Contributor's guidelines

Contributors are encouraged to consider how pragmatic their additions are to the project.

pragmatic

Only come up with suggestions that work towards realising the ideal objective.
Some enterprises work best by starting and seeing where you get; artistic endevours, explorative expeditions, brainstorming, etc. Others require some kind of vision; projects, collective enterprises, scientific investigations. In reality, there is always something of both in every mindful endevour, and this is particularly the case when dealing with people. Because of the philosophy behind the open-source movement, which celebrates transparency and invites participation, the idea of having 1,000,000 players is not a controlled directive, but an invitation. No-one is being paid to work on something, no-one is following orders. Things can get messy, things can go in all kinds of directions. Hence the call for an ideal objective. If you like the idea, then you contribute towards it.
If your know your contribution is not going towards realising the ideal objective, then be disciplined and dismiss it. Don't worry if nothing comes at first; after a little while, because of the natural resourcefulness of your mind, you will eventually start coming up with interesting ideas, some far-fetched, some more practical.

positive/constructive

When engaging others, contribute only alternative solutions.
When engaging others, it is all too often the case that people present obstacles and objections AS IF the other person is not aware of them. It is a natural part of communication, that we can only present one thing at a time, consciously. Hence, when describing an elephant I may start off describing it's trunk; it would be premature and disrespectul if someone was to object and point out that it has large ears. Too many discussions are of this template, and the way to avoid it here, is to ensure that you merely present your solution, positively and constructively.
If you can improve on an idea already presented, then edit it; if you have thought of an alternative solution, then write a new page.

contention decisions

At some critical points, decisions need to be made.
Making decisions in the unformed space of potentiality, is a tricky business. All too often, people are making decisions based on half-understood facts, prejudgements, and ignorance. So, don't be too hasty in your judgement. Explore what others have to say, contribute your own thoughts. Only once alternatives are fully explored, and given the best hearing, does a decision actually have meaning.
Check out all the alternatives, being clear as to what the decision is, listening to others, and then make an informed decision; use the forums and chatrooms to discuss your perspective.

working metaphors

Two working metaphors: organic growth, and computing.
If having 1,000,000 players in a competition in a year's time is like a tree with a million buds, then we are at the point of having a seed, perhaps taking root and the first growth which will turn out to be the trunk. Hence, your reaction now, at these initial stages, will have profound effect on whether such an eventuality wil come about. As the wise saying goes: beginnings are such delicate times.
This wiki is TRONICv1.2. It is using the means of tabulation familiar to programmers. The process by which the developers have worked together, writing patches, as well as merging changes from a branch into the trunk. (hmm...) How does all this language work for them? Can we use it too...?

contructive comments

It is too easy to excite argument. I appeal to you... if you like any of the ideas... if they resonate within you... then please add your voice, even if it is merely to agree.... Once you allow yourself to think of them.... your mind will naturally come up with practical means of achieving this goal... give yourself the chance and please contribute....
Otherwise this idea will be swamped with too many criticisms... and the negatives will apparently outweigh the positives. Please add to this your comments... your perspective is unique and invaluable....

==voicing alternative ideas

There are two main problems with voicing alternative ideas, for example organising a tournament to be played out on a few hours which is the tronic progression.
1
the merit of the idea is judged on past experience
2
there is only argument

A wiki has the potential of avoiding both of these problems.
Alternatives are expressed, clearly, standing side by side. If a person wishes to improve upon an idea, they can modify the text or, if their idea departs too much, they can start another alternative. In this way, it is possible to have several mutually contradictory alternatives presented fully. In this way experience is fed into different ideas.
There is no argument. A decision is only made once alternatives are fully voiced. Instead of people arguing their point from the beginning, their ideas are fully explored to their satisfaction, and then once completely explored, the faculty to decide, to judge is brought in.
In this way, prejudgement, or prejudice, is avoided, and experience is sublimated into new formulations.

Has this happened with our discussion? No. I presented my ideas within a framework of mutually exlusive ideas, inviting people to present their alternatives. Instead, this was replaced with one way of doing it, and any suggestion otherwise was considered heretic or even deluded from the start. Which is a shame. My ideas were criticised from the start, with no proper airing, no discussion or exploration.
If we are to evolve new ways in this world, and perhaps make it a better place for our children and our children’s children, then I think it wise that we explore these alternative ways of organising ourselves. And what better place to practice this than in our playtime, with things we love, such as playing Armagetron...?
And in case you think I take this too seriously, then please consider that my alternative is merely to make an opportunity where we can all have more fun. I think the way it is being conducted is too heavy, to labour-intensive, too tricky to organise, troublesome, and unscalable, which prevents development into greater and greater competitions. That is, the means of organising proves that larger-scale competitions are unfeasible. That is, if we do not play around with alternatives, we shall never evolve a means of self-oprganising which is capable of
And finally... why am I going to all this trouble of stating this, of thinking this...? It has nothing to do with control. I believe that if we can self-organise something we love, then we have the proof that we can self-organise with things that are a mite more important – the political environment for example. One day, computer programmers will realise the power they hold in modern society, and when this manifests socially, they will need tried and tested ways of exercising this power. And in the same ways that computer games has evolved some important developments in AI, so networked games have the potential to evolve some important developments socially... Have fun with these thoughts.... they are free... along the lines of fight club, matrix and v for vandetta.... the only difference is: here we are putting some ideas into practice, rather than just consuming them as films....