Proposal: move or abolish the active subforums

A failed experiment whereby board users were invited to advise the Senate, and instead attempted to replace the Senate.
User avatar
RogueIce
_______
Posts: 13325
Joined: 2003-01-05 01:36am
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Proposal: move or abolish the active subforums

Post by RogueIce » 2008-12-07 03:44pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:You see a new post indicated in the Senate. You assume it is in the HoC, so you skip to it. You scroll down and see a few new posts. You read the interesting ones, then hit mark forums read to clear out the uninteresting ones. Meanwhile, there actually was a new post in the Senate, and you missed it entirely.
I don't know what funky setup or board theme you're using, but that's not how it works. You go to the subforum, click mark forums read, it doesn't affect the parent forum at all. Those new posts will still be shown as unread. Even if you're in the parent forum it's two seperate links; clicking mark forums read for the parent forum won't affect the subforum, and vice-versa if you use the link for the subforum in the parent forum. I do it all the time without problem.

In the end, I really don't think it's worth the fuss people are making. Yes, a post in a subforum can give a "false positive" but with phpBB3 it's fairly easy to deal with. You see the unread posts indicator, you go to the parent forum (since you don't for whatever reason care about the subforum) scroll down, see no new posts, you can click on a link to mark the subforum as read right in the parent forum. If you're interested in the subforum, you just head there.

In the end, it's down to whether the minor inconvenience of the above outweighs having even more parent forums displayed on the main page than we do now. Which, as mentioned, is already a bit and there are plenty who would rather not see it grow and have to do even more scrolling than they do now (take in to consideration those of us in usergroups or who otherwise see nonpublic forums) since we don't all have high resolution, super widescreen HD monitors and whatnot.

So your solution to your particular brand of inconvenience is to introduce a whole new inconvenience to a new subset of people? Unless there is more to your arguments than "I don't like it" but I, to be honest, haven't seen that yet.
Image
"How can I wait unknowing?
This is the price of war,
We rise with noble intentions,
And we risk all that is pure..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, Forever (Rome: Total War)

"On and on, through the years,
The war continues on..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, We Are All One (Medieval 2: Total War)
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight

User avatar
Bob the Gunslinger
Has not forgotten the face of his father
Posts: 4760
Joined: 2004-01-08 06:21pm
Location: Somewhere out west

Re: Proposal: move or abolish the active subforums

Post by Bob the Gunslinger » 2008-12-07 04:22pm

Destructionator, I have a solution. After you post in the House of Commons or Senate, instead of checking for new posts immediately and then shaking your fist when the one new post you saw turns out to be in the other subforum, why don't you wait about 10 minutes? In 10 minutes, both the Senate and the House of Commons should have new posts in them, so you can read something new no matter where you click.

Seriously, are you just hitting "refresh" every ten seconds?
"Gunslinger indeed. Quick draw, Bob. Quick draw." --Count Chocula

"Unquestionably, Dr. Who is MUCH lighter in tone than WH40K. But then, I could argue the entirety of WWII was much lighter in tone than WH40K." --Broomstick

"This is ridiculous. I look like the Games Workshop version of a Jedi Knight." --Harry Dresden, Changes

"Like...are we canonical?" --Aaron Dembski-Bowden to Dan Abnett

User avatar
Rawtooth
Padawan Learner
Posts: 344
Joined: 2006-05-02 01:29pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

[Proposal] Rename STGOD subforum

Post by Rawtooth » 2008-12-09 04:38am

This is just something minor, but I would like to propose a renaming of the STGOD subforum. While there are STGOD's currently on-going, there are other topics I feel could be properly located in said forum with little trouble. Namely I'm think of Let's Plays, such as the Oregon Trail by Instant Sunrise as well as the numerous Dwarf Fortress threads that have sprouted in G&C. There have also been at least two Dark Heresy games that are ongoing in the STGOD forum with their only connection to the forum title being that they are role-playing.

If we were to rename the subforum, I would vote towards "Interactive games" unless a more appropriate title is discovered.

Like I said, something minor but I felt worth mentioning.

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: [Proposal] Rename STGOD subforum

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2008-12-09 05:07am

I think this is pointless, since STGOD is just an SD.net-community specific term for interactive games, and anyone who's a regular poster should get that meaning inherent in the use of the term, which is nonsensical otherwise, "Structured The Good Old Days" being otherwise incomprehensible.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
Rawtooth
Padawan Learner
Posts: 344
Joined: 2006-05-02 01:29pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Re: [Proposal] Rename STGOD subforum

Post by Rawtooth » 2008-12-09 05:20am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I think this is pointless, since STGOD is just an SD.net-community specific term for interactive games, and anyone who's a regular poster should get that meaning inherent in the use of the term, which is nonsensical otherwise, "Structured The Good Old Days" being otherwise incomprehensible.
Why should we keep a term that is both not entirely correct, as evidenced by things other than STGODs in afore-mentioned subform, as well as acts as a further barrier to an interested new party? That is why I'm just suggesting a renaming of said forum to something entirely different than "STGOD role-play games", and I definately do not support "Structured The Good Old Days" as that is incomprehensible as you mentioned.

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: [Proposal] Rename STGOD subforum

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2008-12-09 05:28am

Rawtooth wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I think this is pointless, since STGOD is just an SD.net-community specific term for interactive games, and anyone who's a regular poster should get that meaning inherent in the use of the term, which is nonsensical otherwise, "Structured The Good Old Days" being otherwise incomprehensible.
Why should we keep a term that is both not entirely correct, as evidenced by things other than STGODs in afore-mentioned subform, as well as acts as a further barrier to an interested new party? That is why I'm just suggesting a renaming of said forum to something entirely different than "STGOD role-play games", and I definately do not support "Structured The Good Old Days" as that is incomprehensible as you mentioned.

Because it's part of the quirky personality of the board, without which there wouldn't be very much reason to post here. The title should of course, explicitly in the forum description, be made clear to not constrain what people post there. If it's an actual game to be played through that format, then it's welcome, whereas G&C primary is for talking about games. There, intro covers it (and if it doesn't, it should), bam, we're done. No need to change the name of the forum.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: [Proposal] Rename STGOD subforum

Post by Stark » 2008-12-09 05:32am

So it should have an inaccurate name for 'tradition' and then include other text explaining the name shouldn't be taken seriously? How mendacious. I had no idea there was anything other than STGODs in there because I think STGODs are totally retarded and so I never go in there. Whoops.

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: [Proposal] Rename STGOD subforum

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2008-12-09 05:49am

Stark wrote:So it should have an inaccurate name for 'tradition' and then include other text explaining the name shouldn't be taken seriously? How mendacious. I had no idea there was anything other than STGODs in there because I think STGODs are totally retarded and so I never go in there. Whoops.
Just because we debate rationally is no reason for us to engage in aggressive rationalization of all other aspects of the board. Particularly if they cause a chuckle for a few people. I mean, it's not really a big deal either way, but sometimes just seeing STGOD makes me smile, and remember days when Phong's spaceship armed Sailor Scouts were battling with stolen Fifth Imperium Planetoids and the John Company ran a local galactic cluster...
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

Grandmaster Jogurt
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1725
Joined: 2004-12-16 04:01am

Re: [Proposal] Rename STGOD subforum

Post by Grandmaster Jogurt » 2008-12-09 08:27am

Why not just have the actual STGODs labeled as STGOD, rather than the entire subforum? This sounds like naming the entire History subforum "RAR!" because it's a bit of quirky board tradition even though it only covers a fraction of the actual content of the subforum.

If you just label the individual threads, you keep the traditional naming for nostalgia's sake while still letting that subforum be more clearly named. It's win-win.

User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Re: [Proposal] Rename STGOD subforum

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor » 2008-12-09 08:28am

Could we simply adopt this "If it ain't bloody broken, don't fix it" stance? It's rather superfluous to just go rename a forum which if by anything were about STGODs.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: Proposal: move or abolish the active subforums

Post by Coyote » 2008-12-09 10:33am

Merged the "Move or Abolish Active Subforums" topic with the "Rename STGODS" topic, since they both deal with sub-forum policies.

Renaming STGODS because one or two people finds the name confusing seemed somewhat "fluffy bunny" to warrant a whole thread. :wink:
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

Locked
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=2965632
bbs.stardestroyer.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-45
67236
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:H536MXMEQV33ULSI6I3IUCLYIMKPSGIS
<urn:uuid:2c79b6d6-85dd-4f9b-af61-6764221640fe>
2020-10-21T15:43:28Z
184.149.37.53
text/html
sha1:OTG5GJ76DXSUQDWQHP4EKPRKWN35HZGU
<urn:uuid:e423c920-0db9-43a4-b85f-b049a1473510>
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=2965632
response
<urn:uuid:fb6f1600-524d-4eeb-a468-93a16b896f0e>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-45
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-242.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/