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.
Full Version: Does DS still need two Shadowrun forums?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's just one idea that's being tossed around though. There will be more information coming out as decisions are made and such.
| QUOTE (Banaticus) |
| 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. |
Wow, excellent idea!
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.
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).
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.
I'm not entirely sure this is correct though. Adam could give more details I think. Heck, I might be completely misunderstanding it.
to quote myself!
| QUOTE |
| If I understand what you're saying, you basically want the default view, or "front page", to more or less look like Dumpshock or other traditional forum pages; and I more or less agree. The major difference between current Dumpshock and what I'm proposing is you would be able to "remix" the front page to serve your own needs, by building your own forums based on subject tags. Beyond the regular examples of what you can do, you could also: * set up a virtual forum that includes only threads that you have posted to. * set up a virtual forum that inculdes only threads that certain posters have started. * set up a virtual forum that includes only the In Character and Out of Character threads for the play-by-poster games you're participating in. * set up a virtual forum that includes every single thread except the IC and OOC threads. Or you could just browse with whatever pre-configured categories eventually get decided upon. |
I think that sums it up pretty well.
And the best part is those people who are too foolish to select any tags are, by default, ignored by everyone else!
| QUOTE (nezumi @ Jan 11 2007, 07:37 AM) |
| And the best part is those people who are too foolish to select any tags are, by default, ignored by everyone else! |
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.
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.
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.
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
~J
I don't think spending any time debating whether people can choose to select no tags at all is worth it at this stage.
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'.
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'.
| QUOTE (Adam) | ||
to quote myself!
I think that sums it up pretty well. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, a default seems a bad idea.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| 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. |
Which can then be easily deleted as Kage recommended. His background is in computers, he knows this sort of stuff.
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.
| QUOTE (eidolon @ Jan 12 2007, 04:27 PM) |
| Waste is waste |
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
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| 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. |
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
| QUOTE (Witness) |
| I get the impression most people just look at the SR4 forum, and don't bother with the other- perhaps assuming that the SR4 forum is the main one for general Shadowrun chat, and SR is just for SR3 and old-timers. |
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.
Hey, look, they've been flipped.
Fancy that.
Fancy that.
| QUOTE (Tanka) |
| 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. |
Do you need a seperate vehicle creation book, a seperate cyber/bioware book and a gun book to be a "real" Shadowrun game? You haven't ever managed to play a game with just the BBB?
As to an update on the world, IMHO, if it hasn't been explicitly listed as changing, then there hasn't been a change. The General Shadowrun FAQ says:
| QUOTE |
| Which sourcebooks from previous editions are still compatible with Shadowrun Fourth Edition? Since we completely overhauled the rules and core game mechanics, none of the rulebooks from previous editions are compatible with SR4. We did not alter the setting very much, however--other than updating the Matrix and moving the timeline ahead a few years to 2070--so any book that is primarily source material (not rules) is still compatible. You can find notes on which books are and aren't compatible [at http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/products/sr4_c...ompatible.shtml]. |
| QUOTE (Banaticus) | ||
Do you need a seperate vehicle creation book, a seperate cyber/bioware book and a gun book to be a "real" Shadowrun game? You haven't ever managed to play a game with just the BBB? |
In my experience, new core books make current characters obsolete and thus end campaigns. If you know new core books are coming (supposedly soon) and thus your campaign/game is going to get ruined, you tend to put off starting said campaign/game. Why? Because the choice is playing without all the good stuff, or staying with the complete (incompatable) ruleset. And this is an issue even if you don't refuse to play SR4 because you hate the new rules.
| QUOTE (Banaticus) |
| Do you need a seperate vehicle creation book, a seperate cyber/bioware book and a gun book to be a "real" Shadowrun game? You haven't ever managed to play a game with just the BBB? |
I do, yes. There was quite a bit of gear that didn't show up between 3rd and 4th BBB. Magic players, if they didn't have any custom gear or non-standard equipment, can now continue thanks to Street Magic. Street Sammies and the like can't continue as effectively, thanks to the loss of information.
| QUOTE (Banaticus) |
| As to an update on the world, IMHO, if it hasn't been explicitly listed as changing, then there hasn't been a change. The General Shadowrun FAQ says: |
There's still at least a five year gap in the various histories of the world. Sure, the BBB covers some of it, but not enough to continue in other parts of the world where nothing or very little was mentioned.
As tisoz said; if you're in a long campaign, I don't think you'd want to switch over until you have all the information you had with 3rd Ed, and that's even if you'd want to switch over at all.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.