A Queue for Games with Short Deadlines?

[TierShift]

Great idea!
I agree with the others that it needs to have a separate queue.

The games should be no larger then a mini and balanced, no bastard games allowed and must be reviewed by someone in the community that approved the game.

I disagree. I think bastard games are fine if advertised as such. I think it should be run just like the micro games: reviewed by someone who knows about balance, but nothing more.

If we follow your suggestion, the whole process would take 10 times as long as the actual game, which is messed up.

What to do with mod requirements?

[TierShift]

I think mods that are allowed to run games of a certain size should be allowed to blitz run it, with exception of first time mods. So if you've modded a game, you can mod up to Blitz mini, if you've modded a large theme you can blitz mod anything?

But yeah backup mod great idea

[TierShift]

I do think games need to have day phases be at least 5 days long still, 48, 72 hour day phases are way too short. There needs to be room for discussion, especially considering time zones. Hitting the 5-8 day period for day phases is probably right.

There are a lot of micros already with 7 day deadlines. This is not what most people that think our deadlines are too long are looking for, honestly. If other sites can do 72 hours, we can do 72 hours.

[TierShift]

I don't think we should replace a queue. We're trying to offer a greater variety of games with this plan, not change the type of games that we offer.

If you think we need to replace a queue due to thinning out the other queues, fine, think so, but there is absolutely no way to say for sure without trying it out first. If, in the end, we find out we need to replace a queue, we can think about it then, not NOW. Don't try to solve hypothetical problems that lie ahead, but have a backup plan for if they come.

[TierShift]

Actually, if you look at the effects opening the open and micro queues had, I think its easy to draw that conclusion without opening a third new queue.

Except there is a big chance that these games will be pulling out of a different pool of (potential) players/mods.

It's not completely comparable to the opening of those queues. There can be no certainty in your statement at all.

And what's the problem with waiting and seeing what's going to happen?

P-edit: case in point

[TierShift]

Zor, why do we need to fix the hypothetical queue issue beforehand?

[TierShift]

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.

No, I don't mean 'trial'. I mean implement. You are stating/assuming:
1. Other queues will become more vacant
2. This is an issue that needs to be solved
3. This issue is best solved by removing another queue

Out of these, I think particularly assumption 1 is dangerous and ungrounded. Time will show if it's true or not. I also think statement 2 is a matter of site policy and something that should be discussed, but only after assumption 1 is proven true or untrue.

Finally, the removal of a queue is a very drastic measure and I'm sure the community can come up with other ideas when we see that some queues are running badly.

Most of all, I think that the size of the hypothesised problem can be much better measured when the problem is actually there, leading to accurate solving of the issue.