in anticipation of rewrites, I did very little htmlification to this one. I just fixed a few bits of bad code.

I didn't go over it with a fine-toothed comb, but it looked good to me!

I misread that as "htmliation," and figured that was about right.

Hmm, maybe we need a definition for htmliation.

HTMLiation, n (ach-tee-em-el-ee-ay-shun)

1. The act of displaying one's limitation in knowledge of HTML code in front of coworkers and/or the public at large.

2. The fear of displaying one's limitation in knowledge of HTML code in front of coworkers and/or the public at large.

3. The state of being humiliated by doing so.

DCJ, I am *so* using that new word at work.

And the Buffista Law looks fine to me.

I am work-avoidant, so I am thinking about the para-thread materials here at Phoenix. Here is my thinking.

We have a FAQ a Mythology FAQ, Board How-to, 2 Etiquette Guides, and a Lawspeak. (I'm excepting About This Site, because it looks (a) unlikely to change and (b) less involved/detailed than the rest.) Can we organize the contents of these a little more efficiently?

For example, I am seeing technical "how do I post" stuff (Customs and Ritual Practices, and much of this is repeated in Board How-to) in the FAQ, in among the "what's a shooting script" questions. Similarly, I included Spoilers in the Lawspeak, but they're covered in the FAQ, but we just changed the FAQ to reflect voting results.

I don't know what I'm looking for, at this point. Perhaps a catchall "Read This, You!" page, that has relative links to specific topics? So instead of saying "Well, it might be in the FAQ, or it might be in Etiquette", you can go to Read This and zoom through a list of informational topics to what you are looking for. What do you all think? Am I thinking a tiny bit too hard?

For example, I am seeing technical "how do I post" stuff (Customs and Ritual Practices, and much of this is repeated in Board How-to) in the FAQ, in among the "what's a shooting script" questions. Similarly, I included Spoilers in the Lawspeak, but they're covered in the FAQ, but we just changed the FAQ to reflect voting results

What you've listed here are redundancies. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It's not "Well, it might be in the FAQ, or it might be in Etiquette". It's in both and, thus, easier to find.

Those commas look weird but I'm just going to let them be.

Am I thinking a tiny bit too hard?

Always, but it's still a good idea. Some of the stuff is very old, and some of it falls into the "it seemed like a good idea at the time" category. It might be time to take a look at revamping and updating.

Could we manually change the quote of the day? Maybe to "death is your art" since it won the first deathmatch. No biggie, just curious.

No, no, we loves the Woodstock! I was just thinking how fond I was getting of it, and how bereft I would be if we get it to be QotD.

edited, because, just kidding, really. I think it can be manually changed, but I'm in favor of not adding to ita workload.

Liese, I need to tell you that you are a snickerdoodle of love.

And that's not natter because I want everybody to take a vote on it.