RAT / Romanarmy.com v3, ie Future RAT

[Martin Moser]

Hm, not sure where you're aiming at, Jasper, but might perhaps be Confluence ( http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/ ) of interest?[/url]

[Praefectusclassis]

Perhaps the copyright issue may be worked around. Often these books will not be reprinted.

No reprints does not equal a lack of copyright. Copyright just runs out, after some 70 years.

[Aurelianus]

I have saved a lot of RAT sites as internet-favourites. They won't work after rebuilding RAT I think.

[Praefectusclassis]

Do you seriously believe we'd convert to a new RAT without doing our utmost to make the old still accessible?

[Aurelianus]

So my internet-favourites will still work?

[Praefectusclassis]

RAT links follow a fairly standard pattern so it should be possible to install redirects that put you in the right thread. No guarantees, but I'm far from despairing on that issue.

[Aurelianus]

[size=200:tde8e7vl]THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!![/size] D D D D

[PMBardunias]

I think the Ancient Civ section is none too useful the way it is. It needs to be worked into the warfare sections I would suggest compartmentalizing based on time and/or geography.

For example there should be a complete coverage of Roman topics in seperate sections- military, civil/cultural, historiography, archeology, etc. This format could then be copied for each period of interest. I would imagine something like: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Hellenistic Kingdoms, Rome, Steppes, etc. Or by time: Neolithic, Bronze age, Etc., but then you probably still need geographical subheadings.

I don't know any well published historians or archeologists, but many on here are or know some who could be invited. What about a rotating "hot-seat" where we get someone to volenteer to be hit with questions for a week after a suitable introduction? I'm sure there are many I would like to grill once I know what they have written/ done.

Maybe you could work that into AW, something like "20 questions for Prof. X" if it goes well.

What about a section like a modern "Suda"?

Lastly someplace where people could share written articles the way we share pics.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I'd like sections on the site that deal with Rome's enemies (Hellenes, Macedonians, Parthians, Dacians, Carthaginians, etcetera). Perhaps a section that deals with archaeological sites.

[Narukami]

Perhaps the copyright issue may be worked around. Often these books will not be reprinted. If there were a digital RAT bookstore (which, I can assure you, is a coming trend, there are already digital book readers), I would be willing to pay for a download of a volume (or part of it), Publishers and authors need not suffer, but the data laid down in the out of print volume could be had for all! It would REALLY help research worldwide, it is so frustrating good books are inaccessible through the mere fact that they are only 5 hours by airplane away

I am certainly in a agreement with you on this Robert. It would be a wonderful resource either as a Digital Bookstore or a Digital Library. We can hope that this is one idea that our Forum leaders will consider seriously.

Good idea.

Narukami

[Robert]

I did not mean to imply copyright should not be respected, when I mentioned "working around". I was rather pointing out that as the book would probably not be reprinted, the publisher might be willing to do a deal to help create a Digital Bookstore. He would so still recieve some money for giving permission to put the book online for the RAT community. Should keep everyone happy!
I was thrilled when I found this Newstead book site http://www.curlesnewstead.org.uk/157.htm , as it realy helped with my dolabra research. And it had some good pictures of arrowheads. Off to the smithy!

[Praefectusclassis]

Did you notice that that particular book was published in 1911? That can reasonably be expected to be in the public domain. The trouble is with all useable books where there likely is still a copyright, held by someone, somewhere. But exactly who owns it may be unclear. Robinson's Armour is a good example of that problem. (and it'd be a b*tch to scan, since it's a very unusual format).

Since the site is owned by a private person, it just makes sense to be very careful about possible legal ramifications.

[M. Demetrius]

On the topic of the next version of RAT.

What if the opening page allowed a quick jump to major topics such as Greek, Roman, Gaulic, Dacian, etc., under which were separate forum topics for armor, weapons, defense, supplies, foods, utensils, and so on, sort of like how RAT is organized now, but with a much larger first jump. In other words, for example, a newcomer who wants to know about Thracian Gladiator equipment could go through a quick route like
RomanGladiatorTypesThracianEquipment.

Just a thought. Make it more geared toward a modern search engine with plain large topics available for the quickest page loads before getting into all the posts and discussions.

RAT has grown very large and unwieldy for a search to be useful. Search for "scutum grip" or something and you may get 150 topics, one of which may contain your answer. I think the hugeness of things is why many new joiners just ask the same question that's been addressed many times in the past...it's just too confusing at first, not having a way to zero in on the info.

Could be just my rambling thinking, but it's the way the bulletin board format works that is the problem, not the fault of anyone using it. I don't have the slightest idea what kind of software would be better. Maybe something like the wikipedia (gasp! he said the W word in public) has continuous cross reference links. How to set that up would be a gynormous task, though. Maybe it could be divided up between willing people. Some kind of bot that could search through a list of keywords and make links when it finds words on the list? Am I just dreaming? Does this only work on television?

[caiusbeerquitius]

A database for articles written by RAT members would be great, where you can downlod files in .doc, for example.

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

I guess the following would apply to the forum in general no matter if a new or old version:

I noticed that if a new member overlooked the forum rule to have his/her real name in the signature he/she is asked to do so always in the thread. But this particular thread usually does not deal with forum rules but with a totally different topic. So the request of the moderator is just blowing up the thread unnecessarily and makes it harder to follow the actual topic of the thread. So would it not be better to contact the users in question by PM instead of posting it in a thread?