MISH MASH GAME LIST (Old)

[StrangerCoug]

Is there a situation in which people can see a non-RPG breaking the

n

-threads rule?

In theory, games intended to be a tournament; in practice, those get unwieldy if they're too big. I tried to run a 16p Battleship game once and wasn't able to keep up with everything.

[Klazam]

Sub-Threads Subforum?

[N]

Overflow

I like this name.

[Mr. Flay]

I really don't. But I want to know what Mishmashers think we'd be getting ourselves into here.

[JDGA]

uh, that's not an argument against subforums, it's an argument against moving off-forum

lrn2read <3

I adapted it <_<

[Rob14]

I doubt that anything other than RPGs would break that rule. Also, I would like to assert The Dungeon as a potential name for an RPG subforum.

[fuzzybutternut]

"The Colosseum"

[SleepyKrew]

izak has made it clear that he wants it for all Overflow. At this point I think it only applies to the RPGs, but others could potentially have n+ in the future.

[CuddlyCaucasian]

"The"

short and sweet

[animorpherv1]

I've seen Survivors with a thread for each live challenge, but they're never all active at the same time. As soon as a challenge is over, that live-challenge thread dies.

[Maestro]

I'm not interested in arguing or discussing anymore - subforum decision plz

[fuzzybutternut]

All in favor say "I"
"aye" is also acceptable.
Or any variation of the word.

[StrangerCoug]

All in favor say "I"
"aye" is also acceptable.
Or any variation of the word.

One.

[Maestro]

sqrt(-1)

[fuzzybutternut]

^lolmathjokes

[RichardGHP]

一

[izakthegoomba]

izak, why did you make a sudden and unilateral decision on this?

Firstly, it wasn't really that sudden - people have been grumbling about the threads for a few weeks now, and I agreed that the clutter is unreasonable to anyone who wants to try and browse the forum - especially with more big games coming up soon. I don't think the decision is at all unreasonable, and I made sure it didn't interrupt anything that couldn't easily adapt to it.

How many threads are we talking about here? 10 now, 27 tomorrow? I don't think it's necessary to cart games off of the forum to proboards or whatever, but it's also reasonable to expect that Mish-Mash be somewhat navigable. We split Chess off for way less than 27 threads, I think.

I believe the idea here is not to cart off "big games" to a different forum, but rather to allow games needing extra threads besides their main one to put these extra threads in the subforum, while keeping their main thread in Mish Mash.

[N]

All in favor say "I"
"aye" is also acceptable.
Or any variation of the word.

[izakthegoomba]

All in favor say "I"
"aye" is also acceptable.
Or any variation of the word.

[Mr. Flay]

Firstly, it wasn't really that sudden - people have been grumbling about the threads for a few weeks now, and I agreed that the clutter is unreasonable to anyone who wants to try and browse the forum - especially with more big games coming up soon. I don't think the decision is at all unreasonable, and I made sure it didn't interrupt anything that couldn't easily adapt to it.

That's not really what I meant. Did you have any PUBLIC discussion before coming to a new rule? One-way conversations between disgruntled folks and you is a start, but not an end.

[Rob14]

<1,0,0>

[Rob14]

How many threads are we talking about here? 10 now, 27 tomorrow? I don't think it's necessary to cart games off of the forum to proboards or whatever, but it's also reasonable to expect that Mish-Mash be somewhat navigable. We split Chess off for way less than 27 threads, I think.

I believe the idea here is not to cart off "big games" to a different forum, but rather to allow games needing extra threads besides their main one to put these extra threads in the subforum, while keeping their main thread in Mish Mash.

That's...not true. Your original suggestion to games was to take stuff off-site.

If your game requires more than that, I recommend using an alternative, such as QuickTopic, for your additional threads.

You also described the idea to create a subforum as "radical", IIRC.

[izakthegoomba]

That's...not true. Your original suggestion to games was to take stuff off-site.

Yes, but that was before the idea of a new subforum was even raised.

You also described the idea to create a subforum as "radical", IIRC.

No. What I called "radical" was the idea that individual games could have their own subforums - I also explained why this would be incredibly impractical. I used no such description for the idea of generic subforum for extra threads.

That's not really what I meant. Did you have any PUBLIC discussion before coming to a new rule? One-way conversations between disgruntled folks and you is a start, but not an end.

I didn't see this as such a big deal - and to be honest, I still think it's not as huge as the explosion of posting would suggest. I sympathise with Maestro's position - that browsing the forum shouldn't be the primary method of finding a particular thread when we have egosearch, bookmarks, and subscriptions available. Everything I've done with relation to the issue has been in the attempt to appease people with the minimum upheaval possible.

[Katty Bard]

All in favor say "I"
"aye" is also acceptable.
Or any variation of the word.

[aI]

[Crazy]

Orcinus_the_original and I would like to announce

Survivor: Season Finale

. This will be a 16-player Survivor game. Players will be allowed to join as any fictional character from any TV show they wish.

We are still in the planning stages, but we will hope to start after Survivor: Greece, in January 2014. We won't accept pre-ins at this time.