Thread-Naming Conventions

[Jemal]

...or a Buffy game using episodes works well and adds flavor.

Hmmm... you trying to tell me something? *L* good idea, maybe I should make it HELLMOUTH: Episode 1, 'The calling'

Thnx, Gary.

Now onto other stuff:
I agree that the IC stuff doesn't have to be labeled as such specifically b/c, as was pointed out, the entire Playing The Game Forum is supposed to be nothing but IC games.

I like the idea of adding (Recruiting) (full), or (OOC). I'ld also like to add one tag. (Re-Recruiting) for games that need more players but have allready started. This means people will know that it's allready under way before they go there, so if they have a preference for new games or such, they'll know.
Plus it just makes sense.. at least to my twisted view of the world.

Regarding including ruleset in title, I think it's a good idea.. Some people have certain games they like or don't like, and if we're doing all this anyways we might as well include what type (D&D, Forgotten Realms, D20 Modern, etc, etc).

I'm assuming that since the Mods are fairly busy that the threads should be edited by whoever created them, correct? (Actually I don't even know if mods COULD edit other peoples threads, so might as well)

Of course now that my game total is up to almost 30 (YIKES!!! STOP ME!) once the games that're under development start, I'll be staying away from Recruitment threads completely... Unless they jump out and smack me over the head saying something like "COME HERE JEMAL, THIS GAME WAS MADE FOR YOU"
So labelling things as Recruitment helps me stay away from them, meaning I won't be as tempted to join....
Very good idea seeing as how I have little self control.

EDIT : Re that [Considering], I'ld suggest [OT4NOW] for anything like that.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Perhaps the ruleset could be an optional tag after the gamename. The type of game could be an optional tag as well (Spelljammer, Cowboy Bepop, etc).

That sounds like a good idea.

[Status] Gamename (Type, Rules)

Status = Recruitment, Full, OOC, OT

This sounds like a good system. Add Jemal's 'Re-Recruitment', and I think that it's good.

Are there any other status codes we should consider. For example, I'm [Considering] Dragonlance classics, for lack of a better word. Or should things like these just be special cases?

...special cases, used to set a precedent. We can keep track of what each status message means. 'Considering', then, would mean that the game is a possibility, but not necessarily.

 

[Shapermc]

Honestly since there is an OOC forum what is the point of stating if it is OOC. The OOC forum is also for recruiting, and I think that that should be labeld appropriatly. Also there is an IC forum why would you need to label that it is so. I do like the Idea of that you post the format of the game. If there is an abbv. then you should use that, but if not...

Also You could simplify this and make formats for each forum

IC Forum:

[format] Game Name

OOC Forum:

[status/format] Game name

I think that (like stated) personal abbreviations should be removed and the game format should be used. This will simplify things and stream line it. Why have some complex format that you need a decoder ring to figure out what the thread is about. Here is an example for the format.

IC Forum:

[d20M] Guns Guns and more Guns

OOC Forum:

[Recruiting/d20M] Guns Guns and more guns (when recruiting)
[d20M] Guns GUns and More Guns (when just OOC and recruiting is over)
[Re-Recruiting/d20M] Guns Guns and More Guns (When ... you get the picture)

This is much simpler than the other options, you don't need all the flavor text of what the setting is or any thing in () or that just put it all in the name or format. Like [D&D/FR] for Forgotten Realms. Some of these names are like a mile long and they really don't need to be. If the thread is a rounding up of ideas or anything else it should be bracketless. Brackets should Identify that it is a game of some kind. The more complex that you make the nameing format the less userfriendly it is. KISS (keep it simple stupid) is our best option.

 

[Shalimar]

Its good to have guidelines yes.

Its quite another to go over-board on Anal-retentiveness. No one has the right to tell someone else how to name something, period.

If everyone tends to use this system, then thats dandy, but you need to understand they don't have to. Where I forced to follow such guidelines I would just go somewhere else. This is for fun, isn't it?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Its quite another to go over-board on Anal-retentiveness. No one has the right to tell someone else how to name something, period.

If everyone tends to use this system, then thats dandy, but you need to understand they don't have to. Where I forced to follow such guidelines I would just go somewhere else. This is for fun, isn't it?

And what about this do you object to? I see no reasons for your objections, and - quite frankly - I think you're over-reacting.

If you are a new player, looking for a new game, this forum could be very easily overwhelming to look through. There are literally dozens of games going on, and it's difficult to figure out which ones are recruiting and which aren't, and such.

If we use this naming system - and that's a big 'if', at the moment - it will simplify things tremendously. You won't have to read through the entire title - just the initial part. You can scan the left side of the thread titles and find a recruiting or re-recruiting thread, to continue the example I used above.

It leads to a cleaner, more efficient OoC forum. Who doesn't want that?

 

[Valara]

edit

 

[Shalimar]

Don't get me wrong, I am not against having guidelines for it to help organize it. I just think that when when you go overboard, and talk about people having to do this or that, and telling them they threads should be named something else I see it as a problem.

Hmm... perhaps...

However... that second example there, the name should be before the session number...

For instance...

[D20Modern]Funky Martian Monks, Session 1 (CowBoy BeBop)

I am just not comfortable if having these guidelines will make what was said above a more common sight. I don't think I am over-reacting, or I wouldn't have said it.

Again I don't object to the idea of a VOLUNTARY system I object to the idea of having to post threadnames according to someone else's formula. I mean people are posting to these general guidelines now, why force others to if they don't agree with you?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Don't get me wrong, I am not against having guidelines for it to help organize it. I just think that when when you go overboard, and talk about people having to do this or that, and telling them they threads should be named something else I see it as a problem.

I am just not comfortable if having these guidelines will make what was said above a more common sight. I don't think I am over-reacting, or I wouldn't have said it.

Again I don't object to the idea of a VOLUNTARY system I object to the idea of having to post threadnames according to someone else's formula. I mean people are posting to these general guidelines now, why force others to if they don't agree with you?

Agreed. In the end, all that I'm really looking for is the initial descriptor - the OoC, OT, Recruiting, and Re-Recruiting things. Other than that, I don't really care.

In the example you quoted, I was just going by what had been posted previously. If you want to have the session number prior to the game name, or vice versa, whatever floats your boat.

All I'm really looking for, as I said before, is the initial descriptor. Beyond that... whatever. We can't make everything uniform - and it might not be a good thing if we did.

 

[Shalimar]

All I'm really looking for, as I said before, is the initial descriptor. Beyond that... whatever. We can't make everything uniform - and it might not be a good thing if we did.

See, this is what I disagree with. You can't MAKE anyone do anything. I think your wish to MAKE them add descriptor tags is unreasonable. If they want to, they will, if they don't they wont trying to force them to is just going to piss people off. Its their games let them do as they wish. As long as its not going to offend a certain Grandmother no one has the right to tell them what to type period. Stop this talk of MAKING people add this tag, or MAKING them add that one.

 

[garyh]

Calm down, folks.

Common formating is a good idea. But no one is suggesting Creamy and I are gonna send thugs to beat up those who don't follow the suggestions. I think as people learn their way around the forum, they'll learn the conventions and use them if they like them and won't if they don't.

Now that that's out of the way, here are my thoughts on the latest topics:

- I like adding [Re-Recruiting] to the tag ideas. That's becoming more and more common.

- Creamy and I do have the power to alter thread titles in the TtT and PtG forums. HOWEVER, we will not go around changing everyone's threads to whatever format we may or may not agree upon here. I don't feel that is an appropriate use of my access. I'm here to keep everyone having fun, not be a formatting despot. And it'd be pretty boring on our end to "fix" the whole forum.

- I've been convinced that putting the rules used in the title is a good idea.

- The PtG forum doesn't really need any change. Once someone is there, they've already signed up for a game here and know what they're looking for.

Did I miss anything?