Suggestion

[RoKeT]

OMG EAR I SO AGREE WITH YOU!

[RoKeT]

well this is why i want it, because if you put them in seperate sections you can see, what you want to look at and what not, like say, your one of the players that reads it for the dramas so you'd go right to the real deal, say you hate drama you'd skip past that, umm if you want to support a friend but are new to forums that would help find it easier, forums being tricky sometimes, the dumber the better, and why i think it should have it's own section, because it's become one of the biggest aspects on this forum and as such, the easier you make the forum the more people friendly it becomes, the better we have a chance at getting more people, if that makes since

[Jim]

The thing is, this change would stop wars just being "part of general ingame stuff" it would bring it to the front of the game and encorage people to take part in fun wars.
Everyone complains the game is dying. i see fun wars and RP wars as a good way of stopping it or slowing it down. Why does the RP section have its own section? shouldnt it be part of Misc?
Is Forum RP more important than ingame wars and RP?

[Juliette]

I'll support the subsections(maybe, I'm not against it but I don't care if they are added), but not a new categorey for the Collosuem

its a game function, and belongs in the games general section imo

Don't forget, so is the Market. The market was separated when it got too 'big' (in terms of sections) and became self-sufficient.

Subsections Pros:

Allows for a more specific enforcement of rules - Agreed.
Might make modding easier for the GC - Agreed.

Subsections Cons:

Adds more sections to the forum - Huh. Adding more sections adds more sections? That's not a con, that's the whole point of debate. Not that valid an argument, imo.
Creates a bit of confusion for some - Disagreed, we should not cater to the idiocy of people. Stimulate them, help them, show them the way, and the few who *cannot* understand, we can help by moving their threads. Willful abuse as per usual will be stopped; so no danger there.
makes a bit more work for mods, having to move the misplaced threads around - Nothing us Generals can't handle.

I however, only agree that there should be 2 subsections added. 1 for "fun/organized" wars, and another for archived wars. Say if a war is over for more than a month, it gets moved into the Archive.

GC archive you say?

viewforum.php?f=99

Oi wow, that hasn't been used since the days of Nimras and the likes. Wow.

[Jim]

I however, only agree that there should be 2 subsections added. 1 for "fun/organized" wars, and another for archived wars. Say if a war is over for more than a month, it gets moved into the Archive.

GC archive you say?

viewforum.php?f=99

Oi wow, that hasn't been used since the days of Nimras and the likes. Wow.

that does not change me point... why create yet another one, when there be one in existance?

Well use that one but put it along with the other GC sections

[Zeratul]

Well use that one but put it along with the other GC sections

that can be arranged...

but we'd rather wait till all the changes have been decided, so that it can be done in one go...

most likely we would change it to be much the same as the irc section is set up... 1 category, several subsections accessible from the top... that is, of course, unless a new main section is made...

[Mordack]

I like the idea, but I'd like you to clarify what a 'fun war' is for me.

[Jim]

Wars organized by both sides for the sole purpose of enjoyment with no agendas and no reason it was sparked off other than to have fun.

[Lore]

1 question

Why was a RP area created if its not going to be used for RP? Would the RP section of the proposed GC not fall under the jurisdiction of the RP section?

As for splitting "real" or "heated" wars from "Fun" or "organized" wars, that's fine, as it will allow for a different approach to moderating and a different set of "guidelines".

Draw back is, what happens when it not "fun" anymore? or one side wants it moved to the "real" wars section?

What about 2 threads on the same war? One for "fun" and one for "real".

I also Don't see a need for the Archives TBH, they have always just drifted off into nothingness, but thats not to say archiving them is a bad idea.

My concern is, no one has made a valid point as to why the present state doesnt or isnt coping with things just fine. New sections are fine and all, but are they needed, and are they worth the work and upkeep.

Simple example who decides if a war is fun or real, what happens when the mood shifts, what happens when 1 or 2 members of an alliance feel its opposite what the thread claims, such as its real and heated for them, but fun for others?

sounds like a can of worms to me.

[Jim]

1 question

Why was a RP area created if its not going to be used for RP? Would the RP section of the proposed GC not fall under the jurisdiction of the RP section?
I dont believe it would as it is centered around ingame RP, and ingame theoretically is more important than fourm. By the same principle should the Race sections be moved into the RP section?

As for splitting "real" or "heated" wars from "Fun" or "organized" wars, that's fine, as it will allow for a different approach to moderating and a different set of "guidelines".

Draw back is, what happens when it not "fun" anymore? or one side wants it moved to the "real" wars section?
Simple, if one side decides its not a fun war anymore then the thread is moved over.

What about 2 threads on the same war? One for "fun" and one for "real".
Why?

I also Don't see a need for the Archives TBH, they have always just drifted off into nothingness, but thats not to say archiving them is a bad idea.
Fair enough

My concern is, no one has made a valid point as to why the present state doesnt or isnt coping with things just fine. New sections are fine and all, but are they needed, and are they worth the work and upkeep.
As you have already said, it will make modding easier. There have been many good reasons given forth why this would be good. For me, cheif among those is making sure this game stays fun, which i believe this sections will help to achieve.

Simple example who decides if a war is fun or real, what happens when the mood shifts, what happens when 1 or 2 members of an alliance feel its opposite what the thread claims, such as its real and heated for them, but fun for others?
The organizing bodies decide if its a fun or real war. If there are no organizing bodies and its just a war declaration from one of the parties to another then it is not a fun war. The leaders of the participating sides decide if its fun or not. Both sides need to say its a fun war for it to be in that section, where as only one side needs to decide its a real war for it to be in the real war section

sounds like a can of worms to me.

[Zeratul]

the jurisdiction of the RP section is rather vague... there is no mod team group for that section...

we do not know much about GC style RPing, but we know that its very much different from the RP section RPing...

[Jim]

the jurisdiction of the RP section is rather vague... there is no mod team group for that section...

we do not know much about GC style RPing, but we know that its very much different from the RP section RPing...

you read one of mine

But yeah i think they are quite different indeed.
Also, race wars arnt always 100% RP as people post stats and out of character

[Zeratul]

you read one of mine

But yeah i think they are quite different indeed.
Also, race wars arnt always 100% RP as people post stats and out of character

Yes, we did... that gave us some extra knowledge...

the fact is also that had the GC users been interested in having war RPs in the RP section, they would have created it there...

eventually, if a section is created, and it turns out to work well, it might be linked to the RP section somehow, but not immediately...

[Empy]

Why was a RP area created if its not going to be used for RP? Would the RP section of the proposed GC not fall under the jurisdiction of the RP section?

The Roleplay section is some weird roleplay. I don't wanna read it, it's about things I don't understand or care to. I don't wanna interpret that and roleplaying for in-game purposes and in addition unblock the Roleplay section (which has NOTHING to do with in-game) so I can read about wars.

Hopefully my opinion helps answer your question...

[Lore]

1 question

Why was a RP area created if its not going to be used for RP? Would the RP section of the proposed GC not fall under the jurisdiction of the RP section?
I dont believe it would as it is centered around ingame RP, and ingame theoretically is more important than fourm. By the same principle should the Race sections be moved into the RP section?
I don't really understand you first point, but also don't care to argue it, as for the second, I think so yes, but thats just my opinion
As for splitting "real" or "heated" wars from "Fun" or "organized" wars, that's fine, as it will allow for a different approach to moderating and a different set of "guidelines".

Draw back is, what happens when it not "fun" anymore? or one side wants it moved to the "real" wars section?
Simple, if one side decides its not a fun war anymore then the thread is moved over.You say its simple? I hope you are kidding, and I hope your not that stupid either. You think you can just flip flop a thread back and forth every other day without pissing people off and hearing the cries of foul play and bias? Really mate, take a look at the pathetic things getting attention now.

What about 2 threads on the same war? One for "fun" and one for "real".
Why?Why what? you need to elaborate as what you said can be interprited many different ways. I'll elaborate on my meaning. 2 ten man teams "organize" a fun war. But 3 days in 2 opposing participants get really nasty and for them this "fun" war is real and heated. So now what? is it a fun war modded under fun war guidlines? and the "heated" war participants allowed to post in a "heated" manner? Is the thread moved to the "heated/real" war section? why are all the other participants punished with the section change over 2 members? if its not moved then why are the two member in the "real" war not allowed to have a thread in the "real" war section? So now you have 2 threads about the same war being modded under 2 seperate modding guidlines. And you think that make modding easier? not to mention when the "organizes" as for it to be moved back and forth as they get mad, then get glad, want real warr one day, and fun war the next, etc,etc,etc

I also Don't see a need for the Archives TBH, they have always just drifted off into nothingness, but thats not to say archiving them is a bad idea.
Fair enough

My concern is, no one has made a valid point as to why the present state doesnt or isnt coping with things just fine. New sections are fine and all, but are they needed, and are they worth the work and upkeep.
As you have already said, it will make modding easier. There have been many good reasons given forth why this would be good. For me, cheif among those is making sure this game stays fun, which i believe this sections will help to achieve.
No, you did not fully understand, I hope the above post cleared that up, as for good reasons, I still have yet to see anyone state why the present condition is not or can not cope with the way things are. Will it be different? YES. Will it be any better? I see no proof to make me think so, but I see a heck load of more work for mods. As for "fun",,,, well i think an active admin is the only thing that can bring that back as game mechanics allow for tactics that remove all forms of "fun" from 90%+ of the server.

Simple example who decides if a war is fun or real, what happens when the mood shifts, what happens when 1 or 2 members of an alliance feel its opposite what the thread claims, such as its real and heated for them, but fun for others?
The organizing bodies decide if its a fun or real war. If there are no organizing bodies and its just a war declaration from one of the parties to another then it is not a fun war. The leaders of the participating sides decide if its fun or not. Both sides need to say its a fun war for it to be in that section, where as only one side needs to decide its a real war for it to be in the real war sectionMostly covered in the first post, if you think thats going to be easy, then I feel for you and the mods

sounds like a can of worms to me.

I don't care myself, just pointing out the very obvious exploits and problems you will see with the newly created section should they come to life. Good luck with it and I hope it truely accomplishes all you want it to.