Hi there,
Clinton and I were doing some talking. Here's what we came up with.
Basically, poor old Indie Design has been pulling triple duty for far too long now. It's cluttered and despite moments of brilliance, usually low-utility. I gave some thought to the different needs it serves, and broke them out as follows.
1. New poster, game idea, half the time presenting it out of a perceived need to fit in, and the other half working from a "it's so cool" perspective. However, for someone new to the forum, this is the obvious entry point and social method of approach. They're dead wrong, but there's no way for them to know that, and all the signs and stickies and introductory text in the world won't change that. And if we bar this sort of posting, that's the wrong kind of bar - it's a slammed door, to too many people.
Solution: they need interaction and a repetition of the mantra, "what in your play-experience led you to propose this idea." Person 1 has never played cyberpunk anything and wants to; person 2 has never played anything else and keeps repeating its tropes because that's all he knows. They both present a cyberpunk idea for a game, devoid of any real structure, but since they have different play-histories, they have different needs.
2. People with real games in solid development who are tinkering with them, either stalled at a particular stage (addicted to it, more like) or plugging along on a nice design trajectory. Flatly, what they need is actual playtesting, whether by themselves or by others, and a place to deal with what everyone finds out.
Solution: well, this one's obvious - classic focused Forge-ish interaction and discourse. It would be good to work out a better scheme and set of issues to help game designers with this crucial step, and keep the discussion about it from getting swamped by other stuff.
3. People presenting and involved in design projects, such as the original 24-Hour game, the Iron Game Chef, the Ronnies, and others. Someone posts a set of rules and steps up and carries out the submissions and feedback, Perhaps linked to other websites, perhaps not.
Solution: also obvious, what we've been doing semi-regularly anyway, just in its own forum. I should clarify that I'm saying anyone can suggest an endeavor, the activities wouldn't be run by any one person.
H'm, we said. Why not three forums instead of one? Respectively, (1) "New here? Got an idea?" (2) "Playtesting Hotbed" and (3) "Endeavor," for tentative names (the only one I'm really sold on is the last). The first two are really Actual Play in disguise, if you think about it. Also, Actual Play would remain itself, although obviously a certain number of posts that currently go there would now go into one of the others.
That puts the main forums at these three, Actual Play, and Publishing. Site Discussion has been obsolete for a long time, as it's pretty clear that Clinton and I don't want site discussions. Fuck site discussions, with rare exceptions like this thread. Maybe a whole new interface ought to be created for any such function, make it part of the pulldown menu or something like that.
How about the others? I gotta say, I've received many messages with good links for the theory-archive forums, but have not been good about updating them. I hope to fix that. But they'll remain, never fear. A couple of people have come up with some very useful ideas about creating indexes for them.
I know that in the past we talked about an "Ask Ron" forum (probably with a much better name) for Big Model talk, but as it happens, the recent Actual Play threads which explicitly ask Creative Agenda or Big Model questions have been very effective. I answer questions about the ideas much better in that context anyway. At the moment, I'm not seeing much need for a whole forum "about me."
Well, that's about it. Clinton and I are (for once) interested in discussing all this. Part of it, admittedly, is just so all the dog-howls of horror can arise and be put behind us, M.J. can tell us that he doesn't like change (we knew that, but he has to say it), and doom & gloom can be predicted. Who knows, though, someone might well propose something great that we didn't think of.
Best,
Ron
What's going to stop "New Here? Got An Idea?" from being some sorry little forum where new folks post and the old salts ignore?
I thoroughly endorse a Playtesting forum; I suggest the emphasis be reports on playtesting and the edits being done in response.
Do projects started in Endeavor move over to New Here once the contest's over but the designer's still pursuing development? Or do they brew there until they're in Playtesting? (Not a question that has a short, sweet answer, I know.)
Hi Joshua!
QuoteWhat's going to stop "New Here? Got An Idea?" from being some sorry little forum where new folks post and the old salts ignore?
My boot up your ass.
Actually, more practically if less enjoyably, I'm thinking of better and more immediately understandable stickies for all the forums, and this one would be the toughest. If I can do it right, and if even a few prepared folks back me up at the outset, we can set a good precedent.
And remember, some of the new folks turn out to be pure gold, just one post later after their "kewl quarterstaff rulez" initial post. I think a better, clearer forum will reveal these folks much more often, and that heightened payoff will act as incentive for at least some of us to persist as welcomers.
QuoteI thoroughly endorse a Playtesting forum; I suggest the emphasis be reports on playtesting and the edits being done in response.
Um, yes. That is what I had in mind, can't really imagine any other way to do it.
QuoteDo projects started in Endeavor move over to New Here once the contest's over but the designer's still pursuing development? Or do they brew there until they're in Playtesting? (Not a question that has a short, sweet answer, I know.)
Individual cases will vary, but my current thinking is that New Here really is for "new here's," and one doesn't really go back to it unless a
de novo notion hits you and you just wanna share it.
Seems to me as well that Endeavor submissions would get their threads of feedback, however many are appropriate to that project's details, in there, but then later, if the designer basically moves on, then Playtesting and Publishing are the logical next forums. E.g., the recent Space Rat thread would now be in the Playtesting forum, not the Endeavor forum, if that's how it were set up now.
Oh yeah, and I think I mentioned it, but just for clarity, Playtesting refers to anyone playing the game in development, not just the designer.
Good questions! And you didn't tell us we were obviously unholy fucks for changing things 'round more. Or maybe you just figured that repeating the obvious wasn't constructive.
Best,
Ron
Oh yeah! And I forgot to mention, the "New Here" forum intro or some aspect of its interface would certainly be integrated with useful introductory help, like Troy's Socratic Design blog and similar places.
I'm also thinking that pointers to my and others' essays might do better in the intro to Actual Play. Maybe, maybe not.
Best,
Ron
Hi!
Sounds good. I know as a noob/semi-noob, I was a little daunted as to how to get started here. I think you may be creating a confusion between Actual Play and Playtesting. But that might just be me looking for trouble where none exists.
If there is anything I can do to assist, let me know.
Playtesting = Actual Play specifically intended to produce feedback and informs the design of that game in specific
Actual Play = Actual Play on games no longer in development, intended to produce feedback and inform the design of other games in forum-goer's heads
Yeah?
There is a part of me that thinks Playtesting should be folded over into Actual Play, but perhaps that forum has heavy enough a burden already.
I dunno.
I'm inclined to agree with Joshua that a seperate "New Here/Idea" forum might "ghettoize" newbies. I also find the purpose of the "Endeaveors" a little odd since it seems to service a kind of phenomenon that is not necessarily specific to the The Forge (if fully in line with The Forge's goals). Collapsing those two into a single: "Think Tank" forum seems more sound. So, participation here follows a natural progression:
"Think Tank" --> This is where the pen and paper part of design (newbie design, 24 hour, Ronnies, whatever) gets discussed which eventually moves to:
"Playtesting" --> As you say, 'Actual Play' for works in progress which leads to:
"Publishing" --> Get that design out the door and to the masses which finally ends up in:
"Actual Play" --> On going discussion of our play experiences.
That's a natural progression that doesn't over specialize. The one fear is the temptation to stay in "Think Tank" forever *hangs own head in shame* but it might aid the progession because the phenomenon can be pointed out, "Hey, you've got 29 posts in 'Think Tank' where's that 'Playtesting' post?"
Jesse
Wow. I really like the idea of the progression idea there, Jesse. I dig it a lot.
Also; I wave my flag against the noobie Forum. Nothing new to say about it. Nothing that Joshua and Jesse haven't already said.
-Eric
Well, if the three of you made even one post a day helping the new folks in Indie Design as it currently stands, like Troy Costisick and Bill Masek do, then maybe there wouldn't be any issue about that, now would there? Buncha blog-boy smartypants.
In our current situation, we have three choices:
- Drown in posts by new folks in a state of confusion
- Provide a place for them that does not isolate them, but transforms them
- Put up and enforce standards for posting that basically shuts them up
I see the potential pitfalls in the second one, but I see even more clearly the destructive qualities of the first and third.
The current tendency for people to get stuck in the "designing not playing" stage (Eric and Joshua, you are not in this trap) is pretty bad. I'm hesitant to allow people to wallow in the Think Tank, which carries all the horrors for me that RPG Theory came to have over the last few years.
Don't let the tone and content of this post throw you. You guys are making sense and providing much food for thought. I'll make cranky noises along the way, that's all.
Best,
Ron
I really like the idea of an introductory section, be it for posters or for games. Myself, I've stopped posting to the Indie Design with my latest project because of the sheer weight of new posts flowing freely in, my project posts drop off the pages never to be seen again. I chime in more on Publishing because this is an aspect I'm becoming more familiar with, but for the time being my focused design posts and playable documents are being lost amid educating a dozen new folks with "kewl" games who want to share, right fully.
So I like it, an intro forum to iron out the newbies which progresses into a more focused "This is my current design, this is the bug I have, this is what I want to know from you"
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 25, 2006, 09:36:15 PM
- Drown in posts by new folks in a state of confusion
- Provide a place for them that does not isolate them, but transforms them
- Put up and enforce standards for posting that basically shuts them up
...
I'm hesitant to allow people to wallow in the Think Tank, which carries all the horrors for me that RPG Theory came to have over the last few years.
Prediction: in a few years, you'll be as tired of having to constantly moderate the newbie/entry-level section as you've been with the RPG theory forum. But that's a problem for then, not now.
I really like the progression idea, and it would indeed be optimal if things move that way, but there's one element that seriously needs solving: the further one progresses, the more intimate knowledge of the games discussed - both rules- and play-experiencewise - is required. It's extremely hard to consistently contribute to the "upper level" discussions if one doesn't own a copy of (or hasn't repeatedly read drafts of, if it's a work in progress) the game being discussed. Unless regulated somehow, instead of the /clear design focus/ I see as the primary intent behind all the recent and upcoming changes, you'll get a cult-like structure where one has to buy certain games in order to be considered a contributing member. When everything is tied to the actual games, not only direct applicability to but also dependency on the games increases. How do you plan on solving this problem?
The only solution I can come up with is to have a mandatory policy on all games here, when they pass a certain point in development (defined by you) to post a short summary of the game's /general/ traits on either the design house's forum (so TAO would have a Sticky "What is Polaris about and how does it work" thread, for example) or on a separate archive section ("Games developed in association with the Forge"). Think Sorcerer's "About the Game" combined with a bit of extra info on how it deals with thematic stuff. If possible, with some uniform rules on presentation so that people could look at the descriptions and see the major stilistic or system differences (say, "this game favors tragic narrative" vs. "this game is about only one story told repeatedly from different perspectives"). In addition to facilitating discussion, it would probably serve as a good point for curious people looking for a new game to see which Actual Play threads would most likely be of interest to them.
Heya,
QuoteI'm inclined to agree with Joshua that a seperate "New Here/Idea" forum might "ghettoize" newbies.
-Uh, it's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen. Your concern is actually encouraging to me. It means that you have a desire to see these new guys succeed and don't want to see them neglected. Awesome! I'd suggest that you take it upon yourself then to post feedback in those forums and help these guys out. It's actually quite rewarding and it helps you think about your own games at the same time.
Quoteyou didn't tell us we were obviously unholy fucks for changing things 'round more.
-Ron, you and Clinton are...eh forget it. You know what you are. Anyway, I totally dig this idea. The Indie-Design forum is SO swamped with new posts it's hard to keep something your helping out with on the front page long enough to give it some serious thought. I always feel rushed to respond so the poster doesn't get discouraged because his thread vanished :( So yes, whoohoo! Just one question though. Is the "New Here Design" meant for people who are actually new to the Forge or designs that are just in their "I want a game that does this 'cool thin', how do I make that work?" that are proposed by anybody?
-One thing I'd like to throw out as an idea is to create a "Closed" forum that contains threads with all the links from great posts in Theory, GNS, Publishing, Design and Actual Play. It would be a kind of "New Here?" thing too. When people show up for the first time with all their great ideas, they could do some reading in that Forum and get some of their questions answered right there. It's also a great place to put all the etiquette stickies and "How to Post in all these Forums" stickies so they don't clutter up the forums actually in use.
-Well, it's an embryo of an idea anyway. I just think it'd be need to get rid of a lot of the stickies and have a forum for reading that wasn't quite as esotericly named as RPG Theory or GNS Discussion. There is SO much good information in all the old posts, but I can well believe some new guy would be reluctant to dive into a forum named Theory when he's just now proposing his first fantasy heartbreaker.
Peace,
-Troy
My only concern, with "new here" in the forum title, is sending a message that the gateway for new users is bringing your design ideas to the table. Despite the ubiquity of the "system doesn't matter" mantra, I think gamers in general skew way over to design as the solution for their play frustrations and unrealized desires, rather than to reflection, new creative architectures, and social dynamics. Despite placement of Actual Play at the top of the forum list, Indie Game Design remains the preferred entry of choice for most new users. So is the "new here" forum an admission of defeat, an acknowledgement that we can't direct new users to reflection, different creative architectures, and attention to social dynamics through forum arrangement? Because it seems a little insulting to capture the subset of new arriving Forgites who would otherwise have an Actual Play realization by a "new here" forum that invites design ideas, only to then toss them back at Actual Play. I dunno, I guess my general preference on this would be for honesty over well-intentioned dishonesty. How about a forum for:
New user? What Actual Play experience brings you to The Forge?
Paul
I have a couple of logistical questions. What happens to all the threads currently in Design? Will you and Clinton slot the active ones into the new forums? Will you archive the forum and tell everyone to start new threads? Finally, do you anticipate that there will be a rise in moderation work with closing threads that are more appropriate for one design forum than another, or moving those threads? I just wouldn't want you to sour on the idea a couple months down the road because doing that kind of thing becomes a big time waster.
I think Paul brings up a good point. Here's an idea: keep Actual Play at the top and rename it to New Here & Actual Play, and have the next one be New Here & Initial Game Design. I guess those are a little clunky, but they get across that there are two ports of entry, one through play and one through design, and that both new and old hands are invited to post in both (thats the point of the "&").
Or have a sticky at the top of New Here, guiding folks to post a first AP thread, maybe even with an outline of what we are looking for in that first post.
Hi Nathan!
I can clearly see your point. I myself strongly agree with Paul's point. But I've the feeling that a double entry point for new people may be highly confusing.
I think Judd's idea may work better. I like specially the idea of given some guidelines about what people here expect on the first posts. I think it is extremely important for new people to understand why The Forge works in this way.
BTW, the title proposed by Paul's sounds like a nice invitation.
Arturo
So I haven't posted for months and the first thing I do is comment on how to change things. Hubris, I tell ya, pure hubris . . .
I'd be surprised if there's much "ah! change? no No NO!" ranting. It's (IMO) sensible - and almost needed. What was begun with closing down the theory forums needs to be "finished." At least, that the sense I've had as an infrequent reader over the last months.
I'm with Paul that the bestest part of the "New here" stuff is the "what in your play led you to design?" thing. I'd call the forum "From Play to Design", put it right after Actual Play, and expect that ALL designs begin with a post here (to avoid the ghetto thing, and because it makes sense to know this about any game). For new folks, it'll probably be a long discussion thread - for others, maybe not. But that topic is great as a way for the Forge and a new person and/or game to get familiar with each other . So we get:
"Actual Play" (at the top, implying Start Here)
"From Play to Design" (or maybe start here, if you're design-focused)
"Playtesting - Design at Work"? (the implication should definitely be DON'T start here - maybe move to below Endeavor? and below Publishing?)
"Endeavor" (I almost added something to Endeavor, but it does work on its' own - and I gather Ron's mostly sold on that one)
Anyway, that's my thoughts,
Gordon
I like Gordon's variation on Jesse's "progression" variation of Ron's original idea. A lot. "From Play to Design" is very nice, too. The whole sequence idea suggests, "yes, you're new now, so you probably need to learn a lot of things, but soon you'll move on to doing progressively cooler stuff."
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on January 25, 2006, 07:02:10 PMWhat's going to stop "New Here? Got An Idea?" from being some sorry little forum where new folks post and the old salts ignore?
I know I from time to time dive into a newbie "Indie Design" or "Actual Play" post that catches my attention and try to be welcoming and instructive (a tricky balance). Some days I'm in that mood, some days I'm not. Having a nice catchbasin for the "New Here?" posts would give me a place to go to do my Forge community service.
The progression is a good thing. Despite my question, I also think an introductory forum is also a good thing. However, I'd humbly suggest that everybody use it to introduce new ideas in general. Even Ron and Clinton and Vincent and the rest of the Many-Titles-Under-Belt Brigade. Much as how you're not supposed to post into Indie Game Design unless you're talking about a game that is being designed for eventual publication, the new Design board might have the requirement that you can only post there once you've created a New Idea thread about the game you want to discuss. For extra shits and giggles, Design posts can link back to the New Ideas thread for a general summary of what the game is all about (so we can stop asking the question when it's already been answered).
And starting with Actual Play is a good thing. Because (everybody sing it, now) all design should be rooted in Actual Play.
My totally irrelevant preferences are:
Actual Play
New Ideas
Design
Playtesting
Publishing
Okay, leaving aside the "hey, I like this idea," or "boo, I don't like change," issues, while reading this thread, two things came to mind.
1) The order of the forums does not seem like a sufficient indication of where to post first, in my opinion. I know that I never even thought about it until now. A description underneath the forum title that says, "Post here first," might be enough. A "New Posters" forum would be hard to miss. I would never in a million years assume that the suggested order of posting was indicated by the order of the forums.
2) Since there's a problem of people muddying the design boards with attempts at social integration, why not make a social board? I know the Forge is design-focused and academic, not social, but a forum that lets people say hello, be welcomed, and be asked about their intentions and goals would seem the ideal way to cut out the "post to fit in" situation Ron describes. Then, people can be directed to where they should be posting. "Oh, you've got a concept? Talk about in on Forum X." "You're stuck at a certain point in your game design? Post in Forum Y." Also, you could have this forum auto-erase old threads, so you don't have to worry about adding too much data for storage. It wouldn't be stuff that you'd reference, anyway.
If I'm interpreting this correctly....
"Endeavor" and "New Here?" would allow or actively promote posting untested game texts and getting non-playtest feedback about them. (With the additional proviso that "New Here?" discussion be directed toward "What actual play experiences influenced your design?")
"Actual Play" and "Playtesting Hotbed" would rule out same.
So, it's beneficial or at least OK to seek non-playtest feedback about a not-yet-playtested game text if (1) you're new or (2) it's part of a contest, but not otherwise? I don't see the logic of it.
- Walt
Heya,
Compiling what people have said and mixing that with some nifty names, here's one suggested lineup of new forums:
"Actual Play"
"From Play to Initial Design"
"Playtesting - Designs at Work"
"Endeavor"
"Publishing and Marketing"
"Conventions"
"Connections"
"Resources" - links to old threads in Theory/GNS/Indie Design/Publishing, blogs, and so on
How's that strike ya, Ron?
Peace,
-Troy
Hey, I left Design over a year ago, because there were too many threads, too many posts on threads, too many game designs to be able to remember from one day to the next what they wall were.
I think anything that reduces the burden of that one forum is likely to be a positive step, and this notion of dividing design posts into several categories seems a very positive approach to doing that.
I'm not really against change per se. I'm against change that doesn't really make anything better. The Internet is full of change for change's sake, but I figure if I have to learn something all over again that I already know, there ought at least to be some benefit in it.
I see a lot of ideas about how to divide things and what to call them. To that, all I will say is that you want the divisions to be intuitive, and you want the forums to break up the burden fairly evenly. I agree that the three categories seem to be the newbie posts, the games genuinely in long-term design, and the quick-design contest games, although I'm not certain I would know where to post for a game design done to test a theory, such as the attempts to achieve congruence through the Viet Nam game. That's a minor matter--I used to post those in Theory anyway.
--M. J. Young
Publishing and Marketing. Watch me drool.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on January 26, 2006, 06:31:21 PM
Publishing and Marketing. Watch me drool.
Doesn't publishing already cover that?
Although I do like the suggestion.
Quote from: komradebob on January 26, 2006, 06:51:50 PM
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on January 26, 2006, 06:31:21 PM
Publishing and Marketing. Watch me drool.
Doesn't publishing already cover that?
Technically, yes. Publishing is an industry; marketing is a practice. (Marketing can also be a service industry providing that practice for other industry, blah de blah blah.) In my experience, however, the current Publishing board is mostly about manufacture, and marketing is ignored or implied. A little name-tweak might help emphasize the other essential elements of the publishing process.
Andrew said:
QuoteThe order of the forums does not seem like a sufficient indication of where to post first, in my opinion
It was not enough for me at least.
There should be something more (perhaps the same stick in every forum, perhaps a link in the main page) clearly explaining what is the purpose of each forum, and where and how to post to them for the first time. It could also be a nice place to tell new people about how to exploit the "resources" links to old theory-like posts, articles, etc. A kind of short general introductory text.
The forum names, and a specific stick in each forum explaining only that forum particulars, may not convey the general approach.
Arturo
Hi there,
I'm not sure just which combo we'll go with, but the discussion has really helped. A lot.
The key issue seems to be, what I'm not new to the Forge, and I do have a "new idea" to toss up? My current thinking is that keeping these posts in the "new here" forum will act as a model for new people - they can see that you are basing your ideas on actual play of some kind ('cause you will be, won't you - right? snarl).
What I'm sayin' is that "game notion out of my ass" posting, devoid of play-experience context, is just as annoying (or more so!!) from experienced Forge folks. It really should have some actual play background, even if it's "hey, I always loved alignment even though it flailed in application, and here's how, so ..." If you want to post in this fashion, and why not, then it's into the New Guy forum with you.
But that's just the current thinking. Keep talkin'.
Oh yes, something else - when we do get around to rearranging the actual page, then what I'll do is this: very quickly, move all the current threads from the first couple-three pages of Indie Design (or maybe reach back a certain amount of time) into their appropriate new forums. That way the forums all get jump-started and the threads all get sort of a new lease on life. The remaining Indie Design then becomes another archived forum along with Theory and GNS.
Ideas or comments on that plan are welcome too. (Come on, folks, how often do Clinton & I say that. Enjoy it while you got it.)
Best,
Ron
Heya,
You know, what Andrew and Arturo said really resonated with me. It still isn't quite clear that Actual Play is the intro forum, followed by New Design. So here's a bold suggestion, do you think an Intro to the Forge forum would be appropriate? It would be a place where the Post Etiquette, Where you should go first, What is an "Indie-RPG" and "What to do if you're having a problem" stickies would go. It would also be a place (oh boy) where people could post a short info sheet on who they are and what they've accomplished/want to accomplish in the Gaming Industry. It might be too "social" for what the Forge is about, but it would do several things. A) it would allow the newbies to come in, say "Hi" and get that out of their system so we don't have to mess with it in Play and Design. B) it would show the newcommers who's produced what games and who has a blog and whatever else which is important if they want to ask for advice C) It would maybe decrease a newcomer's fear level in asking questions and sending PMs since he's sorta gotten a chance to get to know everyone- a virtual handshake if you will. It would also be great if it were at the top of the list so there's no doubt as to where someone new here would go first.
So a potential forum lineup might be something like....
"Intro to the Forge"
"Actual Play"
"From Play to Initial Design"
"Playtesting - Designs at Work"
"Endeavor"
"Publishing and Marketing"
"Conventions"
"Connections"
"Resources"
I think this would help make a smoother transition into the Forge and de-clog some of the forums. Plus you can actually see a progression from Intro to Publishing/Marketing. If our goal is to help people play, create, and publish better games, I think this line up will help facilitate that.
Peace,
-Troy
PS: It's really cool of you and Clinton, Ron, to ask for our input. Makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 27, 2006, 09:02:24 AMThe key issue seems to be, what I'm not new to the Forge, and I do have a "new idea" to toss up? My current thinking is that keeping these posts in the "new here" forum will act as a model for new people - they can see that you are basing your ideas on actual play of some kind ('cause you will be, won't you - right? snarl).
In other words, "hey, I have this idea, but it's not clear enough in my mind or rigorously enough expressed to qualify as a game-in-the-making yet, somebody give me some thoughtful responses"? I'm thinking of the kind of thing that people sometimes put in RPG Theory as "notional mechanic" or "notional game design" -- which is how both
Capes and
Scarlet Wake started.
Everything I say below may be a little off-base. I'm just going to be up front and state that I am working from the assumption that the Forge's primary function is to assist the design and publishing of independent games. Let me say now that I like the idea, but my main concern is implementation.
There seems to be no middle ground between neophyte game designers and people who have been published once (or more than once) already. So, as I'm examining these changes, I'm left wondering exactly how this is going to make things different for me and other people in my situation. I hate to sound selfish about this, but in more concrete terms, how will these changes help me get Dramatikos playtested and published? What can we do with these new forums to ensure that a greater percentage of the games being designed on the Forge are being playtested and published? What can individual members of the Forge do in light of these changes to encourage indie game designers to go through the entire process of design, playtesting, and publishing?
Being rid of the Theory and GNS boards helped to shift attention back to Design and Actual Play, but it's difficult to be noticed if the thread to your game is just one amongst dozens and if you are not a recognized regular at the Forge. But, I think there is a solution that the Forge community can pursue. Mainly I think lies in threads like this (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14879). What made this thread neat was not the demographic it was reaching, but the way it exposed the posters and readers to games that can easily be overlooked during a casual glance at the Design forum. I believe encouraging and participating in threads like these are great for giving exposure to various games. Instead of being about a specific theme, the threads can be specifically for pitching games that have not entered the playtesting stage. The only caveat is to make sure that the threads don't get too bulky. Perhaps starting a new thread after a certain interval can help keep things digestible.
Another option is to get non-designers to participate by being more vocal about the games they want. This is not in the sense of "The Forge needs more games like this," but more like, "Are there any games in the works that _____ ?" Matching the right game to the right audience would be invaluable throughout the design and publication process. Creating or encouraging one or more groups (whether live or online) dedicated to playtesting would be pretty neat too, though I'm not sure if it's feasible. However, if the interest is there, I'm sure that it can be done.
In general, I would say that in order to make this continue to work and to grow, finding ways to involve the entire Forge community and encourage proactive participation in the design process would be the way to go.
I'm not sure how much I can add, because I'm so new, but what struck me as unusual about this forum was that there wasn't, or I couldn't find, a FAQ page. I read the stickies in all the forums, read many of the articles, but I still felt that I wasn't pointed in how to first post or what to first post. The main questions I was left with before I posted were:
1. Do I introduce myself, what games I've played, if I've published games, etc...? Didn't seem like other new posters were doing such.
2. Do I post in a forum other than design before I post in design? I wasn't sure what I could add elsewhere being so new.
3. How do I present my game or idea? I ran across the big three and then the Power 19, but when I posted mine it didn't seem other new posters were doing this.
4. What questions do I even ask or how should I evaluate my game before presenting it so as to not waste forum space and members time? I still don't know if I got that right.
There were many other questions, but those are the main ones that I recall. Also, maybe because of the questions that I couldn't find answers for (maybe I didn't know where to look) or maybe because of the high level conversation written in these forums or maybe a little of both, it was pretty darn intimidating to post here. Much more so than in any other forums I participate in. For example, at a photography forum I've been active in since 2002, it was easy to start there, I had a question about some equipment purchases, so I posted in equipment, and I got a ton of responses, which in turn kept me as a user, who now gives advice. Or in a canoe building forum, I needed to know how to do some woodworking, and I got a ton of answers, and now I'm someone who gives advice there after four or five years of participating. These were easy questions to post, because I knew where I was going, and I just wanted more advice. Here, it seem much harder to figure out what questions to ask. (Maybe my inexperience.)
So, now that I've rambled a little, I'd suggest a static html FAQ page, maybe call it "New to the Forge?" In it cover what kind of conversations go on in each forum, how to introduce yourself, where to post first, how to present new game ideas, how to take the game from idea to manuscript, then where to post as the game progresses and the way to publishing. Basically, a FAQ that spells it all out.
For the forums, I'm so new I'd hate to guess what is needed, but the list compiled by Troy seems good. Instead of "From Play to Initial Design," I'd just call it "Initial Design." I might add a forum before "Initial Design" called "Game Ideas." Then require discussions based in "Initial Design" to have some sort of manuscript developed and almost ready for play-testing. This way you sort of the "Game Ideas" that go no further than that from those that are in the works.
And one last thought: The reason I posted here in the first place and what attracted me to the Forge was that I've always enjoyed writing games and playing them and just plain reading them and about them, and I had a game that I actually wanted to develop. The Forge seemed to have the smartest conversations out of all the forums I looked at. But it's just so hard to know where to start.
Hopefully, these thoughts are helpful,
Bryan
Ack, was in training for the last few days, haven't been paying too close attention, and whammo.
All in all, I like what others are saying. I have nothing to add on the splits.
But what the fuck, let me bang my "Andy Drum" here for a second, getting as gruff and gritty for the others. You've heard this tune again, so feel free to roll eyes and all, cause here it comes again.
Bang, bang bang bang bang bang. I'm nailing that Taiko drum with these fat wooden bachi sticks. Here we go.
Usability. Form. Function.
There are 16 Open Threads in Indie Game Design on the first page (20 posts per page). That's ASS. Seriously, who touches shit on page two or three, unless they were heavily vested in it?
I push myself to jump into Indie Design at least once or twice a week (once on the weeks with 2+ gaming sessions in a week, twice on other weeks) and run through as many game threads as possible, leaving feedback when I can. And when I have a few mins at work, I'll skim the first page of Indie Design. Just front page, no matter how many times I later rememder that I should be checking the second or even third pages.
Out of sight IS out of mind. We can argue that it must be our responsibility to scan the next few pages yadda yadda crap. Most of us skim the first page. Only a few of us skim the second or further pages. How hard is it, really, to make a few forums (or heck, all of them?) list 30 or more (40?) threads per page? When the derth of fucking awesome nascent games that Need Help come rolling through, they may get ignored for a day or two, but as long as they're on that front page by day 3 or 4, someone's gonna get around to throwing them a bone, so that they aren't left to leave the Forge and be at the mercy of fucking Yahoo RPG-CREATE or whatever.
More threads per goddamn page in any forum that involves people posting ideas requesting/requiring feedback. Any less than that and we're BEGGING them to leave the Forge and go somewhere else when their uncommented thread hits page two.
bang bang bang bang bang, Andy bangs on his drum. Tribal banging over.
Oh, and don't get rid of site discussion, it's a good place to bring up Shit that's Broke. Maybe renaming it to Trouble Tickets or Broken Shit or whatever to kill "Can I talk about soap here?" threads, but still, we need a place to notify you guys when the forums barf.
-Andy
I've had something to say on this, but I've put it off, figuring it would be more or less taken care of. But a couple comments on this thread have changed my mind, and it seems to me it needs to be said.
It's always been my understanding that the way these forums in general and Indie Design in particular work is: you do not post ideas, you do not ask for opinions on setting or color material, you do not conduct polls. I've always thought that, to post in Indie Design, you had to:
- have a game design you are working on;
- have a very specific design problem that arose in that game ("I want X but playtest shows I will get Y instead.")
Bryan, in his post, mentioned it's confusing where and what to post. The 16 open threads on the first page that Andy mentions is a clear indication that other people are confused as well, because if you examine those threads, you'll see that the most common condition is "I have a game idea that I would *like* to turn into a full-fledged design, but I need help getting started." Also, several of the games in development spawn multiple threads, taking up even more space and demanding more attention.
It's kind of a dangerous situation, because we would certainly like to help those who need help, but when you help someone who doesn't know where to start on game design, it usually turns into "I want someone to design my game for me" or "I'll design my game in public and ask for constant feedback." Obviously, the latter is no good for the Forge at all, except in the limited situation of the game design challenges -- and that's because there's a definite beginning and end to it, and a promise that it won't go on forever. And the former case, people wanting their games designed for them, it's just too much to ask. Everyone here has one or more projects of their own to work on. Everyone would like to be helpful, but no one has the energy to provide unlimited help to even one game designer here, let alone hundreds of designers.
(Plus, as an aside, too often I've seen someone say "I need help with X" and have it turn into a game where the one looking for help rejects every single suggestion, and then asks for more suggestions. Again, endlessly.)
Now, there may be times when someone is perfectly willing to literally design a game for someone else. The new game forum may provide just the outlet needed for those situations: one person says "here's an idea I had for a game that I would like to play, but I don't want to design. Anyone willing to design it?" Heck, this could also be done as a challenge in the Endeavor forum. But the other behaviors I'm describing aren't good for the forums, in my opinion, because they eat up resources (designers willing to help) and fill up the first couple pages of Indie Design with clutter.
Maybe I'm being too harsh, but let me put it this way: I would *like* to help, I have *tried* to help, but too often I have to *give up* helping because because most of the requests are just too broad. For example, I don't think anyone should have to read all the rules for a game unless the help they are offering is either playtesting or proofreading, neither of which are valid topics for the Indie Design forum. "Please read my entire game and offer suggestions on what could be improved" is just too vague a request for anyone to seriously fulfill. And with two to three pages of threads asking for that kind of help, people with quick, specific questions that could be answered are likely not going to get much help at all. I know I for one have given up asking questions, because I rarely get answers. I've put more into the Indie Design forum than I get out of it.
I don't think I'm the only one with this kind of criticism. Certainly, the new proposed forums seem to address exactly this situation. It doesn't look like there's any place in the new forums for these kinds of broad, open-ended requests for assistance, only for focused requests. I do worry, though, that this might not be clear to others, the same way it wasn't clear for the original Indie Design forum.
My request, then, is to make it explicit. State right up front, in bold letters, that the Playtesting Hotbed is for games that are finished (at least in first draft,) that the "New Here" forums is for ideas (not entire settings or games,) and Endeavor is for public design in the context of a challenge with a time limit. Or, if I'm completely wrong about all of this, make it explicit that the open-ended requests for help I've been describing are completely acceptable in one of those forums.
Quote"Intro to the Forge"
"Actual Play"
"From Play to Initial Design"
"Playtesting - Designs at Work"
"Endeavor"
"Publishing and Marketing"
"Conventions"
"Connections"
"Resources"
Seconded.
Add a sticky with a request for a link on the previous forum, when applicable.
So initial design might have a requirement like "post a link to very good or bad AP experience to provide perspective".
Suggestion: design becomes a CMS design repository, one link per game, but numerous threads within that link, possibly the main descriptive text/design purpose/quick background (of design or current progress) or whatever as well. I've always felt word count restrictions are good for focusing details (might be a solution for these snips). Cuts down on thread bloat per design. I don't know if Clinton's tech. wizardry is up to the challenge of creating that sort of system linked-to the current Forge forum design, or even if it is possible.
Second, some folks seem to be concerned that unless you are a known Forger, you won't get much feedback. Not true. I've been here five years, was in the top twenty posters for most of that time, and I still didn't get much feedback on my designs. On the other hand, I have seen newbies get pages and pages of feedback on their design. So I don't think it's particularly true.
In principle, I agree it would be nice if there were some way to "even out" the amount of feedback, but I don't know if that's possible, or even desirable from a social perspective (ie: if your design doesn't catch a person's interest, should they have to post about it?). On the other hand, that same social dynamic can be quite discouraging to the fledgling designer.
Oh, and absolutely getting rid of "Show unread posts since last visit" because it is way too easy to take the easy way out and click only that link, and to get into the habit, as well. I know I'm guilty of it, and I think it is unquestionably detrimental to the Forge's overall design.
Quote from: talysman on January 28, 2006, 08:54:44 PM
My request, then, is to make it explicit. State right up front, in bold letters, that the Playtesting Hotbed is for games that are finished (at least in first draft,) that the "New Here" forums is for ideas (not entire settings or games,) and Endeavor is for public design in the context of a challenge with a time limit. Or, if I'm completely wrong about all of this, make it explicit that the open-ended requests for help I've been describing are completely acceptable in one of those forums.
I'd go one step further and cut the 'ideas' option for the "New Here" forum.
If 'Ideas' were
only to be posted in the context of either actual play (requires relating an actual experience) or an actual design (requires writing up at least a first draft) that would focus posts because both relating an actual experience and writing up a first draft require serious thought and effort.
Regards,
Hal
Quote from: greyormOh, and absolutely getting rid of "Show unread posts since last visit" because it is way too easy to take the easy way out and click only that link, and to get into the habit, as well. I know I'm guilty of it, and I think it is unquestionably detrimental to the Forge's overall design.
I'd like to cast my vote in opposition to this. This link is the reason I even look at a lot of stuff. I rarely have more than 10-20 minutes at a time to read the Forge, (though I check it frequently.. It's the "at a time" that matters) and this link allows me to find everything new since the last visit so I don't have to look through every forum. I don't post a lot anymore, partly because of my time limitations, but this allows me to keep abreast of things that interest me. I've frequently tracked down threads that stopped popping up in the list of unread posts to re-read them and comment if I felt the need.
It's the stuff in talysman's post that concerns me, though. I want to actively help, partly because I got so much help when I first arrived and I want to pay it back. However, I find it difficult to find the time and the interest to give really thorough help. I've been guilty of posting a link to the entire glut of rules before, and I've noticed that that does seem to discourage feedback; The barrier to assistance is too high.
So, when you start on the re-construction, definitely keep in mind making it explicitly clear how best to post system ideas. I got a lot of useful assistance, but it was in spite of my presentation, not because of it. Mike Holmes, who was the patron saint of IGD for the longest time, probably tore at his hair frequently while trying to help me out. (by-the-by, those old threads are still helping. As I've been quietly reworking Mage Blade and ReCoil, I've been doing a lot of re-reading of old design and actual play threads on those games)
Anyway, that's my input.
One quick suggestion: There seems to be a lot of concern about whether or not people will 'get' the intended posting sequence between the forums. I would suggest that's not a forum design issue but a forum-list design issue. That is, change the design of the page listing the forums to clearly show that sequence. For example, by having big arrows pointing from one forum to the next. If you want, add a text at the top stating that the arrows indicate the intended sequence of posting.
There's nothing that catches people's attention like being blazingly obvious.
SR
--
I'm not sure I'm understanding the latest proposals right, but it sounds to me like some folks don't want to see posts from people who are between the "I was just playing X and had cool idea Y" and "Here's my first draft, what do you think?" I hope I'm misreading because I think the period in between is where the Forge has the most to offer of intentional design instead of "Here's my cool 1000 page clone of D&D, what do you think?"
Frank
"When posting to this forum, realize that it's tantamount to committing to being a game publisher."
I'm quoting this from one of Ron's stickies in Indie Game Design. I still use this a a stick to beat myself up with when I'm not putting enough time in on my own projects.
The reason I mention this, is that I think all the new design forums should have something like this clearly at the top. So that it's clear (for example) that if you are starting an "ideas" thread, the goal isn't just to share what's on your mind, it's to turn that concept into a playtestable draft. Likewise, the purpose of posting in a playtest forum is to inform subsequent design of the game.
Likewise, if you are responding to a thread, your goal should be to help the original poster to get to that next stage. Which should also prevent any of the forums descending into "RPG Theory: the Revenge" - there's a clearly stated goal of moving from the theory to the practice.
Random ideas should be posted on actual play with the play experience that spawned them, right?
Enter them on Design only if you adding them to a game or building a game around them.
This is tangential. I'll be quiet now.
Quote from: Doug Ruff on January 30, 2006, 09:14:57 AM
"When posting to this forum, realize that it's tantamount to committing to being a game publisher."
I'm quoting this from one of Ron's stickies in Indie Game Design. I still use this a a stick to beat myself up with when I'm not putting enough time in on my own projects.
The reason I mention this, is that I think all the new design forums should have something like this clearly at the top. So that it's clear (for example) that if you are starting an "ideas" thread, the goal isn't just to share what's on your mind, it's to turn that concept into a playtestable draft.
That's the gap I would really like to see somehow bridged. I lurk in that gap. I think of myself as about 2/3 of a competent beginning designer - I get ideas into that ferment, stack-o-notes, 9 marginally-connected-parts of a 12-part game stage regularly. It's pushing them over the hump into "this is a draft that anyone except me would be able to usefully comment on" that I stumble over.
If there is a possibility of a forum which was the right place for games that are somewhere beyond the "neat idea" but not yet to the "first draft", I would feel much better about talking about my design efforts at The Forge and get more out of it.
That said, I have my doubts whether discussing something that's at that level of incompleteness is really helpful - or rewarding to anyone other than the designer. I would hate to feel like a leech.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 27, 2006, 09:02:24 AM
The key issue seems to be, what I'm not new to the Forge, and I do have a "new idea" to toss up? My current thinking is that keeping these posts in the "new here" forum will act as a model for new people - they can see that you are basing your ideas on actual play of some kind ('cause you will be, won't you - right? snarl).
What I'm sayin' is that "game notion out of my ass" posting, devoid of play-experience context, is just as annoying (or more so!!) from experienced Forge folks. It really should have some actual play background, even if it's "hey, I always loved alignment even though it flailed in application, and here's how, so ..." If you want to post in this fashion, and why not, then it's into the New Guy forum with you.
But that's just the current thinking. Keep talkin'.
I think that answers my concern pretty well.
In my post I said that I didn't see the logic of permitting new (not-ready-to-playtest) game discussions in the context of "Endeavor" contests and by new contributors, but not otherwise. But on further reflection I did realize the logic of it, if the goal is to prevent perpetual discussion of games perpetually lingering in the not-playtest-ready-yet stage. New correspondents, by definition, don't stay new very long. Contests end, and historically, the games created for them have either dropped out of sight shortly after the contest, or moved efficiently, if not always rapidly, into playtesting. (Sometimes they reappear in playtesting stage months or years later, but rarely if ever do they linger in concept discussion in between.)
How about calling the proposed "new here?" forum something more like "New here? New project?" New projects also, by definition, don't stay new indefinitely, which should offer leverage for correspondents (or moderators -- we'll need etiquette guidelines for this) to nudge stagnant projects out of that forum toward the playtesting/design-in-play forum.
Just as a reality check, the emphasis on the actual play experiences motivating new indie game designs is relatively new, isn't it? I don't recall "what actual play experiences motivated this design?" as being asked very frequently in the indie game design forum, prior to last summer when I last frequented the Forge.
In any case, it sounds like a good idea -- it should be less provocative and better at eliciting useful information than the old "tough questions" like "what do you want to accomplish with this game?" and "what makes your game different?"
QuoteOh yes, something else - when we do get around to rearranging the actual page, then what I'll do is this: very quickly, move all the current threads from the first couple-three pages of Indie Design (or maybe reach back a certain amount of time) into their appropriate new forums. That way the forums all get jump-started and the threads all get sort of a new lease on life. The remaining Indie Design then becomes another archived forum along with Theory and GNS.
Ideas or comments on that plan are welcome too. (Come on, folks, how often do Clinton & I say that. Enjoy it while you got it.)
Sounds good to me. I'm having trouble thinking of any reason why anyone could possibly object to that plan. (But this is the Forge; I'm sure someone will come up with something!)
I have to say that I'm looking forward to the reconstruction. Having been away for half a year (for reasons having nothing to do with anything happening on the Forge itself), I'm still in the process of reassessing what I've contributed to and gotten from the Forge in the past, and how I can best participate here in the future. This reconstruction will clarify things.
- Walt
Dumb question:
Is there somewhere on this site a "How to Use this Site" section that I've managed to miss? If so, where is it?
If not, would the creation of such, not as an interactive forum, more as a "Read this First", be useful for what folks are trying to achieve, if only in the sense of a manual to RTF?
-Lisa
Hi there,
Lisa, that would be wonderful. You're not the first person to propose it. I'll tell you what I told all of them, in hopes that this time, I'm heard - please draft such an introduction.
It's likely that this response has been perceived as a brush-off in the past. It's not.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Arturo G. on January 26, 2006, 07:32:27 PMThere should be something more (perhaps the same stick in every forum, perhaps a link in the main page) clearly explaining what is the purpose of each forum, and where and how to post to them for the first time. It could also be a nice place to tell new people about how to exploit the "resources" links to old theory-like posts, articles, etc. A kind of short general introductory text.
I just had a simple thought that might solve a wealth of newbie problems.
It's been a while since I joined, but as I recall when you join you have to sign up and provide an e-mail address, and then the system generates an e-mail and sends it to that address giving you your password or some other information that authenticates that you are a valid person.
Why can't that e-mail be reformatted to contain the introductory text, or at least to say, "Welcome to the Forge. Before you post, please be certain to read the information at This Link"? After that it can say, "Here's your password."
Then anyone who comes here gets the message before he makes his first post, and knows what is expected.
I'm sure it can't be that difficult to configure. Clinton?
--M. J. Young
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 31, 2006, 11:19:09 PM
I'll tell you what I told all of them, in hopes that this time, I'm heard - please draft such an introduction.
I've thought about this idea as well. But having not posted on the Forge nearly as much as most of my friends, I felt it was "not my place" to come up with such a thing. But I do have some ideas.
So with that in mind, If I came up with a blerb for Newbies to read... what do I do with it? Send it to you via email to review first?
Lisa P
Here's what I've got so far, not sure if it is any good:
Quote Welcome to the Forge.
This is a site dedicated to the creation, publication and play of self-published role-playing games or as we call them around here, independent or indie RPG's.
The best place to start is in the Actual Play forum, the cornerstone of this site. This is where we talk about play, what happened at the table between the people. Talk about a good gaming experience and how the people reacted. Talk about a bad gaming experience and when you could feel it slipping.
Actual Play is not a short story based on the game's fictional happenings. In our Actual Play posts here we want to know what happened at the table between the people. Often this will somehow link to the fictional going's on but its the real-world interaction between people that is of interest to us as game designers and players who want to help play be more fun.
Do you have a game idea?
If you have a game idea, what is written above still pertains to you and posting an AP post is still a good idea...
And I realize that the site will have a kind of rhythm and flow to it but it isn't clear to me, so from here on how, I am blank..
But the following written in a previous post seems relevant:
Quote"Think Tank" --> This is where the pen and paper part of design (newbie design, 24 hour, Ronnies, whatever) gets discussed which eventually moves to:
"Playtesting" --> As you say, 'Actual Play' for works in progress which leads to:
"Publishing" --> Get that design out the door and to the masses which finally ends up in:
"Actual Play" --> On going discussion of our play experiences.
Maybe conversation about an intro document should go to the thread Jack started (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18589.0). Consolidation, and all of that.
Pardon me for coming to this discussion late. I'm only jumping in because I have a suggestion that I think would be helpful.
First - all the things hashed out before this sound fine. My point is about one way to introduce people to forge ideas.
THE SHORT VERSION
Have a forum entitled something like "Ask Basic Questions" in which one long time Forge member (someone who has posts in the thousands) answers questions posed by new people. This educator role could shift between people so no one would need to get burned out. This forum could also be used by new people to restate what they think they've learned and receive correction by the educator so they can get up to speed on the lingo and be better prepared to join in the other forums.
THE LONG VERSION
When I joined the forge around a year ago, I didn't know the lingo. A lot of the Big Model language is specialized and does not mean what the word means in a dictionary, for instance Premise. I was told to read the glossary and to read various threads. I did and then posted what I though they said (or at least what I learned from them). I posted in the GNS forum or RPG theory and I think people were frustrated with my getting it wrong. Those were advanced forums, but there was no basic ask and learn forum.
What I was doing with my "this is what I think it said" posts was an internet version of active listening. I would read - think I got it - say what I think I got and get feedback. I do this all the time in my job as a social worker. It is a solid educational approach that supplements reading. It is also a labor intensive approach because it asks for attention/feedback from a more experienced person.
A forum for basic questions would allow new people to answer one another's questions (with the aid of a facilitator/educator) without junking up the advanced forums. It doesn't require that there be a perfect beginners educational text written - it uses dialogue to do the teaching. In AA new people do the same kind of group learning all the time. For some of us this is the way we learn best.
Last year Ron said once that there were maybe ten people he thought that he could intelligently discuss GNS issues with. The rest of us were not on the same planet. I believe this is true. The GNS and Big Model discussions have years of thinking and experimentation behind them that new people just can't know because we weren't there. I believe a lot of what happened was not written down - but instead happened in individual gamer's minds as they meditated on the subject. The evolution of Simulationist is a case in point. In the early GNS threads simulationist was mentioned a lot, then people's understand of it changed and by the time I joined, the concept wasn't mentioned much at all. I think the understanding of the term started off fairly close to what a wargamer would still understand as simulation (recreating recognizable patterns) but moved on.
I am two weeks behind on this thread so I understand if my contribution is too late to be considered. I offer it based on my own experience joining the group after most of the big work was done. Catch up is a bitch.
Sincerely Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games
Quote from: MatrixGamer on February 15, 2006, 08:34:17 AMHave a forum entitled something like "Ask Basic Questions" in which one long time Forge member (someone who has posts in the thousands) answers questions posed by new people. This educator role could shift between people so no one would need to get burned out. This forum could also be used by new people to restate what they think they've learned and receive correction by the educator so they can get up to speed on the lingo and be better prepared to join in the other forums....
Last year Ron said once that there were maybe ten people he thought that he could intelligently discuss GNS issues with. The rest of us were not on the same planet.
I think this idea has a lot of potential. I don't know if I'm one of the ten people, but I do have posts in the thousands (2,212 before this one) and would be willing to commit to hitting that forum every Thursday. I don't imagine that once a week is sufficient to cover all the questions, but if others take other days I think this could be spread fairly evenly. (Also, dividing it this way, rather than saying that I'll do every day in March, prevents the problem of finding someone to replace me then.)
Ron, what do you think?
--M. J. Young
Thanks to everybody for contributing here. It's really helped.
I think Clinton and I have settled on a framework that's not too different from the original idea, but modified in various purposes or details by many points in this thread.
I do like the Basics questions-idea, and am figuring maybe it ought to be folded into something else, but am not sure. Gotta think.
Again, thanks. Clinton and I are composing introductory emails (the one you get with your signup), FAQ type pages, and so on, and I hope we can get the changes in place by the end of the month.
Best, Ron
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 17, 2006, 11:48:17 AMI do like the Basics questions-idea, and am figuring maybe it ought to be folded into something else, but am not sure. Gotta think.
I probably should have said this last week, but then, I wanted to think, too.
The clear advantage in my mind to having the "basic questions" forum stand alone is that it makes it clear what posts are questions from newcomers needing help. In theory, you could enable posters to select an icon that marked theirs as a newcomer question, but in practice you can't really expect the newcomers to realize they have to do this.
Put the other way, the value in the basic questions forum is that those of us who are committed to answering those questions can find them quickly and easily. Folding them into another forum will bury them, and reduce the probability that we will spot them and reply.
--M. J. Young