A Queue for Games with Short Deadlines?

[saulres]

must be reviewed

I predict that if that becomes a requirement, the queue will be very long, because it takes such a long time to get games reviewed. Maybe start it off with a subset of established Open games?

If you introduce such a queue, please separate the games by time zones.

For me, playing a game with (mostly) Americans wouldn't work with short deadlines. Most of the posting happens when I sleep.

Maybe areas rather than time zones. US has what, five time zones? Six? But I bet they could all play together no problem.

[saulres]

Micros have a problem with mods? It's been a while since I've looked at the queues, that certainly didn't used to be the case. Is it relatively recent? Possibly overlapping with summer break or back to school?

I was t talking about doing the normal review

Sorry, didn't mean to fluster you into stuttering.

[saulres]

I feel like the only thing that scares me about this is VLA-related stuff.
You'd have to adjust the rules for dealing with someone who's awol for IRL reasons because it's no longer fair to the rest of the players if someone is missing for two day phases in a row even if the reasons are legitimate.

Those should be few and far between, except for emergencies, right? The reason we have them in the longer games is because people have no idea today what their schedule is going to look like in 3 months. But they should know what it looks like next week.

[saulres]

If I every play again I'll only play Micro. I have enough of a hard time keeping track of 8 other player slots, let alone the higher numbers seen elsewhere.

Your point on the minis does take, but unless things have changed, the micro queue moves at a faster speed than the mini queues, even with the throttle.

[saulres]

Yeah, I realize I'm a sample size of 0, and I'm anecdotal. I don't even know why I posted that.

[saulres]

I have a boat?

Row, row, row...

[saulres]

What do you mean?

Assuming you mean "why can't we just trial a queue?": Trials are good for some things. If we needed to figure out the best way for our mods to run games, the best method for sign ups, etc. trials serve a purpose. But what they aren't very good at is determining the long term overall effect on the queue ecosystem because any trial sufficiently long enough to get over the novelty appeal would be indistinguishable from implementing it outright in its effect on the site.

Please correct me if I 'm wrong, but I seem to remember the Micro queue starting as a trial.

A short deadline queue is easy to trial. Restrict it to one, maybe two games a week for a month or two. Analyze who's signing up for those games, if it's impacting their signups for other games, what that impact is, etc. Just make it clear up front that it's purely a trial which could be pulled or strengthened as results dictate.

[saulres]

I don't think the issue is how many games are running concurrently. It's how long games take to fill, and the toll on the users willing to moderate.

I would think "how long games take to fill" is a different issue that should have its own thread.

But, maybe the reason is there just aren't enough players interested in the long-deadline games anymore.

[saulres]

No no no no no. You're doing it wrong.

The best time to make changes is when those who oppose it, and/or are leaders, aren't around. It's the <insert your favorite group here> way!