Having done this once now, I propose we go bi-montly and shoot to have the next one out mid November.  With that in mind, I propose we have a deadline of November 1st.  Gergmaster can edit the submissions as the come in and then send them on to me.  I'll do layout and assemble the articles into the final form.  The goal will be an issue out by November 15th.

I'll say up front that everything submitted may not make it into this next issue but please don't let that hold you up.  The goal is to generate a backlog so that we're not scrambling.  I currently have a very big rules article that could easily make most of an issue already along with some of Will's stories.  In fact, I could put out another issue next month but it would only have three large articles in it.  I'd like to have a bit more variety.

Anyway, that's my suggestion.

I'd like to see:

1)  Different borders based on the subject of the articles.

2)  Email hotlinks to the authors and/or threads here to discuss articles.  The zine should attempt to engage the community better.

3)  Playtesting ratings for articles.  I suggest using some programming lingo like:

Alpha:  Untested.  Actively interested in feedback and experiences with the content to advance playability.
Beta:  Minor playtesting. Actively interesed in feedback and experiences with the content to further hone playability and balance.
RC (Release Candidate):  Significantly playtested, edited, and developed.  However, it is still open to tweaks.
Gold:  Heavily playtested and found to be well-balanced with SF Cannon.

I think this is important information to set the frame of mind that the reader should have when approaching the article and help establish their expectations of the playability of the content.  It could also lead to revisions of certain articles in past issues to make the quality of the mags better so that they end up being more like reference books instead of catcher's mits for random ideas.  And, finally, it encourages appropriate feedback from users.

  In fact, I could put out another issue next month but it would only have three large articles in it.  I'd like to have a bit more variety.

I completely agree with you TerlObar. I also believe we need to get some more staff members for the zine to help spread the weight out. Which means we should have at least two people editing and formating at a time. Until Larry gets back I will sort through the submissions and make sure everything is in ship shape. If you want to volunteer and help for long term or short term just PM or Email TerlObar or myself.

I'd like to see:

1)  Different borders based on the subject of the articles.

2)  Email hotlinks to the authors and/or threads here to discuss articles.  The zine should attempt to engage the community better.

3)  Playtesting ratings for articles.  I suggest using some programming lingo like:

Alpha:  Untested.  Actively interested in feedback and experiences with the content to advance playability.
Beta:  Minor playtesting. Actively interesed in feedback and experiences with the content to further hone playability and balance.
RC (Release Candidate):  Significantly playtested, edited, and developed.  However, it is still open to tweaks.
Gold:  Heavily playtested and found to be well-balanced with SF Cannon.

I think this is important information to set the frame of mind that the reader should have when approaching the article and help establish their expectations of the playability of the content.  It could also lead to revisions of certain articles in past issues to make the quality of the mags better so that they end up being more like reference books instead of catcher's mits for random ideas.  And, finally, it encourages appropriate feedback from users.

Would it be posible to break those down into 2-3 parts and spread them out over a couple of issues?

Until Larry gets back I will sort through the submissions and make sure everything is in ship shape. If you want to volunteer and help for long term or short term just PM or Email TerlObar or myself.

This is a lot more work, especially if this information is coming from someone other than the author.  It's not a bad idea, but doing so would significantly increase the turn around time from submission to inclusion in the magazine if it has to be tested by others.  This was part of the job of line editor as Bill described it (and one of the reasons I originally deferred on the position as I don't really have time to playtest all the suggested optional rules).  Do I sense a volunteer?

I don't see any more work in this, other than to add a rating to the articles.  I never said any play-testing had to be done, just that readers should be told how well-tested the material actually is.  So once the author submits the article you just shoot him the rating categories asking him for what it should be set at.  They've got no reason to lie about how well-tested the content is, especially if they actually would like to get some feedback and make it more playable.

Again, the whole point is to set expectations and to encourage feedback from people who might use the article's content.  If users are told, "Hey, this is pretty untested material.  If you use it, please give the author some feedback or post to the forums with your experiences" then the chances of actually getting some play-testing and some user feedback increases significantly.

I'd like to see:

2)  Email hotlinks to the authors and/or threads here to discuss articles.  The zine should attempt to engage the community better.

3)  Playtesting ratings for articles.  I suggest using some programming lingo like:

The stories could be broken up fairly easily.  The large rules section is a rework of the spaceship rules.  I haven't looked at it that closely but at first guess it may not make sense to split it up.  It is something I'll have to look closely at.