Silly games and role playing threads.

[Maljonic]

Is it a good idea to have a silly games and role playing forum (nothing to do with actual role playing D + D style), for 'first thing that springs to mind' type threads to go in? Also any normal threads that evolve into one of these can be moved there.

This would keep such foolishness out of the main discussions, and allow the people who want to take part in such tomfoolery to do so without annoying anyone.

[Silmaril]

Considering recent events, that seems a sensible idea.

[prettybutterfly]

i think so, and then people who want a bit of harmless fun can do so without much risk of annoying others who prefer more mature discussions.

[Cat]

Although it seems like a good idea, I'm not sure it would work. Some threads clearly start out silly, or as a game. Those could be in this cathegory. But there are lots of threads that either start out silly and become more serious, or vice versa. Putting them in the 'silly threads' forum would mean that the serious content could be overlooked.

Still, if it would be a game thread-only forum, it could work. But there are bound to be threads that won't fit into either cathegory.

We also have to be careful not to create too many formus, I think. I rather have some big 'general' forums where I click on the threads I want to read up on, then have to seach all kinds of different specialised fora. (this is a generalisation and I am not saying this Board has too many fora at the moment, but I did want to point it out at this stage).

I am undecided at the moment and will postpone my vote.

[Maljonic]

I see what you mean Cat, but did you know you can also split a thread in two? If it started out serious for instance then went loopy half way through, we could move the loopy part to the loopy threads forum and leave a note behind to say where it went. This would also work visa versa. I think we may not have to move stuff very often though, members could nip sillyness in the bud by saying something like, take it to the loopy forum (or whatever we call it.)

P.S. If they don't fit into either we could just leave them wherever they are.

[Cat]

Ah, I see. That changes things. And gives the mods something to do.

In that case it sounds good to me.

[Roman_K]

I disagree with this idea. More than that, I disagree with splitting threads. Giving the mods something to do? I'm sorry? So the mods, from deleting spam and banning trolls, now move on to making the forums just a bit more orderly?

I'm sorry, I'm not that orderly a person. Total Chaos isn't nice, but the way this is going so far, total Order, is not the way I would like it.

[Electric_Man]

Oooh, oooh, can we have a forum to talk about when we have haircuts too?

The moderators only need to delete spam, stop trolls. Getting them to split threads, move threads etc just stinks of Big Brother type controlling of everyone, and will only move the moderators further away from the 'normal' posters.

In case you're wondering, I voted no :roll:

[Maljonic]

Okay, can any further voters keep in mind that the moving of threads was an 'also' and not the topic of the poll. The voting is on whether or not we should have a section for silly games threads, we can decide on moving things or not as a group decisions as and when the occasion arises.

[Electric_Man]

Mal, it is a part of the thread. From what I can see Cat only voted yes because of the fact that you can split threads, so it a part of the vote, and you made it part of the vote yourself.

[Maljonic]

I never mentioned anything about Moderators, so:

[quote:0939eaef92="Maljonic"]Okay, can any further voters keep in mind that the moving of threads was an 'also' and not the topic of the poll. The voting is on whether or not we should have a section for silly games threads, we can decide on moving things or not as a group decisions as and when the occasion arises. [/quote:0939eaef92]

[Electric_Man]

Mal, please, you're contradicting yourself, unless you intend some magical fairy to split the threads, you indirectly mentioned mods. They are surely the only people who can split a thread.

The issue of splitting threads could be a whole other thread, yes. But if you are going to use the argument of 'We could split and move threads that turn silly' to persuade people to vote for a 'silly threads forum' then they [b:4111479656]are[/b:4111479656] interlinked.

It's fair enough that you think we should have a silly threads forum and I don't, that's a difference of opinion. But if you are going to use an argument to persuade people, and then say that that argument has no bearing on the vote, then you're lowering yourself in my estimation.

[Maljonic]

Well if you're going to be pedantic about it, yes it [i:67dc51725e]is[/i:67dc51725e] a moderator that would have to finally move or split a thread. But it is [b:67dc51725e][i:67dc51725e]we[/i:67dc51725e][/b:67dc51725e] who will decide whether or not we want to move or split a thread, and [b:67dc51725e][i:67dc51725e]we[/i:67dc51725e][/b:67dc51725e] who tell a moderator to do it if we want them to. Assuming we decide to let a moderator have that power in the first place.

[Rincewind]

I guess a worry with that is how many people does have to want a thread split to become a 'WE'. What, If for some reason, One wants it spilt but another doesn't? Or does the person who created the thread get the choice if it spilts or not.

I can see a point in it. But I think that the fine details need to be worked out before people can make an informed vote.

[Maljonic]

You are right of course, but I was really just thinking about the idea of having a seperate place for being foolish at the moment. The idea of splitting threads is something we could do on the spot votes for if it became clear that it might make sense, though I can't see it being very likely that it would come up very often, especially if there was a place to act the fool in the first place.