Well, for me: "on time"
and "runnable by any competent person" are part of the quality thing. So 'runnable by me if I manage to turn up' (bearing in mind that not managing to turn up is not necessarily within the control of the writer as circumstances can arise that prevent any reasonable person from attending an event) is, to my mind, a lowering of standards. I wouldn't argue against a change in the way things are done. I've been a scenario writer and a GM, but never a Con director. I've never even been an RPG co-ordinator. I've never given all that much thought to the way these positions do their organisation. I'm talking as someone who has written scenarios and someone who has GM'd and someone who has run long term campaigns for an organisation that is larger than 'my friends who come round to my house'. I don't think that 'being a volunteer' is an excuse for a lack of professionalism when the consumer (or punter, or bottom on seat) is paying. So, Con organisers and RPG co-ordinators will do as they must. I'm just asking that whatever they commission be quality controlled and fit for purpose! Hilary >2009/4/2 omentide <<mailto:omentide%40omentide.net>[email protected]>: > > > Why can't we aim for the highest possible standards? > >I don't think I'm suggesting we lower our standards. The scenarios >for the con would still be expected to be very good. This is a change >of format, not quality. > >B. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
