Moderator: Community Team
chapcrap wrote:chapcrap wrote:When you make a game, there is already a box available to make a game label in... It is functional for tournament games, but not other games. Maybe it could just be enabled to allow people to add text to it. I would like that.
And, I'm pretty sure what I am saying has been suggested before... I'll look for it.
Found what I was looking for: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=143590
That suggestion is for premium members only and got put in rejected for some reason. People wanted it though. The poll says 13-0 right now.
Cherry pepsi? wrote:Being a free member (which I have been a premium, but unfortunately can't afford it right now), I have set up many 1v1 games where I'm hoping that the person will agree to an RT. I do know that there is callout forums, and a callout section in the live chat to try to find other willing players to play a game, and maybe a RT. But I feel like maybe there should be a comment box where you can mention a comment like "Looking for an RT" or "Looking for a good game" "Good luck playing against me", or something short. It could be like an optional introduction of what type of person people are going to be playing.
I know there's plenty of flaws in this. But I thought it'd be worth suggesting. What are your guys's thoughts. Has someone thought of this before?
I think that the idea with the redesign of the suggestion forum is that no idea would sit in the main forum forever. The apparent process seems to be that ideas either achieve the necessary level of discussion/consensus/support/whatever to get moved to Submitted, or they get kicked out after being inactive for long enough. Right now the oldest suggestions in the main forum were last posted in in January 2012, so periodically inactive topics must be being swept out. The problem there is that they are being moved to the rejected bin as it is the only other place. A change should be made. Either inactive ideas that don't have a good reason to actually be rejected should be allowed to stay in the main forum forever, or a new "Archived Suggestions" area should be created were inactive "abandoned" threads could be sent. Ideally any posts in an archived thread should (automatically?) bring it back to the main forum were it can have another go at getting the necessary discussion to be Submitted or properly Rejected. (While you are at it, all the old threads that were improperly moved to rejected during the forum revamp should be moved there as well.) Somebody want to make a suggestion on the idea?Army of GOD wrote:I find it hilarious how this thread that you linked and the other thread that I linked in the thread you linked were both moved to rejected without any explanations from the mods.
Ten bucks says this gets rejected without a word being said as well.
spiesr wrote:I think that the idea with the redesign of the suggestion forum is that no idea would sit in the main forum forever. The apparent process seems to be that ideas either achieve the necessary level of discussion/consensus/support/whatever to get moved to Submitted, or they get kicked out after being inactive for long enough. Right now the oldest suggestions in the main forum were last posted in in January 2012, so periodically inactive topics must be being swept out. The problem there is that they are being moved to the rejected bin as it is the only other place. A change should be made. Either inactive ideas that don't have a good reason to actually be rejected should be allowed to stay in the main forum forever, or a new "Archived Suggestions" area should be created were inactive "abandoned" threads could be sent. Ideally any posts in an archived thread should (automatically?) bring it back to the main forum were it can have another go at getting the necessary discussion to be Submitted or properly Rejected. (While you are at it, all the old threads that were improperly moved to rejected during the forum revamp should be moved there as well.) Somebody want to make a suggestion on the idea?Army of GOD wrote:I find it hilarious how this thread that you linked and the other thread that I linked in the thread you linked were both moved to rejected without any explanations from the mods.
Ten bucks says this gets rejected without a word being said as well.
AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.
I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.
--Andy
IcePack wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.
I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.
--Andy
So create a check box that indicates the game starter is looking for an RT game and place the tag where the labels are currently.
AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.
I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.
--Andy
IcePack wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.
I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.
--Andy
So create a check box that indicates the game starter is looking for an RT game and place the tag where the labels are currently.
chapcrap wrote:I still like this option.
I think this option would be great.
drunkmonkey wrote:I remember seeing threads like this before, and the reasons they were rejected were the same reasons people want them implemented:
1) Advertising RT games - the site has no incentive to make a premium-only feature more accessible to non-paying members.
2) "Majors and above only", etc - this has been suggested and rejected as a feature, as adding limits on public games could make it less appealing to new members. There's a callouts forum for that.
Silvanus wrote:perch is a North Korean agent to infiltrate south Korean girls
perchorin wrote:drunkmonkey wrote:I remember seeing threads like this before, and the reasons they were rejected were the same reasons people want them implemented:
1) Advertising RT games - the site has no incentive to make a premium-only feature more accessible to non-paying members.
2) "Majors and above only", etc - this has been suggested and rejected as a feature, as adding limits on public games could make it less appealing to new members. There's a callouts forum for that.
I have to agree with the monkey here.
AndyDufresne wrote:I can see a comment box adding more work to Volunteers (perhaps the C&A Team), and I am not sure that is a good idea. It is a tough trade off.
--Andy
agentcom wrote:IcePack wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.
I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.
--Andy
So create a check box that indicates the game starter is looking for an RT game and place the tag where the labels are currently.
Preface: As I indicated earlier, I don't really care if this idea goes through. But if it does ....
I think it should just be an open text field. I imagine people will come up with plenty of uses for it (beyond abuse, discussed below). For example, I'd bet you'd see "Majors or above only, please" or "Please teach me this map" or "I dare you ..." or plenty of other things that imaginative players could come up with. Don't limit the tool just because there might be some problems with it.AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.
I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.
--Andy
Andy, I don't know the details about what you're talking about with April Fools, but I would imagine that those users did not know that whatever they typed in would then be publicly posted at the bottom of the page. I don't see this as as much of a risk for a game label box that everyone knows will be seen by everyone.
People who use this feature to abuse can be dealt with through the existing punishment mechanisms. I don't think it will be overly taxing on the C&A mods to simply apply the same rules that they apply in other forms of communication that can be used for abuse, whether they are forums, live chat, game chat, PM and wall.
Sure, some of that communication can be stopped (e.g. a forum ban), but other forms we just rely on the admins to warn or boot players who cross the line. So, I'm not sure that there is a reason that technical measures (like a Game Label Box ban) would be necessary to implement this suggestion.
99.999% (maybe more?) of users will never use this for inflammatory purposes. No need to curtail the suggestion on account of such an small minority of users.
srcub wrote:Just wondering bout a lil comment section when you start a game to potentially thin out candidates a bit......ie......"high rank battle only" or simply "no leavers/suiciders" or whatever someone chooses to write.
Written with full respect and Regard for da Conquer Club....
srcub wrote:Just wondering bout a lil comment section when you start a game to potentially thin out candidates a bit......ie......"high rank battle only" or simply "no leavers/suiciders" or whatever someone chooses to write.
Whadoyatink?
Written with full respect and Regard for da Conquer Club....
srcub
GeneralRisk wrote:srcub wrote:Just wondering bout a lil comment section when you start a game to potentially thin out candidates a bit......ie......"high rank battle only" or simply "no leavers/suiciders" or whatever someone chooses to write.
Whadoyatink?
Written with full respect and Regard for da Conquer Club....
srcub
See these 2 links: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=182828 https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=164719.....Apparently the site is not interested in the slow death of the Speed game area. If I was the owner of this site, I would demand these changes take place immediately. That said, I do not own the site and maybe el jefe is wealthy and don't care about money.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users