Considering this:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/86920/posts.GIF

For the coming succession game, would it be possible to get a whole little subforum for each team where we can have multiple threads related to different discussions/turnset reports etc?

An alternative could be to hold our discussions/planning/trash-talk in an off-site forum, but that doesn't seem like a very nice one...

What is wrong with a thread with 3K posts? It'll just take alot of time to read it. Everything kinda belong in the same thread anyways.

What is wrong with a thread with 3K posts? It'll just take alot of time to read it. Everything kinda belong in the same thread anyways.

The problem is that we have long-term strategy discussions, short-term micromanagement discussions, turn reports, general trash-talking, etc, all mixed together in one thread. It makes it kind of challenging to follow a certain line of the discussion when one needs to click back and forth 10 pages to read all the posts.

Another problem is we're all a bunch of idiots (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5227428&postcount=589) (except for klarius, of course), and by the time we're ready to play our turnset, we've forgotten the two or three important details that we mustn't screw up.

Oddly enough, we have no trouble remembering lies throughout, such as the lie that we can build the United Nations when the dimplo VC is turned off.

The problem is that we have long-term strategy discussions, short-term micromanagement discussions, turn reports, general trash-talking, etc, all mixed together in one thread. It makes it kind of challenging to follow a certain line of the discussion when one needs to click back and forth 10 pages to read all the posts. Clearly a legacy from the Big Pig dynasty! :p

Pigs, of course, are quite comfortable wallowing in trash ... I guess those trotters are well designed for it. But perhaps the more human members of MW are finding that they are stumbling over all that trash clutter (not LC of course, I think he wears snowshoes in the pigpen ;) ) ? :lol:

dV

Using sub-forums and multiple threads has a rather large drawback in that someone wanting to look at the game after its completion wouldn't be able to get a grasp of the situation. Only by being in the middle of it can you keep up with discussions in various threads. I for one would greatly miss reading through the threads of other teams after the game to see how they played.

Using sub-forums and multiple threads has a rather large drawback in that someone wanting to look at the game after its completion wouldn't be able to get a grasp of the situation. Only by being in the middle of it can you keep up with discussions in various threads. I for one would greatly miss reading through the threads of other teams after the game to see how they played.

While possibly a pain to implement, there could just be 1 subforum for the most recent posts about what to do, and a topforum which keeps all posts in posted order. That way when reviewing a turnset, the most recent chatter could be easily sorted, and the longer term would still be avalible elsewhere.

I really don't see how a single excessive thread creates a valid justification for building a complex structure of forums for a single SGTOM. One player posted more in that thread than most entire teams did. May I suggest you try a little self control, and if not, try building an index to important posts near the start of the thread?

While possibly a pain to implement, there could just be 1 subforum for the most recent posts about what to do, and a topforum which keeps all posts in posted order. That way when reviewing a turnset, the most recent chatter could be easily sorted, and the longer term would still be avalible elsewhere.
The recent stuff should be in the last page or three. In any case, I'm not sure how a "recent posts" thread could be maintained.

Using sub-forums and multiple threads has a rather large drawback in that someone wanting to look at the game after its completion wouldn't be able to get a grasp of the situation. Only by being in the middle of it can you keep up with discussions in various threads. I for one would greatly miss reading through the threads of other teams after the game to see how they played.

Niklas, do I understand you correct that you prefer to read through all 2338 posts in the Murky Waters thread to get a grip of what we did, instead of perhaps 100 posts that explain all the turn sets? :eek:

The idea with multiple threads is to enable turn set reports to be easily available in one thread. We can handle that with the current system, but it's very tedious. Also, simple questions regarding rules and game mechanics can be separated from the main game discussion. Screenshots and drawings can be collected in one thread. A sub-forum would open up a lot of options for those teams that have problems with structuring the team thread (e.g. Murky Waters). Team members that were absent for a week had a lot to catch up, and most of it was not relevant when the actual turn sets where executed.

EDIT: Alan, if building sub-forums is a complex and/or time consuming task, then we will handle it as in SGOTM4 (we had an index as you suggested). We don't want to impose extra work for the staff. And I certainly won't impose any self control on my team members :lol:

Clearly a legacy from the Big Pig dynasty!

Pigs, of course, are quite comfortable wallowing in trash ... I guess those trotters are well designed for it. But perhaps the more human members of MW are finding that they are stumbling over all that trash clutter (not LC of course, I think he wears snowshoes in the pigpen ) ?

dV

:lol:

Putting LC on your "ignore lists" would help a lot towards making your thread look tidy...

I really don't see how a single excessive thread creates a valid justification for building a complex structure of forums for a single SGTOM. One player posted more in that thread than most entire teams did. May I suggest you try a little self control, and if not, try building an index to important posts near the start of the thread?

The recent stuff should be in the last page or three. In any case, I'm not sure how a "recent posts" thread could be maintained.Ouch.1. Rebuttal to 'Single excessive thread'.
1a. ours was not the only lengthy thread:Well, we hit over 4000 posts in our Russian threadLexad's post refers to SG4 and their SG5 was also lengthy. Unfortunately, not everyone is a succinct literary genius like Obormot and Balbes. Some of us need to thrash things out a bit. A few days ago you described GOTM players as 'enthusiasts,' now 'excessive'? :crazyeye: I personally prefer the former characterization.

1b. Excessive: For SG4, the last Warlords SG, the first and second place finishers were CRC, with the above referenced +4000 posts and Murky Waters, with 2829 posts. If by 'excessive' you mean 'successful', then I agree with you.

2. Complex structure of forums: I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one, if giving us a structure rather than a thread is problematic. I have no inside knowledge of how complicated such a procedure is for you. An alternative may be to simply assign us 2 or 3 threads. In such a case, it would be incumbent upon Captain Erkon and the rest of Murky Waters to think this through carefully and decide exactly how many threads we really need and let you know. Personally, I think 2 threads would be more than enough: our regular one and then a summary-info-type thread. EDIT: Please note also that for both SG4 and SG5, we attempted to overcome this by reserving the first several posts in the thread. While it was helpful in both cases, it didn't really solve the problem.

3. Gnejs' purpose here is to facilitate our gameplay. If this can happen, then I think it can only facilitate readership too, but in any case, that readership is secondary to our purposes. This is not a trivial matter. In my opinion, our discussion is not excessive. Period. It is entirely productive. Unfortunately, on occasion it also produces a detrimental consequence on the ensuing turnset. That is something we'd like to avoid by having separate (sub)threads.

Off-topic: Note that I have stopped trash-talking in all threads except the MW thread, since your comment on forum rules, unlike certain other people in this very thread...:p

Off-topic: Note that I have stopped trash-talking in all threads except the MW thread, since your comment on forum rules, unlike certain other people in this very thread...

da_Vinci - this is for you! Obviously, since I gave some helpful advice to all of the poor MW players. And I mean all, LC....

da_Vinci - this is for you! Obviously, since I gave some helpful advice to all of the poor MW players. And I mean all, LC....



2. Complex structure of forums: I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one, if giving us a structure rather than a thread is problematic. I have no inside knowledge of how complicated such a procedure is for you. An alternative may be to simply assign us 2 or 3 threads. In such a case, it would be incumbent upon Captain Erkon and the rest of Murky Waters to think this through carefully and decide exactly how many threads we really need and let you know. Personally, I think 2 threads would be more than enough: our regular one and then a summary-info-type thread.
Off-topic: Note that I have stopped trash-talking in all threads except the MW thread, since your comment on forum rules, unlike certain other people in this very thread...:p

Oh, I though this was a metastasis from the MW thread, so I figured the MW thread "rules" applied. Sorry! :blush:

dV

I think Alan's idea to reserve a post at the beginning of the thread for an index of the most relevant posts, or for a game-progress is a good suggestion that i will follow.

It would be easier also for non-excessive team like us to find the key decisions and so on, and it would help some visitor.

And i think that a sub-thread is really a lot of work, for what i know about sites/forums management.

Sub-forums have to be created by Thunderfall. While I might be prepared to put the work in preparing 10 to 20 team threads for the SGOTM cause, I can't see TF having the same level of enthusiasm. However, I have referred this thread for his attention.

Using sub-forums and multiple threads has a rather large drawback in that someone wanting to look at the game after its completion wouldn't be able to get a grasp of the situation. Only by being in the middle of it can you keep up with discussions in various threads.
I agree with this 100%. It was tried in CFR intra-site demogames and in my opinion failed for those very reasons.

Link showing failure, please.

Note that I have stopped trash-talking in all threads except the MW thread, since your comment on forum rules, unlike certain other people in this very thread...:p
but then see....
Ouch.1. Rebuttal to 'Single excessive thread'.
1a. ours was not the only lengthy thread:Lexad's post refers to SG4 and their SG5 was also lengthy. Unfortunately, not everyone is a succinct literary genius like Obormot and Balbes. Some of us need to thrash things out a bit. A few days ago you described GOTM players as 'enthusiasts,' now 'excessive'? :crazyeye: I personally prefer the former characterization.

1b. Excessive: For SG4, the last Warlords SG, the first and second place finishers were CRC, with the above referenced +4000 posts and Murky Waters, with 2829 posts. If by 'excessive' you mean 'successful', then I agree with you.

2. Complex structure of forums: I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one, if giving us a structure rather than a thread is problematic. I have no inside knowledge of how complicated such a procedure is for you. An alternative may be to simply assign us 2 or 3 threads. In such a case, it would be incumbent upon Captain Erkon and the rest of Murky Waters to think this through carefully and decide exactly how many threads we really need and let you know. Personally, I think 2 threads would be more than enough: our regular one and then a summary-info-type thread. EDIT: Please note also that for both SG4 and SG5, we attempted to overcome this by reserving the first several posts in the thread. While it was helpful in both cases, it didn't really solve the problem.

3. Gnejs' purpose here is to facilitate our gameplay. If this can happen, then I think it can only facilitate readership too, but in any case, that readership is secondary to our purposes. This is not a trivial matter. In my opinion, our discussion is not excessive. Period. It is entirely productive. Unfortunately, on occasion it also produces a detrimental consequence on the ensuing turnset. That is something we'd like to avoid by having separate (sub)threads.
So, LC has stopped talking trash, but continues spouting garbage. If I were a non-native English speaker I would be very confused.....

Link showing failure, please.
Here you go: http://www.civfanatics.ru/forum/index.php?showforum=95
This game is now finished. It is all in Russian, of course. But you can take my word for it: it's almost incomprehensible to someone trying to catch up after the game, though I'm sure it made perfect sense to the involved players during the game.

Here you go: http://www.civfanatics.ru/forum/index.php?showforum=95
This game is now finished. It is all in Russian, of course. But you can take my word for it: it's almost incomprehensible to someone trying to catch up after the game, though I'm sure it made perfect sense to the involved players during the game. Thanks! I read the whole thread, and now I feel ready to tackle deity!

And I don't even speak Russian! :lol:

So, LC has stopped talking trash, but continues spouting garbage. If I were a non-native English speaker I would be very confused..... Well, he is studying garbage as a profession ... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6223634&postcount=2350

dV

I can imagine setting up 10-20 subforums for each team is a bit cumbersome.

How about an easy solution: 2 or 3 threads per team.

1 - SGOTM6 - [teamname] Discussion Thread

2 - SGOTM6 - [teamname] Turnset reports

May I suggest you try a little self control, and if not, try building an index to important posts near the start of the thread?


:agree: I've been linking to turnset reports in our threads for the last few games. I do the linking whilst the game is in progress so that any lurkers who just want to see how the game has progressed can easily jump to the correct post. It is also a lot easier than trying to trawl through the thread at the end of the game to create the links.

Something like the All Leaders Challenge (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=252788) would be perfect for the teams with these absurdly long threads. Just links in the first post to all turnsets, with the dates/turn numbers.

Something like the All Leaders Challenge (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=252788) would be perfect for the teams with these absurdly long threads. Just links in the first post to all turnsets, with the dates/turn numbers.

Reading the ALCs is what prompted me to link our turnsets. :D

I can imagine setting up 10-20 subforums for each team is a bit cumbersome.

How about an easy solution: 2 or 3 threads per team.

1 - SGOTM6 - [teamname] Discussion Thread

2 - SGOTM6 - [teamname] Turnset reports

This does sound like it would add some useful flexibility to the current structure.

Currently seems a bit easy for turnset reports and the documented plan of action etc. to get lost in general discussion, so a seperate "reference" thread per team could be helpful - though teams could obviously use them (or not) as they choose.

Might be a useful addition if it's not too much extra work (maybe just set it up for teams that request it).

Teams can even set them up themselves, with a proper naming convention.

I'm still on my idea:
one team-thread is enough, just reserve 2 posts in the first page for an index.

There's a risk with more than one thread:
someone can miss a post, and this can be unpleasant.

BTW when do we have the team formations and the full knowledge of the game? only 4 days to the start.

edit:
Thanks LE, sorry :blush:

BTW when do we have the team formations and the full knowledge of the game? only 4 days to the start.
AlanH posted in the sign-up thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6221683&postcount=80)

Back when the "GK2 - Training Day Experiment" game was taking place, I helped update the index that I think Controlfreak initially setup. We had links to each turnset and then post-play discussions, as well as major topics.

Here is a link to it (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=81351). The 2nd and 3rd posts have the main index.

I'v e posted the draft team lists in the sign up thread. I'll open the team threads later today.

Lurking quietly
Team threads have been posted

Part of the SGOTM challenge is to achieve victory within the constraints of a single thread. :lol: :lol:

Part of the SGOTM challenge is to achieve victory within the constraints of a single thread. :lol: :lol:Luckily they don't limit the number of posts.