Official Poll/Discussion on Renaming IOT Sub Forum

[gay_Aleks]

My main problem with the rename, at current point, beyond the fact that the merger won't occur (or isn't occurring), is that all the proposed alternatives are, well...boring. Very dry. Sure, they get the point across, but that's it. Nothing else. They need to have more...flair, so as to speak.

 

[thomas.berubeg]

My main problem with the rename, at current point, beyond the fact that the merger won't occur (or isn't occurring), is that all the proposed alternatives are, well...boring. Very dry. Sure, they get the point across, but that's it. Nothing else. They need to have more...flair, so as to speak.

Agreed.

 

[BSmith1068]

This thread/poll is not about selecting the name, but rather if we should change at all. I'd encourage the discussion to get back to that topic.

So, if the mods are interested in doing this the scientifically correct way, they'd first solicit 5-10 names for the official challenger to IOT, have a designated debate/campaigning period, then open THAT poll to decide the winning alternative that will challenge IOT. Then after that, the final poll will be held in which IOT goes up against the most popular alternative, and the majority vote wins.

Something like this is what I have in mind, with the current name always an option.

 

[gay_Aleks]

If we don't know what the options would be in case of a rename, there's no point in voting YES.

 

[BSmith1068]

Sure there is. We as a group can decide if we are open to changing the name without having that name determined. If we decide to move forward with a rename then we will go through the process of identifying the name. If we don't decide to move forward with a rename then there is no point expending energy in coming up with name options.

 

[CivOasis]

I think there's some contention over the phrasing, perhaps.

For instance, I am open to a rename - but without knowing the specific options, I don't know whether I would want one. It seems to me the discussion is currently on the former question, while the thread started on - and the poll reflects - the latter.

 

[gay_Aleks]

And the so-far offered options are...well, pretty damn dry, in my opinion.

 

[christos200]

Personally, I am ok with changing the name. Just get over with it, name is not the most important thing. Just put a NESIOT or IOTNES and end the whole thing.

 

[BSmith1068]

I think there's some contention over the phrasing, perhaps.

For instance, I am open to a rename - but without knowing the specific options, I don't know whether I would want one. It seems to me the discussion is currently on the former question, while the thread started on - and the poll reflects - the latter.

I think we are getting into semantics a bit too much here. As I stated early in the thread, the current name will be an option in any subsequent poll, so there will always be the failsafe vote for the status quo should you not like any of the other options that are yet to be determined.

Bottom line - I am trying to gauge the true level of interest/acceptance to making a change at all to the name of the sub forum.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

The problem is, any sort of final vote is inherently tied to numerous other variables that these staff-led polls refuse to touch. I've seen enough independence referenda to know there is a critical difference between saying "Yes or no, we'll work out the details later," and voting on a properly-discussed and detailed proposal.

I also support Republicum Ontopcium (RON). Vive la revolution!

snek pls, Tani's long gone so we can use proper Latin now! Respublica Inthema

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

@Bsmith: Can't you just start with a quick change of the description? Surely we can do better than "A Forum of IOT games." That says literally nothing about what is done here and resolves no mystery that any would-be browser and player would have. My suggestion would be along the lines of:

"A collection of forum-based strategy and world-building games and RP."


EDIT: Just pointing out that I doubt anyone here would go to the barricades over the description, though they might over the subforum title.

 

[SouthernKing]

snek pls, Tani's long gone so we can use proper Latin now! Respublica Inthema

RIT. I could do RIT

@Bsmith: Can't you just start with a quick change of the description? Surely we can do better than "A Forum of IOT games." That says literally nothing about what is done here and resolves no mystery that any would-be browser and player would have. My suggestion would be along the lines of:

"A collection of forum-based strategy and world-building games and RP."


EDIT: Just pointing out that I doubt anyone here would go to the barricades over the description, though they might over the subforum title.

Seconded, this works perfectly.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I coulda sworn we'd asked to change the description back during the Forum Games reorg...

EDIT: One caveat: spell out 'roleplay'. Acronyms are the Devil's descriptors.

 

[JohannaK]

I still like fake Latin. Yes I am secretly a 12 year old, why do you ask?

 

[BSmith1068]

@Bsmith: Can't you just start with a quick change of the description? Surely we can do better than "A Forum of IOT games." That says literally nothing about what is done here and resolves no mystery that any would-be browser and player would have. My suggestion would be along the lines of:

"A collection of forum-based strategy and world-building games and RP."


EDIT: Just pointing out that I doubt anyone here would go to the barricades over the description, though they might over the subforum title.

Does anyone have an objection to making this the description?

"A collection of forum-based strategy and world-building games and roleplay."

 

[JohannaK]

Nope.

 

[Terran Empress]

Does anyone have an objection to making this the description?

"A collection of forum-based strategy and world-building games and roleplay."

Nope, love it, short simple and to the point, and gives a good description. Go for it

 

[Thlayli]

Er, perhaps grammar?

"A collection of forum based, role playing strategy and world-building games."

I hate to nitpick, but if the description was syntactically improper for the next decade, I think it would contribute to driving me crazy.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

No, because I didn't mean "Role-playing strategy and world-building games." Roleplay can and has been separate from strategy and world-building games here. So "A collection of forum-based strategy and world-building games and roleplay." is grammatically accurate.

 

[Thlayli]

No, because I didn't mean "Role-playing strategy and world-building games." Roleplay can and has been separate from strategy and world-building games here. So "A collection of forum-based strategy and world-building games and roleplay." is grammatically accurate.

By all means, name the game where one is not playing a role, EQ.

Even if your statement was correct, you would want to end with the word 'roleplaying'. Also, having multiple ands in one sentence is a little awkward.