The Game Room does have the Polling feature enabled, so the convention could be taken to a vote.
But I’d wait on any this to see if a Thread Games sub-forum actually does come from this discussion.
My 2 cents – I usually avoid the forum, having zero interest in thread games and not all that much interest in games and sports. In the past I’ve been turned off by my inability to recognize the difference between the two, assuming that the fault was mine for not understanding the forum’s culture and conventions. It just wasn’t worth my time/effort to open threads with perhaps-interesting titles only to be repeatedly frustrated at the lack of a discussion. So I mostly stay away.
Now I learn that it isn’t merely my deficiency, but a deficiency of the forum’s appearance! And I’m not the only one to see it! I’d prefer all thread games be moved to a forum or sub-forum clearly identified for such. But lacking that separation, at least let thread games (and only thread games) be labeled as such in the thread title. I’d accept this as voluntary action by the members, with a strong “suggestion” via sticky. With that, I might peruse the forum a bit more regularly.
The present “test” system is a bastardized worse-than-the-original mess that conveys virtually no useful information and does it in the most inscrutable possible way.
golf clap
Welcome to the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
The rationale on subforums has been explained. We’re not going there.
Can’t speak for the moderators in Cafe Society or MPSIMS but I would suspect moving the unloved/unwanted threads to either of their forums is probably a no-go as well.
We thought we’d try to do something to make this situation easier to work out … turns out it’s not a good solution. Oh well.
Dex came up with a great solution that everyone seems to like. There’s no reason to keep going “woe is us.”
I don’t get it. Are you leaving the issue at, “oh well.”?
In fairness, Dex came up with a compromise solution that people didn’t dislike as much. The only great solution is a separate forum/sub forum for thread games, but that was off the table.
No. I said (maybe elsewhere) that the situation was under discussion in the mod loop and we’d be looking to do better. However, because moderators are on different schedules, because moderators have meatspace responsibilities that take them away from the board, it’s not an instant thing. We’re not all available at the same time or on the board 24/7; it takes time to reach consensus.
I see. I didn’t realize you were only commenting on your sub-forum rationale.
In which I am curious. Do you guys have some sort of Google Analytics or something that justifies this rationale? I can’t put my finger on it, but it seems sort of knee-jerk in this circumstance.
So? Dex’s solution is the best solution. Label only the thread games. It’s what the users like best out of the options we were given. Continuing to sigh and say “oh well” and “we’re still discussing it” after your users got behind an option they like is tone-deaf at best.
About the tags currently in use… They seem to be a bit muddled. It looks like, right now, any thread wherein a game is being played is tagged as “[GAME]”, while any thread where a non-sport game is being discussed is tagged as “GAME”. While these tags appear to be used consistently, it seems a confusing choice of tags. One would expect, rather, for all tags to use the square brackets, and for the two different tags to instead be distinguished by use of a different word.
SenorBeef, I appreciate you taking on this issue in a reasonably calm manner and trying to address the problem. I think you are absolutely correct in the effects of the new proposed naming convention versus the one Dex proposed.
However, I don’t think the continued projection of motives onto the moderators is helpful - it makes you come across as combative, and reduces the moderators’ desire to discuss this with you. I also don’t think it’s fair or accurate.
Answers have been given for how things got the way they are. There was discussion in the Mod loop on what to do, but Dex ran off and implemented a solution before the discussion got anywhere near a consensus. That isn’t how the moderators usually operate, and he got some behind the scenes chastisement, which led him to revert what he’d done and throw a hissy fit. Now I like Dex, and I think he had the best of intentions, and I think his solution was actually the best out of what we’re likely to get, but he skipped the part where he gets the other mods on board, especially the mods of The Game Room.
As far as the goofy solution, there was some discussion in the previous thread that spawned this whole mess about how to find other topics, like finding the sports from the games and gaming. I think the mods were ill-advisedly trying to be thorough. This is a case where an overall labeling system is actually less helpful.
I don’t think there was a deliberate effort by the mods to make the system unworkable, but rather some confusion in the “effort by committee”.
As far as picking “[Game]” vs “Game”, that was a particularly bad choice, but the problem there lies in both types of threads being related to games. “Gaming” was perhaps a better choice as it is a bit more distinct from “[Game]”, but I think we both agree that the better solution is to skip this problem entirely.
Having a “tag” (even if implemented as plain text in the titles rather than an actual tag system or icons or whatever) that is simple and consistent that is attached to the problematic threads (i.e. game threads) makes them easily distinct. Having lots of “tags” on every thread for every topic becomes too much clutter, and makes the visual sorting have to revert to reading content rather than a simple visual cue.
Trying to implement a thorough system actually breaks the value gained by the tags. Discussion threads in the Game Room operate the way discussion threads in other forums operate, so there’s no real need to put high level detail “tags” on every thread. That’s what titles are supposed to do - indicate the topic.
There have been several suggestions for how to deal with the Game thread problem. The new Forum or Sub Forum solutions are off the table, so people should quit trying to resuggest them.
The solution to move the Games to MPSIMS has some merit - **SenorBeef **made a strong case here. I’m not sure the effort involved in doing so, nor the access to changing the forum descriptions. There’s also the pesky problem that the Game Room sounds like a place where games are played.
An alternate proposed solution was to move sports and game discussions to Cafe Society, because they are about entertainment. This would leave active games in The Game Room, where they fit the title very well, and put discussion threads where they would garner more cross-pollination and not have to compete with the clutter threads. Again, this proposal has similar concerns about the effort to move these threads and to change forum descriptions - but the forum descriptions wouldn’t need to change much.
However, the simplest solution is the version that was implemented by Dex. Going forward, if the board membership adopts this and implements it ourselves, then the naming clutter should disperse.
However, the one impediment is the sticky remaining at the top of the forum suggesting an implementation that does not match what the users really want. Having that sticky would give new users an inaccurate representation of what the participants are trying to achieve. I know the sticky says that it is only a suggestion and for the forum members to do what they want. However, by laying out specific guidelines and changing existing threads to meet that standard, it makes for a real challenge to convince people that they should not follow that convention.
So I would propose that the sticky either go away (be destickied so it can fade without being disappeared), or that the convention examples be changed to reflect the preference of the forum users - mark only the active games and do not mark discussions.
Perhaps if the mods came up with a consistent and useful labeling convention at the start, we’d still be fighting for a subforum or completely new forum. But instead, they come up with a nonsensical strategy, and we’re diverted to the new fight. Then when they finally change it to Dex’s convention, we celebrate and thank them profusely. And meanwhile, we completely forget about our original pleas. It’s kind of genius on their part.
ETA: following Irishman’s post, clarifying that this is tongue-in-cheek. I don’t think the mods are being malicious here.
I do. I think it’s obvious and undeniable that SenorBeef is exactly right regarding the motive behind this laughably doomed-to-fail solution. I mean, seriously, “[GAME]” and “GAME” are different tags?
I’m glad Beef posted his conclusion, because it’s plausible and much more charitable than mine, which is that someone is exacting their revenge for getting picked on in gym class.
Or we could just ban that group, problem solved!
This, except without the tongue-in-cheek bit, because this is exactly whats going to happen.
FWIW, Tuba, I don’t think this was a very professional post; if I were Dex, and if I didn’t already want to take time away, I’d sure want to take some time away after reading this. The hoi polloi don’t need to read one moderator talking another moderator down–phrases like “stomped off” really aren’t helpful or professional.
At this point, good form would probably include a public apology.
First, I appreciate the hard work and good faith efforts of the mods. Hard, thankless work, and ya’ll do a great job. ::Hip, Hip, Hooray::
That said, just as some hopefully useful user feedback, right now The Game Room makes my eyes bleed bitter burning acid blood tears. I vote for “GAME:”, or maybe even the less-bloody-tears-inducing “Game:” on only ‘we are playing a game by posting in the thread’ threads.
I’ve been told the correct term is “flounced”.