Proposal for getting things on this board less confusing

[Weevil]

My simple proposal: Make an extra section only for bugs and technical problems with 1.3 and keep ANY kind of discussion out of there, so that IFF GSH / Ken / whoever else that is really involved with the patch, when they take a look, won't have to work their way through all those discussions and are able to find and solve the kind of problems that actually CAN be fixed ?

[technoid]

Well, I don't think we can start doing that unless we really know they are coming back.  Besides, we already have two 1.3 beta sections... public and private.

[Weevil]

Yeah, but the thing about private 1.3 is that people like me can't see it ^^

[technoid]

Yeah, and we're glad.  

[Sponge]

[IceWendigo]

I agee with weevil's point.

[CmptrWz]

How about this:

We create a "team" that is given moderation rights. Not to play moderator, mind you, but to label things "Major", "Minor", "Suggestion". Can't trust the average person to label things properly, as some people think their suggestion is a major issue. As seen a couple of times already.

People that DO rate their own could have the rating changed on them to a more appropriate rating.

[Jwk the Hemp Monkey]

Firstly, acknowladge that it is my idea.

Secondly, i think that only the person who writes the post has the right to edit its 'quality'.....if the person is reasonable they will change it as the people who read the post say ''hmm...mabey its not so major ' or '' whoa! thats really important! ''
If they are not a resonable person...then their post is probably going to be ignored anyway.

And Thirdly...why was your instant responce '' Moderators must decide whats important and whats not!! ''....

...if they knew that already we would not be having a public beta, would we?

[Zero Angel]

How about common sense?

(bug/AV) Mytopicname - for any AVs or wierd bugs, ie: Knights post on the commbunker death.

(exploit) Mytopicname - for things such as multibombing, using console commands to equip your scout with SP-Stabs, etc.

(balance) MyTopicName - for any NON-FRIVOLOUS discussions affecting balance. Ie: the satchel topic wouldnt fall under this, but Jwk's truck topic might.

(suggestion) MyTopicName - for any useful features, such as suggesting that the winning team name be put in the gamestats logfiles.


This should be a lot less open to interpretation then Major/minor.

[Jwk the Hemp Monkey]

Thats some great guidence for the what the topic maker decides is the best Braket Label () for that subject.

Having 'moderators' decided how 'important' and what catergery a topic goes under will cause way to much stress in this situation that its worth, and that concept has been proven to work because of the valued members of the board who left.

And thats all i have to say on the matter.

Good ideas Zero.

[Jwk the Hemp Monkey]

People that DO rate their own could have the rating changed on them to a more appropriate rating.

And what happens when their opinions disagree. Lock their thread? delete their complaints?

No, it is far better to let them make their mistakes. If the label really matters that much, the orginal writer of the thread can re-name theirs according to the responce by the beta board.

As seen a couple of times already.

At the time of writing its not 'a couple'...its once. And it was my topic about Service trucks, Healers and Repair Drones....and i changed the title the second someone suggested that it might not be a 'major issue' and might infact be a suggestion.

I do not see how 'forcing' people to abide by a strict set of rules with reguards to how they lable their topics is going to be an efficent course of action  given all the chaous it would cause.

and since i thought up the idea, how about we just go with
'writer gets to chose what to lable it, and when to change it.'

No 'moderators' and what not.

End of problem.

[Huscar]

So everybody can post their junk and keep this board unusable? No. Far better to have split toppics and good moderators who delete all the posts that completelly don't make sense (might be lots of mines, everything I say could be said in a quarter of the time it takes me), some of them are like: why is the fisic changed? kind of things.

[Jwk the Hemp Monkey]

well then, the problem is not the managment of the posts, but the care people take when writing them.

In respect for the indervidual, the posts names and contents should be edited as LITTLE as possiable.

not '' oo lets make another ring of beuracacy for people to spin around '' mentality.

[CmptrWz]

The only thing I was suggesting be edited by a group of people other then the topic poster was a pre-tag stating what kind of issue the post described. The ONLY way to allow that kind of editing is through moderation rights.

Many people would say "This IS a major issue" no matter how much others say it isn't. Thus, the team dedicated to deciding the rating would be empowered to go in and change it themselves, setting the final word on it. If really wanted, "edit" rights could be restricted further so that noone BUT that team(and admins/other moderators) could so much as edit a post. I don't think it would go that far.

The team would also be able to label topics that weren't labeled. This one could be (NPR), or Not Patch Related, as it deals with the way we are posting instead of issues with the patch.

[Jwk the Hemp Monkey]

A) you still have not gone ''oh! chears for the Idea hemp ''

B) you prove my point about not respecting the writers right to edit the title and content of his posts as he sees fits.

Yes people are going to mislabel certain posts, but its not worth all the aggrivation and fustration people will get if you start pigeon holeing their ideas in a way that upsets them. and such actions have cost you people already!

Anyhow, how can a select few people 'decide' how important an issue is? As i said before, if you already knew all the answers and could reliably 'decide' how important and issue is, then whats the point in having a public beta?

There is such a thing as over-administration. And its very, very damaging.