Community Directory

Re: Status Update

@rotalumis @crimsonrose

I still have a copy of your original article and can share it here or privately if that will help jog your memory as to what you submitted. As I told you in the comment above, the article was very incomplete and I give you some direction about how to improve it and fix the issues.

Upon getting your remark about it I changed the title as it was then no longer suitable for the content and I rewrote the parts that I thougth you were referring to when calling it draft notes rather than an article.

I made it clear that markets/blockchain was the whole point of using tokens but, [...]

And I wrote an article on different subject and happened to have had an inappriate title (that was appropiate as to what I intended to write in the first place, but needed changing as I made iterations of the article and focused more on other aspects than the commonly known and often debated idea of tokens representing in-game items or value). Telling me that the article and the title wasn't in sync was good, and was addressed by changing the title.

[..] instead of putting in an effort to talk about that in some detail, you mentioned buying and selling tokens in a few places and changed the title to remove the mention of the blockchain. Your title was fine. I never asked you to change it, but that was easier than reworking the article properly.

I paid attention to the feedback I got, changed the title and updated the article with the intent of addressing the quality issue you mentioned.

I wonder why you say that "the lack of feedback is discouraging" when you didn't pay any attention to the feedback you got.

After updating the article things turned dead silent for week after week. This silence is the main reason I lost interest.

Re: Status Update

@rotalumis Hi @crimsonrose

I've just checked my notes regarding article 453, which was originally called "Gaming, Markets and the Blockchain" and I had told you:

The article you have submitted titled "Gaming, Markets and the Blockchain" is not of sufficient quality to be published on LTB and reads more like partial draft notes for a proper article. You also don't talk much about the markets/blockchain part, which would be the whole point of using tokens in the first place. The number of typos and other errors in the document confirm my suspicion that this is a halfhearted effort, written in a rush.

I am seeing a lot of low-quality posts coming in now that they are earning LTBcoin, which I think is disrespectful. I generally don't have time to respond in such cases -- I just wish I could get back the time I spent reading. However, since you've shown a strong interest in the LTB community, I thought I'd reach out this time and ask you to put in a proper effort in the future.

I remember being surprised at how quickly you resubmitted and you said:

I removed the reference to the blockchain from the title (since the blockchain itself is irrelevant to the context) and have made changes to the article to make it less inconsistent.

That was quite the easy way out, especially when I specifically told you to focus more on the markets and blockchain aspects and after reading your article, I didn't feel you had put in enough effort even though you did mention trading a bit more. I'm sure you know that the whole point of using tokens in games is the market and the blockchain, particularly the markets on the blockchain (decentralized exchanges) that make it possible for players to trade tokens even if your game is not big enough to get listed on a centralized exchange. I don't know why you passed on my advice to improve your article, but your apparent lack of interest in your own work is why I didn't get back to you.

So I had picked a title which didn't end up being reflective of the content as I rewrote the article in several iterations before marking it as ready the first time. Upon getting your remark about it I changed the title as it was then no longer suitable for the content and I rewrote the parts that I thougth you were referring to when calling it draft notes rather than an article.

The articles content is focused on how tokens change the playing field in relation to marketeting and customer retention as that is the view that I, as a game developer, happened to see as interesting - a viewpoint I've yet to see others talk about.

Anyway, the purpose of ths thread was just ot make you aware that the lack of feedback is discouraging and that I most likely have put the pen aside and moved on to other things.

Re: TWIN PEAKS – new season in 2016

@cut can u tell me

what is genre for that movies ?

Eccentric Mystery.

It's more or less a murder mystery serie, but with very VERY strong personalities.

Status Update

Hi. I would like to let it be known that some month ago I wrote several articles and have since been asked several times in their respective forum threads when they will be released. For one of these articles I recieved negative feedback early on from content moderation, it was removed from ready-to-publish status, edited according to the feedback and then put back to being ready.

The articles in question:

"453: Gaming and decentralized markets."

"510: How bitcoin empowers renting and lending."

While there may be perfectly valid reason for things to have been standing still all this time the result of this has been that I have personally moved on to other things and are just checking in every now and then to see if things happened to have changed since last time.

I find it particulary odd that the article about gaming that I recieved feedback on, and changed, have not had any progress at all, as it includes views on token use from gaming company perspectives that in the recent LTB podcast on the subject was completely missed altogether: the value of market retention.

Re: Simple Vector Artwork

@cryptonaut can you lock this thread?

Re: Simple Vector Artwork

@tidakasli

@crimsonroze

@rob That worked out well!

Seems so. I haven't looked extensively on what icon from that font I'd use, but I'm still willing to pay for custom art for this project.

could i? please send me PM :)

Sorry, @rockbarcellos have already fullfilled the order so I have the art I need here.

Re: how tough should the magic words be?

I personally think that as long as the magic words purpose if a proof-of-listening the methodology should require no more than actaully listening.

Anything requirement other than just listening will unfairly favor those who have the time and tools available to complete the tasks, putting commuters, people on cell phones or pads and so on at a disadvantage.

@adam - can you look into this and make a decision regarding this?

Re: LTB #139 The Validity of Appcoins Discussion

I felt a crucial definition was missing in the debate: the definition of long-term. Are we talking months here? weeks? centuries? It was very unclear and the entire argument that the market has already proven the case relies on the definition of long-term.

If long-term is weeks, then the market has over and over again proven the case, if the long-term is defined as centuries it has not.

Re: LTB #139 The Validity of Appcoins Discussion

@danielsbitcoin Can I suggest that there also be an element of voting for the winner by the community? [...] users can send LTBcoins into these addresses. Each transaction would be one vote and [..]

It is very easy to send multiple times. I would rather make it that each sending address counts as one vote, but even that is easily exploited. Also, if the "winning" team by votes gets the losers value, then it's a betting rather than voting and it could encourage the participants of the show to send multiple small transactions in order to win over the value of the other side.

As much as I have having money to govern things like voting, I think in this context it is probably the most efficient way to add costs to abuse - and therefor keeping the abuse low.