Personally, I think the fact that you're coding an entire message board system just for an audience such as us is amazing, so I couldn't even conceive of being able to ask for anything more than you've already committed to giving. All I can say is thank you for all of this.
Date: 24 Jun 2012 19:04
Number of posts: 286
RSS: New posts
Well, not that the thanks aren't appreciated (they are), but all I really did is configuration rather than code. The actual programming project is something I've had kicking around in my head for a while, given some form of immediate focus. And it'll probably be a while before it manifests outside of the aforementioned head, anyways.
My thanks too. I imagine there will be a (shonkily worded) mission statement or the like? Be good if we could keep most threads useful for folks, or maybe define some categories without hammering people into staying on topic.
Actually, maybe I shoud take that back. The whole thing is to explore storytelling using whatever tools seem apt, so traditional narrative or gameplay elements simply dont work as categories. The strength of discussion so far has in part been the ability to fly with various concepts, addressed at a particular game but using the various skills folks have.
Not up to posting anything long just yet, but have a few ideas brewing away. Dark Souls/Demon Souls deserves a decent discussion for its redefinition of certain gameplay ideas - and am I the first to mention it here? Hope you brought the drinks cabinet over. Some of the ME stuff can simply wait until we see the results of the EC.
Given the intentionally small audience (for the moment anyway), strict topic-walling probably isn't necessary. We know each other's ways here ;)
Just for the record, by the way, if there's anyone else you guys think should be here, invite them! We've got a limit of twenty members before I have to upgrade the site (which I'll do, no problem, if we get that high). I'm just slightly uncomfortable being the sole gatekeeper.
Question for everyone: do we want to stick with the nested structure we have at present per-thread, or switch to the flat model the BSN uses?
I must admit I prefer the flat model of the bsn, but then I've never been exposed to anything else. Just thinking ahead to when we have long and short stuff intermingled, and folks who might be away a while want to catch up on the flow of a particular thread.
This is particular so in my case, as there will be periods over the next six months where I'Il have to disappear for a week or so at a time (I should be doing that right now) and I will definitely want to catch up like we have done on the bsn.
However I leave such final decisions in the hands of the more net savvy. You folks have much better experience at this.
I've got mixed feelings. I like the nested at the moment, but as we grow I fear it'll be easy to lose new Replies to old stuff. I'm very tentatively in favor of the Flat model, but I also suspect that as I get used to this setup the problems will work themselves out.
… How's that for wishy-washy?
I have that same inherent vacillation. Threading allows for more fine-grained responses, but I find over time it spaghettifies more than it clarifies.
Also, and this is entirely selfish of me, a flat model makes it easier to follow over email.
- I've decided to go with the flat model of threads. Nested responses are nice and all, but a) it makes it hard to find new replies to old posts (as Hawk points out), and b) I think the flat model contributes more to the "dinner party" model we've become accustomed to.
- I'm going to be revamping the front page soon. I'd like some kind of blurb to put there. Suggestions are welcome. I'm also going to be highlighting recent articles instead of recent threads, just to make the place look vaguely respectable to those coming from elsewhere (I'll get to that in a sec).
- The articles section is open to all. The people here, I've found, are full of talent and insight, and one of my goals with this site is to encourage all of us to write things we can hold up to other sources and sites. On the BSN thread, drayfish mentioned that he was surprised at the level of discourse and dismayed at how difficult it was to find the kind of balance between critical thought and individual passions on display. I'm a greedy sonofabitch, and I want more. What that means, though, is that anything we put in the articles section should be something we can feel comfortable throwing around on Twitter and having other people link to our work. Thus, I feel we should generally take the time required to get things right. What I'd suggest is that people put a piece up on the wiki section first, and get at least one other person to run through it. I can then transfer it over to the longform area if someone doesn't know how to bend Wikidot in such a way.
- I did the opposite of what I'm talking about with my little EC piece, and realized when I got random retweets that it might be a problem in the future; I'm sorry for that. I don't want to claim ownership of this space like some blue-tinged cosmic overlord - I just make sure the place doesn't break. This is our space, not mine. I don't produce nearly enough decent stuff on my own to make such a thing worthwhile. Again, I'm a greedy sonofabitch, and I want to ride all your coattails to glory.