All,

The 3rd version of The Forge will be going live Monday morning. I've spent the last few months analyzing different pieces of software to make our time here better and, well, ended up going with what we have for the most part.

First of all, a warning: Sunday, the Forge will be done part of the day. Apologies in advance.

The things that are changing:
- The look of the Forge. While the look is similar to the one we have now, there's a new color scheme that ties all pages together, and most differently, the forum will be the front page of the Forge. (If you've bookmarked the forums, that URL will change.)
- The URLs of articles and reviews. All of these will change. If you've linked to any of them, be aware of this. Also, the system by which they are presented will change.
- The ability to submit new articles and reviews. I've streamlined this, and laid out how the review and article submission process works, so everyone can feel free to submit their stuff.
- As for the forum:
- First, you can view all forums, or each category at a time.
- You'll also see exactly how many new posts have been made since your last visit, right there on the first page.
- Our statistics (which Valamir has been keeping for us so well right here) will be automated and visible to everyone.
- Dramatically, our post editing policy has changed. You now will only be able to edit your posts within 15 minutes of writing them. We believe in personal accountability here and have had a rash of old posts being deleted of their content by their authors. This is not acceptable.

We are continuing to look at new ways to improve the Forge, and some small changes may continue to happen after this new roll-out. Thanks to everyone for being a part of the Forge so far, and we look forward to the future.

Geez, I forgot the most exciting part of the revision:

We've got a new article on Simulationism, a new review of Godlike, and a new game, all by our ever-profilic Professor Edwards. That's a Monday morning to look forward to, I assure you.

Hey Clinton,

- Dramatically, our post editing policy has changed. You now will only be able to edit your posts within 15 minutes of writing them. We believe in personal accountability here and have had a rash of old posts being deleted of their content by their authors. This is not acceptable.

I'd like to ask for a slight alteration. Would it be possible to allow editing for however long might pass before someone posts in response, rather than just for fifteen minutes, and then not at all? I'm pretty careful about proofing what I post, but very often I'll find myself realizing I miswrote something an hour after I submitted a post. Is there harm in editing something, as long as no one has responded?

Paul

If so, can we still have 15 minutes to fix typos, even if we've like crossposted with someone or someone's popped right on behind us?

-Vincent

Paul,

I respect your request: it's a good one. I'll admit my lack of proficiency in being able to do it, however: I've wanted to institute a "no edit after replies" policy before, and have yet to find how I could do it in this board's code.

I will keep looking, but for now, I'm going to up the edit time to 30 minutes.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: I will keep looking, but for now, I'm going to up the edit time to 30 minutes.

Yeah, another voice for a longer turn-around time on edits.

I suppose the critical question is, thirty minutes to decide to edit it, or thirty minutes to submit the changes? That is, if it takes me thirty-five minutes to pour over something (or even, if I hit the edit button and then run out of the room to deal with kids and don't get back for an hour), is it going to reject the edit because it's submitted too late, or accept it because I hit the edit button soon enough?

(I think the idea silly; but then, I don't know what the abuses have been.)

--M. J. Young

I know this ain't a friggin' democracy, but I'd vote for a few hours as well.
I read slow and edit slow...sometimes I think slow too.

You know what? You guys have totally convinced me. Here's the real deal: we don't believe in people changing their words in order to twist the meaning of a conversation after the fact. Not a lot of people do that, but it happening once is enough times to be a problem.

Now, if someone does that after someone's replied to them, the forum system notes that they've edited the post, so we're aware of that. The real problem is it happening a day, a month, or a year later.

So, I'm upping the time to 6 hours. I figure that's plenty of time: if someone has an edit after that, they can make another post.

So, if the forum can track it can you place the 'Lasted Edit' time in the message header (below 'Posted:'). That'd make it obvious to the reader and may be enough to discourage that behavior.

PS: Yippy!

Clinton-

I totally support limiting the edit time, since I was one of those folks who looked back into some of the archives and found entire posts empty(all from the same individual...funny that), which was rather irritating, since I have no means of reconstructing the entire conversation.

Chris

To those who want a longer editing time (and this includes myself):

You can always Hit "preview" and make sure your post reads the way you want before you hit "submit" Or, better still, compose your posts in your word processor and spellcheck it.

Now to go follow my own advice...

Yeah, Jack--I do that, actually, but still once in a while make a mistake. Generally that happens when I hit submit and discover I've cross-posted with someone whose comments impact mine--and although I know that the last post appears at the bottom of the preview screen, I usually don't scroll down that far to look.

So I don't often use the edit feature, but once in a while I do.

--M. J. Young

The upgrade has happened, on schedule. I detect no problems yet, but let me know if anyone runs into any.

If you have problems logging in, delete your cookies for this site. It will help, I promise.

I hate to be negative, but I must say that the old color scheme was far easier on the eyes than the new one. Altering the color in my profile doesn't seem to change much either. Is there any chance of more variety/choice of color schemes?

Also (and I have asked for this before, but maybe the new version supports it, you don't know unless you ask), is there any way to filter the "new posts since last visit" to include/exclude certain forums?

Brian.

Oh yeah, one more thing regarding the editing policy.. I maintain a "new to the forum? check here first" sticky on the TROS webpage with links to common topics for new readers of that forum. I know that several other forums do a similar thing. It's nice to be able to edit that sticky whenever I like so I can add new topic links as good ones pop up (not as new messages, but as an edit to the first message), does the new policy mean I wont be able to do that?

Thanks,
Brian.

Clinton -- count this as a vote for the current, new color scheme. I like it very much. I think it's a nicer vibe than the fiery version you showed me last week.

I'm sorry, but I have to vote for the old color scheme. It's simplicity and it's lightness was much easier on the eyes. The new...Banner? It's pretty cool. It's just that gray and red really hurt the eyes. I'm no expert, but is there a way we could influence you in this manner? Mabee there should be a new topic.

Hi everyone,

Regarding the color, everyone just take a day, OK?

Best,
Ron

Thanks, Ron.

I had a group of ten (well, eleven counting Ron) people look at the color scheme before I put it up, and used all their suggestions to improve it as much as possible. I've been looking at it for two weeks, and love it, so please - listen to Ron, and give it a day.

I like the look. The logo is nice. But the background for some posts are a bit too dark. I'd prefer to see them all lightened somewhat. Thanks!

Two thumbs up for the new color scheme! The new logo, however, isn't as good as the old one IMHO... Why not have a logo competition? There should be plenty of graphics people on the boards who could do a better job with the logo.

Actually, I meant to mention this morning the creator of the logo: our own Chris Passeno, who did a fantastic job of not only creating a logo, but putting up with my fussiness over it.

It's wonderful, in my opinion, and will definitely be the logo that defines the Forge at this year's GenCon.

Hi Clinton,

hey, nice job ! It took me a couple of visits to get used to the new color theme, but now I find it great.

The time's up allready for that but I'm all positive about the time limit for editing your post (as if you asked me about that, ::smiling::)

Anyway, thanks again for (co-)running this beast.

Fabrice.

Clinton,

Hot-fuckin'-cha! Love it. Cool banner. Nice color shift. Woo-hoos all around.

Best,

Blake

At the top of any single forum view you have the option of going back to the forum category--General, Independent, Inactive. At the bottom you can shuttle to any one forum (Actual Play, Adept Press, etc). I would like an option to either go to another *any* forum category (leap from Independent Game Forums to General Forums) or to the "All Forums" category. Is there any way to do this presently? Could it be done for the "new" look.

Looks great, btw.

Jake

Hm. I would like to make an entry if we do have a logo contest. I have a really great idea. BTW: the shades of grey and brown are very original. The layout that they had before came with the software by default. There are over a million forums with that layout. I have to give a lot of praise to Chris Passeno. ;)

Jake Norwood wrote: At the top of any single forum view you have the option of going back to the forum category--General, Independent, Inactive. At the bottom you can shuttle to any one forum (Actual Play, Adept Press, etc). I would like an option to either go to another *any* forum category (leap from Independent Game Forums to General Forums) or to the "All Forums" category. Is there any way to do this presently? Could it be done for the "new" look.

Looks great, btw.

Jake

Where did "View Printable Format" for a thread go?

Jason,

Thanks! I knew I'd forget something, and the printable thread was it. It takes very little time to add that - you should see the feature again by the end of the day.

Awesome new look, and some subtle improvements in design. Thanks for the hard work, Clinton. I absolutely love this site, even if I haven't been posting lately.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: We've got a new article on Simulationism, a new review of Godlike, and a new game, all by our ever-profilic Professor Edwards. That's a Monday morning to look forward to, I assure you.

Tony,

Look for the link to "Mongrel" within the Simulationism essay.

Paul

I actually like the new color scheme, though I liked the old logo better. In particular, I'm not fond of the changing fonts/caps/sizes and the "r" with the flames looks a little cartoony.

Anyway, I'm mostly posting to say that the link from Ron's new Sim essay to his review of Little Fears is broken (down in the glossary section). I'm not sure if other links are broken, but you did say that a lot of things had moved.

I too liked the old logo better. And I agree with the anvil "R". I think I'd like this one more if it were a real anvil and fire rather than sketched one. But I suspect it'll grow on me.

Good job, Clinton. I like the logo. The color scheme was a bit of a shock--it's been a week or so since I've logged on, and the new look made me feel like I'd experienced a time warp--if I post now, will my words turn into dust? :)

Thanks for making one of the best sites on the internet a reality.

--Emily Care

cruciel wrote: Where did "View Printable Format" for a thread go?

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Jason,

Thanks! I knew I'd forget something, and the printable thread was it. It takes very little time to add that - you should see the feature again by the end of the day.

It's up now - look for the 'printable version' link at the top right of each thread.