We will probably be getting word real soon from DaveShack about the new Forums, so I though a discussion thread about their use and format would be good. If you have any suggestions or comments about this topic, please post below.

I think we can change the name of the Main Forum to the ISDG/MTDG Forums, with a small sub-title stating its purpose for Democracy Games of all kinds. The MTDG is about to end, so maybe another in-house Democracy Game can get started in its sub-forum.

So the threads in the main forum can be used for anything related to the games, such as the MTDG Turn Tracker. Information about the ISDG "clock" can be posted here. Random discussions between sites is another possibility. Pretty much an open forum.

I believe all 4 sub-forums should be used. The first can be cleared of threads and renamed ISDG ~ Democracy Game. This would be for any team discussion not of a sensitive nature. Organizing open content before the game would be an example. This sub-forum would also contain the "private" forum for the Democracy Team. The "private" forum would only be accessable for Democracy Team members and would be used for any discussions and polls that need to be kept secret from other teams. Information security if you will.

The second sub-forum can be cleared of threads and renamed ISDG ~ Succession Game. This sub-forum would mirror the ISDG ~ Democracy Game sub-forum in style and function.

The third sub-forum can be cleared of threads and renamed ISDG ~ Diplomacy. Here any team from either site may contact any CFC team in regards to diplomacy, ROPs, treaties, or any other comminque. This sub-forum would be different from the main forum in that it would be for official business (see examples above).

The last sub-forum would remain as is, for the MTDG II to continue and complete.

What are your thoughts?

Sounds good so far. Here my comments:

We will probably be getting word real soon from DaveShack about the new Forums,
Yesterday I sent a PM to Padma, telling him we will need a special thread for the "Conference of the Four", which is writable only by four designated users and read-only for the rest. I guess we don't need to busy two admins with our ISDG... I'll send a PM to both, so they can coordinate and the one with more time can then help us with our game.


The first can be cleared of threads and renamed ISDG ~ Democracy Game....

The second sub-forum can be cleared of threads and renamed ISDG ~ Succession Game.

I think that both teams might still give themselves different names. ("Team SG" and "Team DG" were meant only as "working title".) The teams on Civforum gave themselves really colorful names, so I think we should them our creativity as well... (Also it's a first step towards some RP...) So the threads should probably be named like "ISDG ~ Team XYZ".

Lanzelot

Sounds good so far. Here my comments:

I think that both teams might still give themselves different names. ("Team SG" and "Team DG" were meant only as "working title".) The teams on Civforum gave themselves really colorful names, so I think we should them our creativity as well... (Also it's a first step towards some RP...) So the threads should probably be named like "ISDG ~ Team XYZ".

Lanzelot

My thoughts exactly. Working titles to be changed later. I'm just wanting to set up a format that is initially easy to understand and readable even for people just coming on. That is why we shouldn't clear any of the threads (including this one) from the main forum. These discussions and polls help explain the flow of the game thus far. There are also important threads from the still active MTDG II game that need to remain.

We have enough people for another in-house game?

“Diplomacy sub-forum” may have 6 restricted to two Teams only sub-sub-forums for each pair to discuss Team to Team business.

We have enough people for another in-house game?

I'm talking about in the furture, after the MTDG II ends. I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying with the available sub-forum it can happen.

“Diplomacy sub-forum” may have 6 restricted to two Teams only sub-sub-forums for each pair to discuss Team to Team business.

:coffee: :think:
I'm thinking that may be a bit much and/or too confusing. The purpose of the Diplomacy thread is to document the ROPs for legality purposes (referee decisions). Any agreed to deal can be documented here, so that proof is available to the refs. This thread can also be used for warnings, threats, thankyous, the works. CivForums is presently looking for some way to document ROPs publicly, as something of this nature will help. Keeping them secret will move away from the transparency they look for.

Just one open forum for everyone, is my suggestion.
This will also limit Referees intrusion into private forums.

:coffee: :think:
I'm thinking that may be a bit much and/or too confusing. The purpose of the Diplomacy thread is to document the ROPs for legality purposes (referee decisions). Any agreed to deal can be documented here, so that proof is available to the refs. This thread can also be used for warnings, threats, thankyous, the works. CivForums is presently looking for some way to document ROPs publicly, as something of this nature will help. Keeping them secret will move away from the transparency they look for.

Just one open forum for everyone, is my suggestion.
This will also limit Referees intrusion into private forums.
I think it is not hard. Information "whats going on on another continet" too spoilish to publish it in common Embassy. It is 2 Team deal only. Referee may have accsess to this sub-forum.

Cool. Let's try and get a general consensus from the others and see what our Moderators say also.

Rather than let the DemoGame Revival RPG thread go, should we rename it to the ISDG RPG thread? Or is anyone interested in RPG? Maybe we could even open up the RPG side to CivForum players. They seem rather interested in RP.

What say you, Warriors? Shall we light the dark taverns with tales of fierce battles and glorious quests? Even the married men could participate. We'd have plenty of warm beer and cold women.

I am not an RPG fan for this kind of game.

But I would like to see the forums up soon, so team internal discussions can start.

Yesterday I sent a PM to Padma, telling him we will need a special thread for the "Conference of the Four", which is writable only by four designated users and read-only for the rest. I guess we don't need to busy two admins with our ISDG... I'll send a PM to both, so they can coordinate and the one with more time can then help us with our game.

But I would like to see the forums up soon, so team internal discussions can start.

I just fired off another PM to DaveShack. I even volunteered to do the work. :thumbsup:

Ok, help is on the way. We just have to wait for it.

Thanks for the quick response, DaveShack.

Quite quiet

Quite quiet
Cyc mimics an old war movie, and utters an over-used cliche....
Tooo quiet.... :scared::shifty:

Then... :aargh: :ar15: :ar15: :ar15: :sniper:



Psst... that's the part where the forums suddenly are up... :please:

If it is so difficult to make partially open thread, may be Lanzelot, say, will open normal one and on top write with big letters "For four persons only".
List:...
Somehow all can read...

justanick has already opened the "Conference of Four" thread in the CivForums.

Hopefully, our 2 members will keep us updated on what is happening over there.

Because the formation of the ISDG Forums by the Big Mods is taking longer than expected, DaveShack came up with another idea. Here it is:

Originally Posted by DaveShack
Another idea just came up. How about invite-only social groups? You can have threads in there so it doesn't take up PM space or have the hassle of cc'ing lots of people. The admins wouldn't have to be bugged to create forums or create access lists that you'd have to manage. The root for the game can still be in a forum thread, which would remain at the top with no other activity -- and can be stuck if necessary. The only drawback that I've found is that all moderators can see it, so if a member of the other team is a mod it can be trouble. And you don't navigate to it in the same way.

Personally, this doesn't present a reasonable alternative. Too far out of the norm to attract new people, or keep the regulars, IMO. What does everyone else think?

Because the formation of the ISDG Forums by the Big Mods is taking longer than expected, DaveShack came up with another idea. Here it is:

Originally Posted by DaveShack
Another idea just came up. How about invite-only social groups? You can have threads in there so it doesn't take up PM space or have the hassle of cc'ing lots of people. The admins wouldn't have to be bugged to create forums or create access lists that you'd have to manage. The root for the game can still be in a forum thread, which would remain at the top with no other activity -- and can be stuck if necessary. The only drawback that I've found is that all moderators can see it, so if a member of the other team is a mod it can be trouble. And you don't navigate to it in the same way.

Personally, this doesn't present a reasonable alternative. Too far out of the norm to attract new people, or keep the regulars, IMO. What does everyone else think?
So am I.
It is lot of hassel...
May be our German friends will accomodate us? Sometimes they are better organized...

Because the formation of the ISDG Forums by the Big Mods is taking longer than expected, DaveShack came up with another idea. Here it is:

Originally Posted by DaveShack
Another idea just came up. How about invite-only social groups? You can have threads in there so it doesn't take up PM space or have the hassle of cc'ing lots of people. The admins wouldn't have to be bugged to create forums or create access lists that you'd have to manage. The root for the game can still be in a forum thread, which would remain at the top with no other activity -- and can be stuck if necessary. The only drawback that I've found is that all moderators can see it, so if a member of the other team is a mod it can be trouble. And you don't navigate to it in the same way.

Personally, this doesn't present a reasonable alternative. Too far out of the norm to attract new people, or keep the regulars, IMO. What does everyone else think?

I suppose that would work but it doesn't seem ideal.

Originally Posted by DaveShack
Another idea just came up. How about invite-only social groups? You can have threads in there so it doesn't take up PM space or have the hassle of cc'ing lots of people. The admins wouldn't have to be bugged to create forums or create access lists that you'd have to manage. The root for the game can still be in a forum thread, which would remain at the top with no other activity -- and can be stuck if necessary. The only drawback that I've found is that all moderators can see it, so if a member of the other team is a mod it can be trouble. And you don't navigate to it in the same way.It could work, but it certainly isn't the best way. If it's what we have to do until actual forums are up, then it's fine with me.

We have had 4 people post here in the last week. How many people signed up for teams? This is terrible. I don't know who to blame. The apathetic people or the apathetic administrators. Such a waste.

I do like the idea of having the fora in the German CivForum, if getting out own takes this long.

@ Bowsling - Just the Conference of Four thread is being done at CivForums. That's the thread where the two Referees and 1 person from each site will get together and discuss the rules and the organizational procedures, until everyone is happy with each. The four people are Furiey and justanick, Lanzelot and someone else from CivForum (maybe d7 :dunno: ).

No, I was talking about I. Larkin's suggestion.

Hmmm. I think I missed that one. But I'm not sure that would be better than DaveShack's idea. Less security for sure. I think I'd rather push for our own.

Today marks the second month we have been discussing this ISDG. I sent a PM off to the CFC Admin, in hopes of getting something done. Hopefully, they will answer quickly.

Good news people. We got a quick response from ainwood, an administrator. He asks what we wanted to do and I gave him an outline of what I thought would work best.

So if things look different when you come back, you will know why.

That's great! :goodjob:

Sorry, I have been under water with work the last couple of days, but I promise to get the "Conference of the Four" going tomorrow. justanick already set up a write-protected thread for this: Conference of the Four (http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=70553)
justanick also sketched out a brief agenda, I will fill in more details, and then start with the first topic.

I do hope that by the end of the next week, all open points are settled, and if by that time our private team threads are ready as well, we can start!

Lanzelot

Good news people. We got a quick response from ainwood, an administrator. He asks what we wanted to do and I gave him an outline of what I thought would work best.

So if things look different when you come back, you will know why.

Excellent :goodjob:

Good news people. We got a quick response from ainwood, an administrator. He asks what we wanted to do and I gave him an outline of what I thought would work best.:woohoo:

Old forums archived, and new forums created. Note that the new forums are not private - anyone can see in them. I can create forums & user groups for the teams as required (I understand that people want private forums - understandably!) Let me know team names, group leaders etc.

..and our apologies for not getting this done sooner. Breakdown in communication.

Thank you so much for the work done, ainwood. It's really appreciated.

By "Private Forums" I meant what the Saber Team (and others) have in the MTDG II subforum.

Each of the ISDG teams has a list of players already created in the "Interest" thread that is being updated. But we're really not sure how many of the players have wandered off. I suggest that each subforum start a new list from players that sign up in their respective subforums. This way, we'll know for sure who is playing and who is not.

Is what Saber has in the MTDG a user group or a private subforum?

Everything looks good and if user groups is what we want, that's fine. Thanks again.

Old forums archived, and new forums created.
:thanx:
:goodjob: :woohoo: :bowdown: :worship:
:band:
:rockon: [party] :dance: :bounce: :banana: :w00t:

Ok, so I guess the private forums are actually user groups (known as social groups in some circles). So let's get these teams named and some Presidents, DPs, Team Captains, whatever we need to call them, and send these names off to ainwood so he can create the user groups for us and put the links in the appropriate subforums.

Create the Subforums. So we can diskuss our Civ Choice and other things.
Team Name can change later, ......... or not?

Well, 1. I can't get a real answer from ainwood or DaveShack about the private forums, 2. Once you create a user group, it's done. You can't change the name. It would just be floating around the forum unused if we created a second one with a different name.

So let's get the naming process and some kind of team captain done, so I can give them to ainwood and try to force an answer. I don't want to go to him empty-handed. See? ;)

Yes, the private forum is here. Just go to your user control panel ("My Account" in the header above), and then go to user groups on the left-hand column to join Civ3 DG - Democracy Team. Your request will be sent to me and if you're a known member, you'll be approved. All spies will be taken out back and shot. ;)

EDIT: If you have any trouble getting access, just let me know via PM. Thanks.

EDIT: For members of the Succession Team, when you apply to join the Civ3 DG - Succession Team the request will go to Lanzelot and he will take care of it.