Private Topics Discussion (Now with Mish Mash)

[Zachrulez]

for the normals?

They're created by Tierce. And by that point, she already has the submitted setup and posts it in the OP. It's easier for her and it's easier for the reviewers to keep track of the multiple setups under review at any time. Plus there are all the other benefits of using a PT such as being able to actually read the role PMs (an essential function of the review group) in the format it's going to be posted rather than BBCode.

The format it's posted in is BBcode. Quicktopic codes via HTML.

I don't think the coloring and coding format is essential to determining the normalcy of a role pm, but whatever.

I still think there some be some level of access for users to create private topics to design game setups. I will initially be designing my games in QT until there is some kind of access for that without having to ask for permission. (I'm stubbornly opposed to the idea that I have to ask for "permission" to merely design a game.)

[chamber]

You aren't asking for permission to design a game. You are asking for permission to use a potentially abusable site feature to do so.

[Zachrulez]

You aren't asking for permission to design a game. You are asking for permission to use a potentially abusable site feature to do so.

How exactly is it abusable? Someone might create too many topics?

I really don't get it.

[zoraster]

for the normals?

They're created by Tierce. And by that point, she already has the submitted setup and posts it in the OP. It's easier for her and it's easier for the reviewers to keep track of the multiple setups under review at any time. Plus there are all the other benefits of using a PT such as being able to actually read the role PMs (an essential function of the review group) in the format it's going to be posted rather than BBCode.

The format it's posted in is BBcode. Quicktopic codes via HTML.

I don't think the coloring and coding format is essential to determining the normalcy of a role pm, but whatever.

I still think there some be some level of access for users to create private topics to design game setups. I will initially be designing my games in QT until there is some kind of access for that without having to ask for permission. (I'm stubbornly opposed to the idea that I have to ask for "permission" to merely design a game.)

I know. But when you post role PMs or what not into a QT, you can either (a) not format it at all and just have text or (b) leave in the bbcode. Whereas when you use a PT, you can do both: you show exactly what that role PM is going to look like. That makes it far easier to read as a reviewer.

And the formatting probably isn't necessary to determine normalcy, but why not use the tool we have?

[chamber]

You aren't asking for permission to design a game. You are asking for permission to use a potentially abusable site feature to do so.

How exactly is it abusable? Someone might create too many topics?

I really don't get it.

I personally probably wouldn't care all that much about the abuse. But I think the primary concern is cliches forming private discussion groups.

[zoraster]

In the future it is possible that we might allow people more access to forming a private topic as we only want as much red tape as we absolutely need. It is far easier to give more access than it is to take it away, so we're taking this slow as we evaluate.

However, we're definitely not going to do so because someone has a hang up about asking for permission and thinks it's insulting to have to do so.

[Zachrulez]

for the normals?

They're created by Tierce. And by that point, she already has the submitted setup and posts it in the OP. It's easier for her and it's easier for the reviewers to keep track of the multiple setups under review at any time. Plus there are all the other benefits of using a PT such as being able to actually read the role PMs (an essential function of the review group) in the format it's going to be posted rather than BBCode.

The format it's posted in is BBcode. Quicktopic codes via HTML.

I don't think the coloring and coding format is essential to determining the normalcy of a role pm, but whatever.

I still think there some be some level of access for users to create private topics to design game setups. I will initially be designing my games in QT until there is some kind of access for that without having to ask for permission. (I'm stubbornly opposed to the idea that I have to ask for "permission" to merely design a game.)

I know. But when you post role PMs or what not into a QT, you can either (a) not format it at all and just have text or (b) leave in the bbcode. Whereas when you use a PT, you can do both: you show exactly what that role PM is going to look like. That makes it far easier to read as a reviewer.

And the formatting probably isn't necessary to determine normalcy, but why not use the tool we have?

The point I'm making is that since I don't have the permissions to use private topic prior to submitting, I am just going to continue designing setups in QT and then porting to Private Topic since it's been required for reasons I can't fathom, so the reviewers will not see that benefit from me anyway.

You aren't asking for permission to design a game. You are asking for permission to use a potentially abusable site feature to do so.

How exactly is it abusable? Someone might create too many topics?

I really don't get it.

I personally probably wouldn't care all that much about the abuse. But I think the primary concern is cliches forming private discussion groups.

That's probably one of the last things I'm worried about.

[zoraster]

The point I'm making is that since I don't have the permissions to use private topic prior to submitting, I am just going to continue designing setups in QT and then porting to Private Topic since it's been required for reasons I can't fathom, so the reviewers will not see that benefit from me anyway.

Use it or don't use it.

[Zachrulez]

The point I'm making is that since I don't have the permissions to use private topic prior to submitting, I am just going to continue designing setups in QT and then porting to Private Topic since it's been required for reasons I can't fathom, so the reviewers will not see that benefit from me anyway.

Use it or don't use it.

It's not even a choice if it's required for reviewing now is it? I HAVE to use it at some point regardless. Now you're just arguing the illusion of choice.

[zoraster]

what i mean is: request access from us or don't request access from us. We are here and happy to work with you if you decide to use PTs to design your game, and I have not turned down a single mod who has asked yet. You have to use the PT if it's a normal, true. But you are welcome to "Design in QT and port over to PT" if getting access from us is so objectionable. But your objections are not the ones that will lead us to to provide unfettered access. So feel free to make the choice to do it as you've stated.

[Zachrulez]

what i mean is: request access from us or don't request access from us. We are here and happy to work with you if you decide to use PTs to design your game, and I have not turned down a single mod who has asked yet. You have to use the PT if it's a normal, true. But you are welcome to "Design in QT and port over to PT" if getting access from us is so objectionable. But your objections are not the ones that will lead us to to provide unfettered access. So feel free to make the choice to do it as you've stated.

Hopefully the lack of a real reason to restrict access will be.

I'm just in a place where I want to interact with authority when designing my games as little as possible. I was very happy with the way the site was run years ago when I didn't have to do all the things I have to do now. It just adds stress.

[zoraster]

We know.

[Faraday]

I had to ask zoraster for use of Private Topics. It was pretty traumatising!

(On a serious note, it's nice to be able to design with Bbcode showing! Much more aesthetically pleasing, + I'm less likely to forget about them than a qt!)

[tn5421]

All I'm seeing from Zachrulez for the last page or so is like "blah blah whine whine i have to ask for permission waaaaaaaaa". Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Zachrulez]

I had to ask zoraster for use of Private Topics. It was pretty traumatising!

(On a serious note, it's nice to be able to design with Bbcode showing! Much more aesthetically pleasing, + I'm less likely to forget about them than a qt!)

A lot of normal social interactions are pretty big hurdles for me. I really dislike what I see as unnecessary social contact, much less being expected to initiate it.

I'll probably end up ultimately finding a way to deal with it, but one of the side effects of my issues is that I can't resist venting about it. (Which can lead to arguments over really tiny points.)

I guess it could be worse. I could have even more severe autism and work myself up into a stroke about getting the wrong flavor ice cream or something.

[Tierce]

The point I'm making is that since I don't have the permissions to use private topic prior to submitting, I am just going to continue designing setups in QT and then porting to Private Topic since it's been required for reasons I can't fathom, so the reviewers will not see that benefit from me anyway.

I have not asked you for your full game information yet, but I fail to see the issue when it comes to designing in BBcode even if you don't have access to private topics. If you have no other place that uses BBcode, you can use the private message system on the forum--that gives you the necessary BBcode, and you're going to need that format

anyway

for when you actually run the game.

What happened previously was that I (and before me, Zito) had to convert

every

game design into something that looks decent in HTML. I didn't have a choice, the users didn't have a choice, we were all using QTs. By using Private Topics for Normal reviews, I'm removing that step for myself and keeping things in a place that is much easier to organize, sort, and search through than QTs. I'm making things easier for myself and for most others. You're going through the extra step of using QuickTopics because you want to, so I really don't see what's the big fuss in me requiring moderators to use a native system when the

vast

majority of moderators have always sent me their designs optimized for BBcode anyway and you have an alternative that works in this forum already. A system that you can request access to, a system that people can give input on regarding features, a system where you actually have control over who sees the topic. You're making things more difficult for everyone involved, including yourself. We're offering you a system here, the possibility of "early design" access to it,

and

an alternative to that system that does not require change and/or social contact, but you're saying this whole new thing is being forced on you. What is the point you're trying to defend?

I understand asking for things may be difficult for some people, but if asking for permission to have access to a system is too much change for you, you already have private messages that give you BBcode formatting that I can then port to private topics; you're inflicting stress on yourself for no good reason.

[Zachrulez]

The point I'm making is that since I don't have the permissions to use private topic prior to submitting, I am just going to continue designing setups in QT and then porting to Private Topic since it's been required for reasons I can't fathom, so the reviewers will not see that benefit from me anyway.

I have not asked you for your full game information yet, but I fail to see the issue when it comes to designing in BBcode even if you don't have access to private topics. If you have no other place that uses BBcode, you can use the private message system on the forum--that gives you the necessary BBcode, and you're going to need that format

anyway

for when you actually run the game.

Well technically, I can just put the bbcode tags in...

But the whole concept of coding the role pms is a stylistic choice anyway. I could write the things in pure text and it wouldn't make a difference to the text content of the actual role pms.

What happened previously was that I (and before me, Zito) had to convert

every

game design into something that looks decent in HTML. I didn't have a choice, the users didn't have a choice, we were all using QTs. By using Private Topics for Normal reviews, I'm removing that step for myself and keeping things in a place that is much easier to organize, sort, and search through than QTs. I'm making things easier for myself and for most others. You're going through the extra step of using QuickTopics because you want to, so I really don't see what's the big fuss in me requiring moderators to use a native system when the

vast

majority of moderators have always sent me their designs optimized for BBcode anyway and you have an alternative that works in this forum already. A system that you can request access to, a system that people can give input on regarding features, a system where you actually have control over who sees the topic. You're making things more difficult for everyone involved, including yourself. We're offering you a system here, the possibility of "early design" access to it,

and

an alternative to that system that does not require change and/or social contact, but you're saying this whole new thing is being forced on you. What is the point you're trying to defend?

See above. What I'm basically saying is that you don't

need

to see the styling of the role pms. You only need to be able to read the text and determine the normalcy of the role pms. It doesn't matter what's bold, what's big, or what color the text is in. It's still there.

So while you're having trouble understanding what I'm defending, I'm having trouble understanding the justification for the requirement. My thought is that it isn't necissary, but I'm probably putting too much effort into fighting it because it's much less of a big deal than my emotions are making it, but from a logical standpoint, I'm not seeing an argument in it's favor other than the fact that the combination of the argument and the fact that "it's not a big deal" prevail.

Anyway, it doesn't take much time to actually code the style of the role pms, but it's something I usually save for when I'm actually sending out the role pms. When I'm going through everything else in the design, I don't want to go through the stress of figuring out the coding.

I understand asking for things may be difficult for some people, but if asking for permission to have access to a system is too much change for you, you already have private messages that give you BBcode formatting that I can then port to private topics; you're inflicting stress on yourself for no good reason.

In a perfect world, I would be given access just to be shut up... just sayin. But it's a combination of having to do it, and also with having to do it everytime I have to design a game because somehow I don't see myself staying in the moderator group. It's admittedly a silly thing to complain about, but it's important to me dammit!

On that thought, on another forum I was on, there was a BBcode tag that allowed HTML to be recognized on the forum. Is such a thing possible on these boards?

I'm just really resistant to change in the end, and I'm generally skeptical said changes won't result in more work for me.

[Tierce]

See above. What I'm basically saying is that you don't need to see the styling of the role pms. You only need to be able to read the text and determine the normalcy of the role pms. It doesn't matter what's bold, what's big, or what color the text is in. It's still there.

So while you're having trouble understanding what I'm defending, I'm having trouble understanding the justification for the requirement. My thought is that it isn't necissary, but I'm probably putting too much effort into fighting it because it's much less of a big deal than my emotions are making it, but from a logical standpoint, I'm not seeing an argument in it's favor other than the fact that the combination of the argument and the fact that "it's not a big deal" prevail.

...Not really, actually. In most circumstances, sure, color and formatting don't particularly matter. But, say, let's grab an example from a game I ran a while back. It was a Werewolves v. Town game. There were no colors in the role PMs I was provided. I flipped the first Werewolf in red, and after doing it, realized I should probably have flipped it in dark red or another color, because red is the typical mafia color and it was an easy assumption to make that the werewolves were the only non-Town faction. It's a small thing, and I don't think the players in the game made the association, but

I

did and I probably would have done it if I were a player in the game. So yes, color and formatting can be relevant.

No one is asking you to have color in your role PMs or game information. I'm not, and in the matter of private topics for Normal reviews, my word goes~. If I'm not asking you to provide it, it's because it's not a gigantic issue. But if you do, of course I'd like to convert it to BBcode to provide it for the reviewers. It's your game info, you choose how it looks, and I would like the review team to have access to the setup as close to the final version as possible.

As for the rest of the requirement, I've already stated how it makes organization, sorting, searching and security much easier to handle than QTs are.

As for it "not being a big deal", that's irrelevant when the issue is emotional; no one can tell you that your emotions aren't a big deal. What I'm saying is that you already have alternatives, and since I haven't seen you complain about these alternatives (like using private messages, like not caring about the formatting because that's my job and frankly no one ever bothered to make it easier for me before now and I don't expect them to start now), I don't know what your problem is at this stage or how we could make things easier for you.

[LlamaFluff]

Would a compromise be something like Zach creates his topic that presents in QT on his own and for your record keeping you just make the private topic that only has a post 0 link to QT?

[Tierce]

Would a compromise be something like Zach creates his topic that presents in QT on his own and for your record keeping you just make the private topic that only has a post 0 link to QT?

I don't particularly care for any kind of compromise until I know what is actually bothering Zach, and I don't think that's it--doing things like that removes pretty much all the purpose of private topics and would be easier to pass off a direct link to the QT via PM.

[Zachrulez]

All I'm seeing from Zachrulez for the last page or so is like "blah blah whine whine i have to ask for permission waaaaaaaaa". Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

This is flamebait. If anyone can tell me how this post actually contributed anything to the thread except attempting get me more upset, I'd like to hear it.

As for the argument yesterday, I'm just going to apologize for the whole thing because it's basically just me being petty and poking holes into a system I have grown a dislike for many years running, but also something I should have let go that long ago as well. My opinions and positions on where the review process for normal games are going isn't going to change anything or matter at all in the long run and it's really silly for me to keep complaining about it when I have an alternative that would resolve a lot of my complaints. (Simply running my games as themes even if they otherwise qualify to be normal.)

I was just arguing for the sake of arguing and let it sweep me up in emotion.

[Tierce]

Zach.

You are not required to ever design anything on a private topic.
I'm not asking you to do anything on a private topic prior to

me

linking

you

to one. I'm not asking you to provide BBcode for me, even though I'd love to have that. I'm not asking you to use the existing private message system. If you prefer to use QuickTopics to design your game, then by all means, do it. I, however, will then grab your stuff and put it in a private topic because there's a lot of convenience added for me and others in doing so.

In this specific process, what is it that is bothering you? How can I make

Normal reviews

more convenient for you?

You're not going to get constant access to Private Topics until we're sure there are no issues with the system (and possibly not then), and that mostly comes from a not-Jade concern. So, knowing that this is not something I will provide because it's not my field, what is it that can make the Normal review process (the thing you were complaining about and I have control over) easier for you?

I don't want you to be upset or abandon Normal games altogether, but I simply do not know what it is that is bothering you because there is no change required from you other than "click this link to a private topic instead of this link to a QuickTopic" on a PM from me.

[tn5421]

All I'm seeing from Zachrulez for the last page or so is like "blah blah whine whine i have to ask for permission waaaaaaaaa". Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

This is flamebait. If anyone can tell me how this post actually contributed anything to the thread except attempting get me more upset, I'd like to hear it.

Your entire argument is you crying about being 'forced' to participate in a

voluntary

system with suitable alternatives exist and otherwise bitching and griping about non-factors, and not being trusted,

and oh god you're expected to be

social

on a website for an extremely social game

.

Zach, let me say it again: if you take any action against a player for bringing something to the listmods' attention, you are likely to have the privilege of moderating revoked.

Honestly what I'm worried about here is taking action against a player for breaking game rules and my action being interpreted as retaliation. (Which is how Faraday seemed to interpret my resolve to take action in the example I laid out.)

Maybe because that is EXACTLY what you said you would do. I'm done talking to you.

[Zachrulez]

Zach, let me say it again: if you take any action against a player for bringing something to the listmods' attention, you are likely to have the privilege of moderating revoked.

Honestly what I'm worried about here is taking action against a player for breaking game rules and my action being interpreted as retaliation. (Which is how Faraday seemed to interpret my resolve to take action in the example I laid out.)

Maybe because that is EXACTLY what you said you would do. I'm done talking to you.

You were never talking to me in the first place. Only attacking.

Edit: Also in full context to the argument on page 1. Zoraster himself said that list mods can't access a private topic without moderator consent, and since I'm planning to use private topics for scum qts, mason qts, ect. The entire hypothetical we were arguing over is no longer even possible. (A player can link the topic, but it's not possible for other parties to see it without my ok.)

There was also a separate argument about being forced to give the list mod the link to a QT, and in that case I was arguing more for the right to say no... even though I don't really see a situation where I would refuse to give a list mod a QT link if asked.

[chamber]

(A player can link the topic, but it's not possible for other parties to see it without my ok.)

at the moment all admins can see all PTs, and when I'm not in games I'll likely also periodically be in that group to make sure everything's working right and not being abused.

I felt the need to reiterate this point.