 Does DS still need two Shadowrun forums?, ..one for 4th and one for the rest.. |
  |
 Jan 4 2007, 03:57 PM
Post
#101
|
|
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957  |
Moving the front page or page and a half from each forum and then archiving the rest would work fine. It's a rare day that anything from farther back then that gets pulled up and actually goes anywhere as a discussion.
If someone really needed to talk about something they could start a new thread and include a link, or beg the mods to move the thread they want to use to the appropriate forum. |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 9 2007, 11:20 AM
Post
#102
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 510 Joined: 19-May 06 From: Southern CA Member No.: 8,574 |
I've heard some people saying that we need a seperate SR forum for SR4, apart from the "regular" Shadowrun forum. These people have said, "General Shadowrun questions should go in the regular forum, while SR4-specific questions should go in the SR4 forum."
SR4 is Shadowrun. The old books are dinosaurs and even if the book publishing comet hasn't hit yet, it's about to. Every new book is going to be written with SR4 in mind and will require at least minor changes to make it compatible with previous editions. I could see making a "fluff" forum (a story forum) and a "crunch" forum (a rules forum). A place where the story and background of Shadowrun (which doesn't markedly change from edition to edition) could be discussed in a seperate forum from whether or not a runner gets a +1 bonus or a +2 bonus to some skill. I'd prefer, though, to just have a single Shadowrun forum. Perhaps we should take a page from UtterAccess.com http://www.utteraccess.com/ A lot of different version of Microsoft Access have come out over the years and some vary quite a bit from previous versions in what they're capable of and how they do it, although large parts of the program haven't really differed from previous versions. When you make a post, underneath the Subject line, you must select what version of the software the post is about. You can choose from: 2007 (12.0), Any Version, 2003 (11.0), 2002 (11.0) XP, 2000 (9.0), 97 (8.0), 95 (7.0), 2.0 (not 2000), 1.1, 1.0. Perhaps there should be an option when you a post on Dumpshock, some way to label the post as being for a specific version of Shadowrun. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 9 2007, 02:43 PM
Post
#103
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I would like to not only keep the current forum setup, but institute a "punch to the crotch" feature when people post in the wrong area. For instance, I would like to (and have been thinking of it every time I see it) punch Cain in the crotch for posting something related to a book distribution site in the SR4 area, when it clearly belongs in General Gaming or, at best, the general Shadowrun section. However the mods have clearly said that telling people to post in the right area is not appreciated! If I could quietly click the 'punch thread author in the crotch' button, I would feel a lot less stressed out about this issue.
Edit: This has the added benefit of being able to punch people in the crotch who write stupid subjects like 'shadowrun question!' or even better 'buy viagra here', as well as users who post questions without using the search function. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 9 2007, 02:44 PM
Post
#104
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
That has actually been discussed among the admins. Adam is pretty keen on "tags" for posts, selectable by the poster. For example, if you had a SR4 rules question, you would give your post the "SR4" and "Rules" tags on the back end. On the front end, people could use the tags to view only what they want to see, or by default they would see everything but with tags regarding the post's content.
It's just one idea that's being tossed around though. There will be more information coming out as decisions are made and such. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 9 2007, 09:55 PM
Post
#105
|
|||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
Wow, excellent idea! :S If this was a new forum that sprang to life with the advent of SR4, this would be a tremendous idea. Some of the new members seem to think that is how Dumpshock exists - newly created for the exclusive benefit of SR(4), since it is the only game company supported edition in existence. However, that isn't how Dumpshock exists. DS has been around for a while and the older members, who have read the same questions and pretty much memorized the answers by rote, play different editions. Many have tried SR4 and gone back to a previous edition. Some are no doubt waiting for the support books to be released before porting over their characters or just starting with an (incomplete) edition. For whatever reason, many members that could contribute in a positive way to a topic, refuse to visit or infrequently visit the SR4 forum. Maybe it was all the bad blood from people laughing at their favorite game dying - but for whatever reason, they choose to leave the new edition alone. If you want to chance missing some great input, post your non SR4 specific topics in SR4 where you believe they belong. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 04:43 PM
Post
#106
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,222 Joined: 11-October 02 From: Netherlands and Belgium Member No.: 3,437 |
That's a fabulous idea Eidolon. Instead of posting under a certain 'forum', you post a thread and just click relavant categories it might go under. Then as readers we could just read things under certain categories. It would give the added benefit of allowing some posts to appear under more than 1 category (without double posting).
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2007, 06:33 PM
Post
#107
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Right. By default, you'd see a forum much like the one you see now. However, my understanding is that it would allow anyone that wanted to to "customize" the forum that they see.
I'm not entirely sure this is correct though. Adam could give more details I think. Heck, I might be completely misunderstanding it. ;) |
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2007, 07:24 PM
Post
#108
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
to quote myself!
I think that sums it up pretty well. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 08:37 PM
Post
#109
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
And the best part is those people who are too foolish to select any tags are, by default, ignored by everyone else!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2007, 08:54 PM
Post
#110
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
In my opinion, if this type of set-up is chosen, then the selection of at least one tag should be a manditory requirement for each and every post. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 09:07 PM
Post
#111
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I disagree for two reasons -
1) This may stop our spam problem. If spam bots don't select a tag, they don't get seen. Awesome! 2) I'm of the opinion that computers should be fearsome things that require intelligence to operate correctly. If you make the system fool proof, it only encourages the fools to use it. If you don't select a tag, the post simply falls into 'unsorted miscellaneous'. If you've set your viewing settings to see all posts (which is probably the default honestly), you'll see it. If you've set your viewing settings to only see posts with tags (select all tags but NOT 'no tags') you'll avoid posts written by spammers and people who can't follow simple instructions. Sounds like a plan with no drawbacks to me. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2007, 09:09 PM
Post
#112
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I would go with a variant on that, but have no way to view "unsorted miscellaneous". Then delete unsorted miscellaneous regularly. Maybe every time something gets added to it.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 01:06 AM
Post
#113
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
I don't think spending any time debating whether people can choose to select no tags at all is worth it at this stage.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 07:59 AM
Post
#114
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,222 Joined: 11-October 02 From: Netherlands and Belgium Member No.: 3,437 |
Maybe not Adam, but it's fun. ;)
Anyhows, Nezumi, that makes it difficult for newbies, especially any language-deficient ones. I don't think we see near enough bot-spam to worry about that, and isn't indicative of intelligence either. Not to mention, some of us are here to help the 'fools'. :P |
|
|
|
|
Jan 12 2007, 05:49 PM
Post
#115
|
|||||
|
Slacker Extraordinaire Group: Retired Admins Posts: 337 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ashburn, VA Member No.: 997 |
Do you use gmail? This sounds to me, if I understand you right, a lot like the tag system used there. All of your mail is in the same "box" so in raw view you just see all of your mail threads, but if you assign tags to them, you can create virtual folders. Only with your example, these folders could (at the option of the individual) be based upon tags and posters, and could have multiple qualifiers. Damn, dude. That sounds hot. I'm going to have to dig out my PHP and SQL books tonight and download the latest phpBB 3 beta. I just want to see how mind blowing a task it would be to modify existing software to do that. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 12 2007, 08:19 PM
Post
#116
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Heh. Have fun. I'm worried enough about upgrading my phpBB forum to the latest version, because there's no Fantastico script for it (that's how I installed in the first place). ;)
IMO, the biggest adjustment would be explaining it and getting people to use the tags. It should be pretty easy to require at least one tag, which I think would be a must. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 12 2007, 08:32 PM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
IMO you cannot have a default, but you must require at least one tag. If you don't force the user to think about which topic best describes their thread then most threads will wind up in the default topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 12 2007, 08:40 PM
Post
#118
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
I agree, a default seems a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 12 2007, 09:21 PM
Post
#119
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Which can then be easily deleted as Kage recommended. His background is in computers, he knows this sort of stuff. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 12 2007, 09:27 PM
Post
#120
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Which would be a waste of system resources, regardless of how low the impact actually was. Waste is waste, especially when it's as easily avoided as requiring at least one tag.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 12 2007, 10:16 PM
Post
#121
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I know deleting information increases the amount of entropy in the universe, but it really isn't worth worrying about. (Not that I'm against a more user-friendly way of rejecting untagged posts. There are arguments to be made against the accept-and-silently-delete method, and some very strong ones, but this isn't one.) ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2007, 06:37 PM
Post
#122
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I think it would be far less wasteful to simply not save untagged posts than to save them and require we all ignore them. The best part is, the users who do that will post untagged complaints we won't have to read either! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 19 2007, 07:19 PM
Post
#123
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 510 Joined: 19-May 06 From: Southern CA Member No.: 8,574 |
Just make the default tag "Shadowrun 4". Whether some people like it or not, 4 *is* the future of Shadowrun (at least until Shadowrun 5 comes out).
That being said, in the interim, just combine the two forums. There isn't a seperate forum for Shadowrun 1 or 2, right? So why have a seperate forum for 3 and why is that forum "higher up" on the forum list than the Shadowrun 4 forum? |
|
|
|
|
Feb 19 2007, 11:43 PM
Post
#124
|
|
|
Chrome to the Core Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,152 Joined: 14-October 03 From: ::1 Member No.: 5,715 |
Why have separation? 3rd and 4th are incredibly different rulesets. 2nd and 3rd weren't.
Why have it higher up? I dunno. Why not merge it? Compared to 3rd, 4th is still wholly incomplete. No vehicle creation, no 'ware book, no guns book, very little update on the world as of now. They're working on it, but it's gonna take 'em a while. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 20 2007, 12:03 AM
Post
#125
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,095 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ontari-airee-o Member No.: 1,115 |
There's an SR4 forum? I would like to see sr4 stuff in the main bulk .. and sr3 in a separate forum .. where us oldtimers can go and talk about the glory days. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd November 2024 - 03:55 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.