We talked so much this week, we had to split our discussion into two podcasts! Here's part one. Stay tuned for part two next week.
[ Download mp3 - 29 MB ]
00:59 - "villainous"
02:12 - following up on Application Rumination
04:15 - DeeAnn considers "gimmes" for teams to bypass applications
07:49 - acknowledging different levels of fun
10:05 - advocating for more transparency in Game applications
11:52 - WHO? When? What's on second.
14:01 - what does "creative" mean, anyway?
16:57 - applying for shorter events: BANG, DASH, etc.
18:47 - what happened with BANG 28
19:34 - the not-so-secret puzzle hunt cabal
24:54 - is the application part of the event?
26:02 - new BANGtalk mailing list to discuss GC issues
26:18 - does BANG demand now require a new sign-up paradigm?
27:25 - on completing a Game application and then not being accepted
29:19 - the anvil question cliffhanger!
31:09 - The End
Got a comment or question? E-mail email@example.com or post at snout.org/podcast!
Music: instrumentals from "Code Monkey" and "Skullcrusher Mountain" by Jonathan Coulton
[ Subscribe to SnoutCast / iTunes link ]
I was kind of surprised that the WHO application weighted past GCing so little. Perhaps the thinking was that if the creative part wasn't the biggest component, people wouldn't put much time into it?
The last few Seattle events that did BANG/DASH-style first-come-first-serve filled in 4-5 minutes. If you're crazy enough to refresh the page every fifteen seconds in the minute or two prior to the announced application start time, you can make that threshold pretty easily- it's kind of frightening that BANG 28 was hitting the level where the crazy people aren't all getting in. It sounds like it might be time for one of the crazy ideas I threw around in my blog a while back, like saying that not getting into one event puts you at the front of the line for the next one.
I'd also say if the six e-mailers were in the minority, then you have thirteen actual listeners. :)
Post a Comment