (GMT)

User:Jgravitt/Sandbox[edit source]

How do you know when your game is ready to be moved into the Ready for Playtesting area? Has anyone played King of the Shrinking Iceberg and or Take That? Should I move them?

I'm not even sure where the best place to ask this question is.


You're right. There should be a page something like IcehouseOrg:Sitewide questions. Feel free to start such a page and put your question there, if you don't get enough of an answer here.
As for "Ready for Playtesting", maybe we should set up a page for something like "Playtests running this month". Anybody can put a game on the list, but after seven(?) games, they go onto the waiting list for the next month. People who want to playtest are encouraged to play the games on the current list, discuss them, and suggest improvements on that page (or another, such as its talk page).
Jgravitt and surfers of "Recent changes", what say you? — Rootbeer (Tom) (U | T | C) 14:05, 27 Jun 2005 (GMT)

I like the idea of a monthly playtest areas. That would be nice. I mean, I haven't gotten any feedback on my games and I was really hoping for some. Having that area might generate some nice dialogue and more importantly some game improvements. Thanks John

Of course, having such an area wouldn't guarantee feedback. But it would let us focus people's attention. We should probably limit it to three or so games at a time. I know I wrote "seven" above, but now that I think of it, that's the main thing that keeps me from playtesting more games: Unless I've got time to test all umpteen available games, I'm probably not going to read all umpteen sets of rules and choose one to test. But if there are just three games on this month's "games for playtesting" slate, I'd be willing to give each of them a look, most months. We can always change the number later.
We could either have IcehouseOrg:Current games for playtesting, say, or IcehouseOrg:Games for playtesting, July 2005, the latter giving us a corresponding Talk page for discussion of that month's offerings even after the month has passed. (We can make a #redirect to point to the current month automatically, I think, but it's not hard to manually update, either.) Does anyone object to having a separate page for each month, or have a strong feeling about what the page should be named? — Rootbeer (Tom) (U | T | C) 21:07, 28 Jun 2005 (GMT)