aha, just pasted a bunch more, again copied from the wikipedia page, and sure enough, it errorred out. Well, I got a blank page, no actual error message. Is that what you are seeing as well? :(
Going to paste them one by one now to see which one is triggering the issue.
@MedicineStorm:
I think I am starting to understand what you mean with this option #2.
My concern was if donors were given exclusive access to the works /before/ the funding goal was met.
So what if it works like this:
Every time a certain funding threshold is released, a celebratory 'OGA Fundraiser' pack is released as an asset under a public license on OGA.
We line up artist(s) who promise to contribute something ahead of time, and they submit their pack to OGA once the given fund raising goal is met.
That way there's no special or 'exclusive' treatment for donors, all the work is /always/ released publicly.
Donors still have an incentive to donate because they get the benefit of the work just like everyone else when it's released onto OGA.
Is that close to what you were thinking?
To me that's the simplest method possible, the only work to be done is get together a list of contributors, assign each to a funding goal, and then let them know when that funding goal has been reach, at which point they submit the work to OGA.
As an example, if artists Billy, Bobby, Susy and Jenny all agreed to contribute something toward the fundraiser, then we could assign a goal to each of them, like so:
$200 - Billy
$400 - Bobby
$600 - Susy
$800 - Jenny
So Billy makes a work and releases it when the funding pot hits $200, Bobby releases something when the pot hits $400, etc.
If we wanted to incentivize contributions, then a funding split of some kind could be considered, eg. instead of outright donating works, artists are paid a portion of the fundraising pot as a commission for their works. Ie, if the fundraiser hits $200 then OGA gives Billy a $50 commission to make and release something on OGA.
Does that sound like the kind of thing you were thinking of?
Because I was hearing something more like an art package sold on itch.io or unity or something and then proceeds from that are funneled back into OGA, with maybe the possibility that the works are released onto OGA at some point if certain fund raising goals are met, which doesn't sound like a great idea to me.
@chasersgaming:
>> Good point. How do we address that?
>> Why stay away from Drupal and PHP? What is a better alternative?
> These two kinda go hand in hand i think.
I disagree. It doesn't matter if the pool of potential helpers is 10 or 10,000 because there is no way for OGA to tap into that pool.
Ask yourself, are OGA's issues the result of running Drupal 4 or are they the result of developers and admins moving on from the project and not being replaced?
My suggestion is that we put our heads together, find 2-3 volunteers who have well demonstrated commitment to OGA and have the desire and time to help out and bring them onboard as developers, mods and/or admins.
From there, as far as tech, transitions plans, etc. etc, we can follow the simple maxim that 'them that does, decides.'
ñ
á, é, í, ó, ú
naïve and Noël
breathèd
diakritikós
aha, just pasted a bunch more, again copied from the wikipedia page, and sure enough, it errorred out. Well, I got a blank page, no actual error message. Is that what you are seeing as well? :(
Going to paste them one by one now to see which one is triggering the issue.
hmmm... That worked.
I had just copied that text from the diacritic wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
Is there a specific diacritic that's getting rejected?
yuck! That stinks!
Just going to try and post a little test text here to see if it works for me...
diakrī́nō
Love these!
Also, I used the shark from this in my game for the Spring 2020 OGA Game Jam.
https://withthelove.itch.io/scarfy-the-penguin
Thanks much for sharing!!
@MedicineStorm:
I think I am starting to understand what you mean with this option #2.
My concern was if donors were given exclusive access to the works /before/ the funding goal was met.
So what if it works like this:
Every time a certain funding threshold is released, a celebratory 'OGA Fundraiser' pack is released as an asset under a public license on OGA.
We line up artist(s) who promise to contribute something ahead of time, and they submit their pack to OGA once the given fund raising goal is met.
That way there's no special or 'exclusive' treatment for donors, all the work is /always/ released publicly.
Donors still have an incentive to donate because they get the benefit of the work just like everyone else when it's released onto OGA.
Is that close to what you were thinking?
To me that's the simplest method possible, the only work to be done is get together a list of contributors, assign each to a funding goal, and then let them know when that funding goal has been reach, at which point they submit the work to OGA.
As an example, if artists Billy, Bobby, Susy and Jenny all agreed to contribute something toward the fundraiser, then we could assign a goal to each of them, like so:
$200 - Billy
$400 - Bobby
$600 - Susy
$800 - Jenny
So Billy makes a work and releases it when the funding pot hits $200, Bobby releases something when the pot hits $400, etc.
If we wanted to incentivize contributions, then a funding split of some kind could be considered, eg. instead of outright donating works, artists are paid a portion of the fundraising pot as a commission for their works. Ie, if the fundraiser hits $200 then OGA gives Billy a $50 commission to make and release something on OGA.
Does that sound like the kind of thing you were thinking of?
Because I was hearing something more like an art package sold on itch.io or unity or something and then proceeds from that are funneled back into OGA, with maybe the possibility that the works are released onto OGA at some point if certain fund raising goals are met, which doesn't sound like a great idea to me.
@chasersgaming:
>> Good point. How do we address that?
>> Why stay away from Drupal and PHP? What is a better alternative?
> These two kinda go hand in hand i think.
I disagree. It doesn't matter if the pool of potential helpers is 10 or 10,000 because there is no way for OGA to tap into that pool.
Ask yourself, are OGA's issues the result of running Drupal 4 or are they the result of developers and admins moving on from the project and not being replaced?
My suggestion is that we put our heads together, find 2-3 volunteers who have well demonstrated commitment to OGA and have the desire and time to help out and bring them onboard as developers, mods and/or admins.
From there, as far as tech, transitions plans, etc. etc, we can follow the simple maxim that 'them that does, decides.'
Pages