Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 01:33 (#2S0D) Why in the world is this "article" here? Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-03 10:53 (#2S0J) Because someone took the time to submit it to the pipe, and I found it interesting. If you'd like to see other types of articles, you know where the submit button is. Meanwhile, if you don't like the project, feel free not to fund it. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 16:03 (#2S10) So if someone were to submit a piece about some artist you like who's trying to pay for making a new album on Kickstarter, you would post it? There have been plenty of great articles recently -- I really wouldn't expect that "because it's there" is a coherent reason for something making it to the front page of the site.Can you elaborate a bit on your editorial decision process -- is it truly as simple as "it's there, I found it interesting, so I hit the green button"? No other inputs to the decision process? Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 16:12 (#2S11) It's not like folks are submitting tons of articles left and right here. I also found it interesting, as I loved the original RCT games, and had not yet heard about this project.If more folks submit more articles, then there's a process of sifting through the junk to find the good stuff. If there's only a handful of articles submitted then there's no reason not to post them all. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-03 17:15 (#2S13) Seriously ... we'll cross that hypothetical bridge if and when we ever come to it. The pipe remains almost totally dry, and even the most cursory glance at the history (http://pipedot.org/pipe/history) shows most of the content here was written, edited, and posted by yours truly. So I aint takin no guff from no anonymously cowardish troll, thankyaverymuch. And if you dislike my editorial preferences, well we could use a couple more editors helping around here, now that you mention it. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 18:11 (#2S14) I apologize (in a cowardly manner). I truly appreciate all the effort you put into the site, and just wanted to call attention to the lame (IMO) nature of this article. And hey, people are always bemoaning the lack of comments. Note that this meta-thread now comprises the majority of comments on this article, if that's any indication as to how many people found this puff piece worthy of discussion. :-P
Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-03 10:53 (#2S0J) Because someone took the time to submit it to the pipe, and I found it interesting. If you'd like to see other types of articles, you know where the submit button is. Meanwhile, if you don't like the project, feel free not to fund it. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 16:03 (#2S10) So if someone were to submit a piece about some artist you like who's trying to pay for making a new album on Kickstarter, you would post it? There have been plenty of great articles recently -- I really wouldn't expect that "because it's there" is a coherent reason for something making it to the front page of the site.Can you elaborate a bit on your editorial decision process -- is it truly as simple as "it's there, I found it interesting, so I hit the green button"? No other inputs to the decision process? Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 16:12 (#2S11) It's not like folks are submitting tons of articles left and right here. I also found it interesting, as I loved the original RCT games, and had not yet heard about this project.If more folks submit more articles, then there's a process of sifting through the junk to find the good stuff. If there's only a handful of articles submitted then there's no reason not to post them all. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-03 17:15 (#2S13) Seriously ... we'll cross that hypothetical bridge if and when we ever come to it. The pipe remains almost totally dry, and even the most cursory glance at the history (http://pipedot.org/pipe/history) shows most of the content here was written, edited, and posted by yours truly. So I aint takin no guff from no anonymously cowardish troll, thankyaverymuch. And if you dislike my editorial preferences, well we could use a couple more editors helping around here, now that you mention it. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 18:11 (#2S14) I apologize (in a cowardly manner). I truly appreciate all the effort you put into the site, and just wanted to call attention to the lame (IMO) nature of this article. And hey, people are always bemoaning the lack of comments. Note that this meta-thread now comprises the majority of comments on this article, if that's any indication as to how many people found this puff piece worthy of discussion. :-P
Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 16:03 (#2S10) So if someone were to submit a piece about some artist you like who's trying to pay for making a new album on Kickstarter, you would post it? There have been plenty of great articles recently -- I really wouldn't expect that "because it's there" is a coherent reason for something making it to the front page of the site.Can you elaborate a bit on your editorial decision process -- is it truly as simple as "it's there, I found it interesting, so I hit the green button"? No other inputs to the decision process? Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 16:12 (#2S11) It's not like folks are submitting tons of articles left and right here. I also found it interesting, as I loved the original RCT games, and had not yet heard about this project.If more folks submit more articles, then there's a process of sifting through the junk to find the good stuff. If there's only a handful of articles submitted then there's no reason not to post them all. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-03 17:15 (#2S13) Seriously ... we'll cross that hypothetical bridge if and when we ever come to it. The pipe remains almost totally dry, and even the most cursory glance at the history (http://pipedot.org/pipe/history) shows most of the content here was written, edited, and posted by yours truly. So I aint takin no guff from no anonymously cowardish troll, thankyaverymuch. And if you dislike my editorial preferences, well we could use a couple more editors helping around here, now that you mention it. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 18:11 (#2S14) I apologize (in a cowardly manner). I truly appreciate all the effort you put into the site, and just wanted to call attention to the lame (IMO) nature of this article. And hey, people are always bemoaning the lack of comments. Note that this meta-thread now comprises the majority of comments on this article, if that's any indication as to how many people found this puff piece worthy of discussion. :-P
Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 16:12 (#2S11) It's not like folks are submitting tons of articles left and right here. I also found it interesting, as I loved the original RCT games, and had not yet heard about this project.If more folks submit more articles, then there's a process of sifting through the junk to find the good stuff. If there's only a handful of articles submitted then there's no reason not to post them all. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-03 17:15 (#2S13) Seriously ... we'll cross that hypothetical bridge if and when we ever come to it. The pipe remains almost totally dry, and even the most cursory glance at the history (http://pipedot.org/pipe/history) shows most of the content here was written, edited, and posted by yours truly. So I aint takin no guff from no anonymously cowardish troll, thankyaverymuch. And if you dislike my editorial preferences, well we could use a couple more editors helping around here, now that you mention it. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 18:11 (#2S14) I apologize (in a cowardly manner). I truly appreciate all the effort you put into the site, and just wanted to call attention to the lame (IMO) nature of this article. And hey, people are always bemoaning the lack of comments. Note that this meta-thread now comprises the majority of comments on this article, if that's any indication as to how many people found this puff piece worthy of discussion. :-P
Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-03 17:15 (#2S13) Seriously ... we'll cross that hypothetical bridge if and when we ever come to it. The pipe remains almost totally dry, and even the most cursory glance at the history (http://pipedot.org/pipe/history) shows most of the content here was written, edited, and posted by yours truly. So I aint takin no guff from no anonymously cowardish troll, thankyaverymuch. And if you dislike my editorial preferences, well we could use a couple more editors helping around here, now that you mention it. Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 18:11 (#2S14) I apologize (in a cowardly manner). I truly appreciate all the effort you put into the site, and just wanted to call attention to the lame (IMO) nature of this article. And hey, people are always bemoaning the lack of comments. Note that this meta-thread now comprises the majority of comments on this article, if that's any indication as to how many people found this puff piece worthy of discussion. :-P
Re: Is Pipedot now ad-supported? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-03 18:11 (#2S14) I apologize (in a cowardly manner). I truly appreciate all the effort you put into the site, and just wanted to call attention to the lame (IMO) nature of this article. And hey, people are always bemoaning the lack of comments. Note that this meta-thread now comprises the majority of comments on this article, if that's any indication as to how many people found this puff piece worthy of discussion. :-P