Possible Forum Layout?

Grome wrote:

It fills almost the whole page 8..

8 pages???? Can't we have a nice summery post?

No, the whole "page 8". Not the whole "8 pages"

Oh.

Stilll, might be a good idea to reference the posts somewhere for easy finding.

Yeah, I guess. But for now it's okay as what we're working on is just a few posts back and that has worked fine.

Don't think I'll be reading it up tonight though. I'm tired.

Looking right now Ald... I'll edit this when I'ma done...

I had skimmed over it over the weekend (uber busy). I really like it Ald! Are you going to get with Ty/ Selv' about possible implementation? That realy is a concise structure! I'm behind it 100%!

PS. Thx for the "Selven profanity filter(tm)" love

azarhal wrote:

Oh.

Stilll, might be a good idea to reference the posts somewhere for easy finding.

Added a link to the top of Page 8 underneath the original outline .

I specifically created a bunch of new posts for this. My reasoning is two-fold. First, as Grome pointed out, it is quite large. Large enough in fact, that I wonder if I would hit a per-post character limit in the forum. And its going to continue growing as we increase the number of details and examples. Second, sorting through the BBC code in the original post is painful enough already. Stacking up more layers each edit does not seem like my idea of a good time! Third, the outline is very hard to read with all of the details mixed in. I want to be able to look at the outline separately to help me keep the big picture in my head and under consideration.
.
.
.
What? It takes me three fingers to count to two. Is that unusual?
.
.
.
Yes, my primary coding language references the first position in an array as position zero. Why do you ask?

Schwendo wrote:

...I had skimmed over it over the weekend (uber busy). I really like it Ald! Are you going to get with Ty/ Selv' about possible implementation? That realy is a concise structure! I'm behind it 100%!...

I help out in anyway I can, if asked. I'm guessing that once this gets "approved" they may have some questions, but I honestly don't know if they'll come here for group discussion or ask me to jump in Vent or just PM it back and forth...

And then there's the issue of how many people they want to distribute full forum empowerment to. I kinda doubt even Ty has that much power at the moment. So I don't really expect to be asked to do much with regard to implementation. Besides, based on what I see here Selven's a better, more experienced forum builder than I am!

My real concern is that I've created a monster of a task and I don't want to overwhelm "The Old Bat" and burn her out quite yet....

I think it will most likely be Selv's "pet project" from now til TOR-launch ...Can't wait to see the finished forum! /Hi5

Two things for now:
Game Story Discussion will probably need a thread title naming guideline, so people who don't want to know about specific things can still get what they want without being spoilered by a thread title as "Revan IS gay!".
And I don't think we need a subforum for every crew skill (for now - but I don't think we will later). Which makes me think, maybe we should change it from "crafting" to "crew skills".

Grome (Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:28 am) wrote:

Two things for now:
...
And I don't think we need a subforum for every crew skill (for now - but I don't think we will later). Which makes me think, maybe we should change it from "crafting" to "crew skills".

I see your point of view, and I actually do like it. However, for the sake of discussion, let me play devil's advocate for a moment here.

Crafting Discussion is really paired with Crafting Events. While many discussions will revolve around how best to improve your crew's skills, some of them (especially events) will likely revolve around providing "The Blaster of Ten Thousand Lies" to PlayerTrooper#256. Is it preferable to keep the same keyword in both thread titles? Is it more inclusive for either or both threads to use "Crafting" instead of "Crew Skills"?

I agree, the notion of crafting does fit better for the whole thing. We can assuredly leave it like this for now.

Aldemarran wrote:

• Guild Forums = "A place for guild specific discussion with sub-forums for recruiting."
  A place for guild discussion. Please note that this is not a place for guild drama. This forum is primarily for discussion of guild structures and "how to" type guides relating to guilds.
  
  
  • Guild Recruitment: Empire = "A place to introduce and recruit for your Imperial guild."
    This is the place to introduce your Imperial guild to The RiG Community. (If you represent guilds on both factions please create another listing in the Guild Recruitment: Republic as well as here.) These should be as creative as you like, so please try to convey what your guild is like as much as you want!
    
  • Guild Recruitment: Republic = "A place to introduce and recruit for your Republic guild."
    This is the place to introduce your Repoblic guild to The RiG Community. (If you represent guilds on both factions please create another listing in the Guild Recruitment: Empire as well as here.) These should be as creative as you like, so please try to convey what your guild is like as much as you want!
    
  • Guild Seeking = "A place to post what kind of guild you are looking for."
    This is the place to let others know what kind of player you are and what kind of guild you'd be interested in. Be creative, enjoy yourself, get noticed!

A thing I think we should add to these guild-related forums (add to their stickies most probably), at least until everything is clear as to how exactly RiG will expand across servers (or not), is the following: (quoting myself here, something I wrote while discussing the matter in another thread)

Grome wrote:

I think it's very fair of you to mention it. It is very hard if not almost impossible to commit oneself to say "we're for sure going to be on the server where most of these people are going to play".

That's why I think anyone going into these forums, maybe looking to join a guild, should be cleared up about that.
Joining a guild that presents itself here does not right away mean that you will be playing with all of the people you meet on the forums. First and foremost it means you will be a member of a guild that agrees with the principles of the RiG-community. And that is in the end what it means to sign up to RiG and be part of this community. :-)

So basically what I'm saying is we should have sort of a warning sign for everyone looking to join a guild that promotes itself in our forums. Everyone should be aware that, at this point, where it is in no way clear yet how the project RiG will fan out overall when the servers go live or even on the long-term, there is no way of telling by joining a guild here with how many people on the forums you will play in the end.
There may be different stances about this differing from guild to guild and the guilds are free to explain their stance on this matter which may clear up to a certain point how big the chances are that the guild will "hop off", if you will ;-) This may as well appear in the stickie(s) (having the guilds explain their view on this and how "committed" they want to be to the majority of the people or if they just want to commit themselves to the charter, which is totally fine, for the time being).

@Grome,

Done. Let me know if I missed or was unclear on anything.

Aldemarran wrote:

@Grome,

Done. Let me know if I missed or was unclear on anything.

Thank you.
It fits nicely. It should go in the sticky, do you think so too? If so I would add for the guilds to specify how devoted exactly they are to the people or how much they'd be willing to sacrifice?

Ok, I've shifted modes and have begun (but by no means completed) unifying the style used in the guildlines.

Time for me to ask the sort of question that's likely to bring down great wrath upon my head; Do we want to create a separate thread for Best Performance Theory and Statistics? Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Stop biting my head off and listen for just a sec!

If The RiG takes off we will see almost every single type of player in here. It is not IMHO unreasonable to include those players who enjoy tweaking their toons for top performance SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DISRESPECTFUL TO OTHER OVER IT. This means we have an opportunity to influence how performers present themselves and behave towards the rest of the population. If we provide a respectful environment to discuss it, they will have to present it as an option, not as "the right way to play". We don't have to tolerate "if you didn't take X then you're a >Selven respect filter<".

Ok, NOW you can bite my head off!

If this gets too involved I may have to kick off another drama filled thread, argh...

Aldemarran wrote:

Ok, I've shifted modes and have begun (but by no means completed) unifying the style used in the guildlines.

Time for me to ask the sort of question that's likely to bring down great wrath upon my head; Do we want to create a separate thread for Best Performance Theory and Statistics? Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Stop biting my head off and listen for just a sec!

If The RiG takes off we will see almost every single type of player in here. It is not IMHO unreasonable to include those players who enjoy tweaking their toons for top performance SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DISRESPECTFUL TO OTHER OVER IT. This means we have an opportunity to influence how performers present themselves and behave towards the rest of the population. If we provide a respectful environment to discuss it, they will have to present it as an option, not as "the right way to play". We don't have to tolerate "if you didn't take X then you're a >Selven respect filter<".

Ok, NOW you can bite my head off!

If this gets too involved I may have to kick off another drama filled thread, argh...

I object...to the name of the thread. I have no problem with theorycrafters so long as they don't do the "you must pick x or you don't know how to play your class" thing. However, I do find Best Performance Theory and Statistics to be a bit verbose. Why not just Theorycraft or Theorycrafting. Or perhaps a more whimsical but fitting the ideal behind this group [Non]Elitist [Non]Jerks

Godric_Barbarosa wrote:

I object...to the name of the thread. I have no problem with theorycrafters so long as they don't do the "you must pick x or you don't know how to play your class" thing. However, I do find Best Performance Theory and Statistics to be a bit verbose. Why not just Theorycraft or Theorycrafting. Or perhaps a more whimsical but fitting the ideal behind this group [Non]Elitist [Non]Jerks

I agree with you. Theorycraft or something similar would, in my opinion, be a better title.

Agreed, the title mentioned above was (while very precise) entirely too verbose and impractical. Due to the strong associations created by the Elitist Jerks forum with the word "Theorycrafting" I'd like to avoid having it as a single word title. Due to the fact that not all those who are/were involved in Elitist Jerks were actually elitist jerks (or at least I hope not...) I'd like to avoid using a title that specifically attacks anyone from that site.

You've given me some good premise work to use, I'll mull the title over for a few days and see if I can't come up with something effective.

How about Template Talk? .. or something along those lines. Template Tinkering?

The [Non]Elitist {Non]Jerks was meant tongue and cheek and not meant to attack anyone. If you don't like Theorycraft(ing) how about a term that predates it like Character Optimization or variants Statistical Optimization, or the slightly more verbose Statistical Character Optimization

Godric_Barbarosa wrote:

...Character Optimization...

Me likey...

Though I might decide to recommend Statistical Character Optimization because you can optimize a character for things other than pure number production.

Aldemarran wrote:

Godric_Barbarosa wrote:

...Character Optimization...

Me likey...

Though I might decide to recommend Statistical Character Optimization because you can optimize a character for things other than pure number production.

Pretty much sums up my opinion as well. I prefer the term Character Optimization for reasons of conciseness and historical precedence but some people find the term offensive. Even though I'm an RPer, I don't.

Out of interest, Selven, are we able to start setting any of this up into its new folders and sub folders etc?

i know we discussed this before Xmas, but was not sure if we were still deciding on layout? or if you were definate on if we could set this all up or not?

Love some of the ideas on here is all, and though I know many will not come into affect until we either no more about how this game will work etc, or indeed until after launch, I would be interested in seeing some of these ideas and layouts begin to form on the site so we can see how they look and function?

Ty-Odi wrote:

Out of interest, Selven, are we able to start setting any of this up into its new folders and sub folders etc?

i know we discussed this before Xmas, but was not sure if we were still deciding on layout? or if you were definate on if we could set this all up or not?

Love some of the ideas on here is all, and though I know many will not come into affect until we either no more about how this game will work etc, or indeed until after launch, I would be interested in seeing some of these ideas and layouts begin to form on the site so we can see how they look and function?

Yes, I could start setting it up. I'm just waiting for the completion of the forum descriptions amongst a couple of other minor things. I'll have a go at it as soon as we've decided everything is polished out and agreed upon. Should we set a date for it? Unfortunatly I can't join in on the discussion this weekend. Will be attending a big family thing tomorrow, so not back until sunday afternoon.

I believe that the structure is pretty solidly fixed at this point. I'll commit now to having the Welcome, General, Aid & Assistance, and Rigger's forums written up to my satisfaction by Sunday evening. That should cover most or all of what we already have anyway. Selven, you could then implement those. Even if someone comes back with an alteration it shouldn't be too difficult to make the updates... or at least I wouldn't think so?

This would provide people something to look at and wrap their minds around. I could concurrently make a new thread for discussing forum visibility restrictions and release timing along with doing several of the other small tasks that are still hanging.

Grome wrote:

...
Thank you.
It fits nicely. It should go in the sticky, do you think so too? If so I would add for the guilds to specify how devoted exactly they are to the people or how much they'd be willing to sacrifice?

Speaking of hanging tasks, I just realized I never directly answered this. For each forum in the list on page 8 of this thread there are two descriptions. The first is in quotes and is the single line description displayed below the forum name that you click on in the forum list. The second, unquote marked is the sticky itself. Thus both the server warning and respect definition warning are already in the sticky post for each Guild Recruitment forum.

The "Please Note" paragraphs are meant to deal with the whole devotion/sacrifice issue, but I'm not sure they are clear enough. Any elaboration you could provide would be helpful.