Re: New Relay Announcement

On Thursday 23 January 2003 7:04 pm, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 06:42:22PM +0000, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
> >  --- Bryan Maloney skrzypszy:
> > > In that case, I volunteer to start and run a relay, titled "The Other
> > > Seventh Conlang Relay".
> >
> > Why not simply Relay nr. 8?
>
> I second that. No need to hide the fact that #7 is incomplete.
>
> [snip]
>
> > First of all: I agree with Joe that it would be best to wait until the
> > Bob's Seventh Relay has been officially concluded. I don't know what has
> > happened there, but IMO it would be unfair to those who haven't had
> > their turn yet in that relay to start a new one.
>
> They could just join this relay, couldn't they? (Provided it doesn't
> conflict with their turn in Relay#7, if it ever comes back to life.)
>
> > Second: experience has taught us that it really takes some time to
> > gather all the people interested. Some of us might not be present for
> > some reason, and yet they would like to participate.
>
> Experience has also taught that having too many people in a relay makes it
> drag on too long, and people start losing the motivation and you end up
> with incomplete relays. But I agree that starting in February might be a
> bit too early, seeing that January is almost over.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Third: I think it is necessary to be VERY strict with the 48-hours rule.
> > The failure of the Seventh Relay was partly due to the fact that the
> > text got stuck somewhere and the moderator didn't urge his/her
> > predecessor to send it to the next candidate.
>
> Yes. The moderator must rule with an iron fist, so to speak. A little
> leniency here and there adds up, and people will start to lose interest.
>
> > So: unless the person who has it has a very good reason to keep the
> > text for more than those 48 hours, he loses his turn. (A good reason can
> > be, like in my case, the combination of a full-time job with an
> > Ebisedian text :), which caused me to need three days).
>
> [snip]
>
> LOL... you see, to the Ebisedi, every relay is tripartite: before
> Ebisedian, Ebisedian itself, and after Ebisedian. This fits in well with
> their obsession with all things triple. ;-)
>
>
> T

It works, too.

Similar-ish to original text , then  same as above, but in ebisedian, then
mangled beyond comprehension.

Reply