OT Reorganization - Vote now.

[Kyriakos]

This thread deserves subthreads or its own forum :/

 

[Birdjaguar]

There is diligent discussion in staff about pushing ahead with merging the two OTs. We are trying to get our moderator ducks in a row.

 

[fed1943]

I didn´t vote because I think I should not.

I am not an "user" of the OT (or OT´s ) so...

I do not understand the question or the difference among the possible alternatives, whatever they are. I do not want my uninformed vote about a question I feel it doesn't concern me to be counted in anyway.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is diligent discussion in staff about pushing ahead with merging the two OTs. We are trying to get our moderator ducks in a row.

I'm hoping the discussion is about the way the two will be merged, not whether they should.

Super glue would be my advice.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

"Moderator ducks in a row" brings to mind an old-fashioned shooting gallery, for some reason...

But since this is a civilized site, I assume we'll be using nerf balls or maybe pumpkin pies (in honor of the coming American Thanksgiving).

 

[Souron]

It could be said that *most* of the political threads currently are either not containing very 'serious' debate OR are in the chamber and appear to be more theoretical and not often about current affairs.

If it is decided that the OT will be an over-forum with many smaller forums under its wing (ala 'Other Games') then maybe this sort of branching could work:

OT (everything not belonging to any sub-category)

Subcategories:

-Politics

-Art

-Religion

-Science

-History

-Sports

-Humor

-Technology

Although this too can lead to 'issues', i suppose, at least for those who care a lot about the actual form of the OT forum..

RD won't work in my view (re-stated).

I think having many smaller forums has been shown not to work to well given how close it is to what we have now. Small forums tend to become inactive. But if you just have a few, then it might work.

So IMO It should just be:
Chamber - Includes Science, technology, religion, philosophy, and politics
Tavern - general, not too serious discussion.
Humor (This has always worked pretty well)
World History (This seems to be active enough to keep)
Computer Talk (This has 1 active thread, but It's pretty active and might not belong in another forum)

A&E and Sports Talk could stay separate too; I don't read those forums, so I don't really know or care what should happen to them.

 

[choxorn]

Sports Talk is the most active Colosseum subforum that isn't one of the OT's, so it is fine on its own.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

I think having many smaller forums has been shown not to work to well given how close it is to what we have now. Small forums tend to become inactive. But if you just have a few, then it might work.

So IMO It should just be:
Chamber - Includes Science, technology, religion, philosophy, and politics
Tavern - general, not too serious discussion.
Humor (This has always worked pretty well)
World History (This seems to be active enough to keep)
Computer Talk (This has 1 active thread, but It's pretty active and might not belong in another forum)

A&E and Sports Talk could stay separate too; I don't read those forums, so I don't really know or care what should happen to them.

I think we'll also need to merge in the A&E forums with one of the main OT forums. Computers could also be folded in with "Science and Technology".

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm hoping the discussion is about the way the two will be merged, not whether they should.

Super glue would be my advice.

The discussion has moved past whether or not to merge to what threads will be included and how to use prefixes (?) for RD threads to enable sorting and other items of that nature.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

The discussion has moved past whether or not to merge to what threads will be included and how to use prefixes (?) for RD threads to enable sorting and other items of that nature.

Why not just make the Chamber specifically for those "controversial" topics instead of going through all the trouble of trying to get the Red Diamond threads to work?

 

[JollyRoger]

Why not just make the Chamber specifically for those "controversial" topics instead of going through all the trouble of trying to get the Red Diamond threads to work?

Supply and demand.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The demand for more moderated discussion is not zero. If a "one click sort" could bring all RD threads to the top, then that might make it easy for those who prefer those discussions to find them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The demand for more moderated discussion is not zero. If a "one click sort" could bring all RD threads to the top, then that might make it easy for those who prefer those discussions to find them.

I like that idea. Best of both worlds.

Active RD threads would also pop to the top for people who haven't sorted, so there still will be crossover activity.

 

[Kyriakos]

I still think that RD is not going to work. In my view it might be better to just keep the overall 'tavern' moderation, but more specifically ask posters to not be posting just so as to say crap to each other.

Currently it seems that this happens from time to time. It's been a couple of months since i last reported anything, but i suppose some others care more (?).

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

I wonder how long it's going to take for this RD scheme to fail, and then for people to start whining about how Unified OT isn't working again.

 

[peter grimes]

I still think that RD is not going to work. In my view it might be better to just keep the overall 'tavern' moderation, but more specifically ask posters to not be posting just so as to say crap to each other.

And how exactly is the proposal here different from your quoted post?

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

And how exactly is the proposal here different from your quoted post?

It's ten times more convoluted and requires a lot more programming.

 

[JollyRoger]

And how exactly is the proposal here different from your quoted post?

To me, he appears to be asking for Chamber-level moderation while calling it Tavern-level moderation.

In my view it might be better to just keep the overall 'tavern' moderation, but more specifically ask moderators not to be infract.

 

[NickyJ]

Dang, I left here too early and got here too late to vote. Now I'm on the shortlist!

 

[Kyriakos]

To me, he appears to be asking for Chamber-level moderation while calling it Tavern-level moderation.

In my view it might be better to just keep the overall 'tavern' moderation, but more specifically ask moderators not to be infract.

I don't think this is true, although chamber moderation seems to be pretty similar. Then again if all that is different in the tavern is that there you are free to just post what you think will offend someone, then i would not really celebrate that at all.

Overall the tavern moderation is fine in my view, but since we are discussing RD, i thought of mentioning an easier way to have something like it without actually the RD itself.