Placement of TI-99/4A game development threads?

[+OLD CS1]

As I am assisting in cleaning up the TI-99/4A Programming sub-forum, I hit upon a small quandary about game development threads. I have already moved my Arkanoid thread over, but I would appreciate input from the forum on whether or not game development threads, while they certainly have programmer interest, would be better served by being placed in the general TI-99/4A Computers forum.

[Asmusr]

As I am assisting in cleaning up the TI-99/4A Programming sub-forum, I hit upon a small quandary about game development threads. I have already moved my Arkanoid thread over, but I would appreciate input from the forum on whether or not game development threads, while they certainly have programmer interest, would be better served by being placed in the general TI-99/4A Computers forum.

 

I think the programming forum should include any thread relating to new software development, including your Arkanoid thread. If we move everything except discussion about programming to this forum we might as well delete the programming forum. I think we should have a main forum with two sub-forums: software development and hardware development.

[+Ksarul]

I think Rasmus hit this one dead on, OLD CS1. Moving Arkanoid out of the software development section just seems so totally wrong. . .

[+OLD CS1]

I moved my thread before the question struck me. I can move it back, no big deal, but I was doubtful about continuing with other development items. A hardware sub-forum seems like a good idea to me, and the implementation is ultimately up to Albert.

[+Schmitzi]

Hi,

 

what about a little bit more subforums ?

 

Just only some, maybe with specialized highlights which "must" be found in there anyway ?

Or with highly frequenced-topics, to pick them from the mass, for clearness.

 

At the end, anyway, the user decides where he opens his thread,

but with a good plan this could be automatically accepted and established.

 

(I don´t want to list examples here, because I am still learning this stuff

and don´t know enough about AA and the TI´s subtopics and frequencies

at this moment, but this could also be another POLL to get more input for that needs)

 

Ralf

[+InsaneMultitasker]

If the new subforum was renamed to "development" as suggested by me and others, the situation could be easily resolved. The question and suggestion are still pending in this thread.

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/233623-new-ti-994a-forum/page-3?do=findComment&comment=3165222

 

 

My opinion is there is no merit to further sub-dividing the forums. One division is already almost too much for the current traffic.

Edited February 21, 2015 by InsaneMultitasker

[Willsy]

If the new subforum was renamed to "development" as suggested by me and others, the situation could be easily resolved. The question and suggestion are still pending in this thread.

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/233623-new-ti-994a-forum/page-3?do=findComment&comment=3165222

 

Fully agree. We need to rename the programming forum to development and leave it at that.

 

 

My opinion is there is no merit to further sub-dividing the forums. One division is already almost too much for the current traffic.

[PeBo]

Is it possible to develop software without programming??

 

The answer to that question should make the placement of development threads a no-brainer.

[Willsy]

We don't need any more subforums. The group isn't big enough.

[+OLD CS1]

Is it possible to develop software without programming??

 

The answer to that question should make the placement of development threads a no-brainer.

 

The onus of the question was about the content of a thread, and whether non-programmers (or developers) would miss the thread because they would not browse the forum.

[PeBo]

 

The onus of the question was about the content of a thread, and whether non-programmers (or developers) would miss the thread because they would not browse the forum.

and my comment was completely correct within that context.

 

One would think (at least in my sense of logic) that those looking to follow the development of a particular game would look first in a programming area and that the developers would already be regular contributors there.

 

If folks can't find a thread on something that interests them when there are only two places to look, then we have more to worry about than context appropriate thread placement. (But I don't have to worry about cleaning up one of those places, which would put a different perspective on things)

Edited February 22, 2015 by PeBo

[+OLD CS1]

and my comment was completely correct within that context.

 

One would think (at least in my sense of logic) that those looking to follow the development of a particular game would look first in a programming area and that the developers would already be regular contributors there.

 

If folks can't find a thread on something that interests them when there are only two places to look, then we have more to worry about than context appropriate thread placement. (But I don't have to worry about cleaning up one of those places, which would put a different perspective on things)

 

All that notwithstanding, the question was asked, answered, and there really was no reason to perform necromancy on the subject. While I agree with your conclusion, I respectfully disagree with your snarky-sounding methodology.

[sometimes99er]

All that jabber notwithstanding the question was asked answered and there really was no reason to perform necromancy on the subject. While I agree with your conclusion I respectfully disagree with your snarky methodology.

I see you moderated yourself a bit. Good.

 

All that notwithstanding, the question was asked, answered, and there really was no reason to perform necromancy on the subject. While I agree with your conclusion, I respectfully disagree with your snarky-sounding methodology.

Performing necromancy (resurrecting old threads) is more or less happening here all the time. Going off topic is too.

 

Editing without people being able to see that it has been edited is - should I say a "snarky methodology" !? - I know, you're only victim to the divine act of subscribing.

[+OLD CS1]

I see you moderated yourself a bit. Good.

 

Performing necromancy (resurrecting old threads) is more or less happening here all the time. Going off topic is too.

 

Editing without people being able to see that it has been edited is - should I say a "snarky methodology" !? - I know, you're only victim to the divine act of subscribing.

 

If only real life were so easy to manipulate. Tempering temper can mean the difference between a slap in the face and all-out war. The latter is undesired.

 

(I am just practicing to be a part of our country's Executive administration, where things get "walked back" and re-re-explained by people far smarter than us all the time. Bastiat would be very disappointed to see that little has changed since his time.)

[Tursi]

I don't understand the whole bias against "necromancy" on forums. Sometimes there are good reasons to wake up an old thread -- why do people get so bent out of shape? Why split a single topic into two threads just because there's a time gap? It's not like you have to read all the old posts again, but if you need a refresher, you can.

 

(Just an aside I've always wondered on )

[+OLD CS1]

I don't understand the whole bias against "necromancy" on forums. Sometimes there are good reasons to wake up an old thread -- why do people get so bent out of shape? Why split a single topic into two threads just because there's a time gap? It's not like you have to read all the old posts again, but if you need a refresher, you can.

 

(Just an aside I've always wondered on )

 

True, and I have worked such wizardry before. There are some threads or topics which are resolved or otherwise best left to rot; some which the OP would often just delete, if possible.

[Omega-TI]

This is one of the things I like about a Atari Age, many of the users here are middle-age (mature) and don't get bent out of shape over minutiae when someone revives an old thread. Heck, a lot of time I learn something new or get a better perspective on the subject as I can get a little background as well.

 

 

The net is full of it...

[+OLD CS1]

When I was moving threads I found a lot of really neat ones, for sure.

[mizapf]

I don't understand the whole bias against "necromancy" on forums. Sometimes there are good reasons to wake up an old thread -- why do people get so bent out of shape? Why split a single topic into two threads just because there's a time gap? It's not like you have to read all the old posts again, but if you need a refresher, you can.

 

The problem is that you have to really make sure you check the date of the past messages ... as it happened to me, when I commented on one of your postings that was more than one year old. Do all of you really check the date of the message you intend to reply to, every time?

 

I could imagine to have some visual indication of necrothreading, like using a different background color for old messages if there is a time gap of more than six months or so.

[Tursi]

You haven't really answered my question, only said that you agree it's wrong and asked me whether I really check dates.

 

No, I don't. I don't see why it matters. If there's new information on a topic, go ahead and post. The implication that has been shown to me in the past is that a new thread should be created, which makes less sense to me.

 

If you're just worried that people will call you out for replying to an old comment, well, so what? Let them call. If things have changed since the original comment was made, okay, so be it. Move on.

 

That said, I don't have a problem with the idea of coloring stale messages, that sounds like a good idea. I just wondered why people don't like the concept in general.

[mizapf]

I believe people dislike necrothreading as a consequence of that problem I mentioned: It is prone to trigger reactions to events that are long ago so that the topic is either outdated, or the people you are responding to are not even members of the forum anymore. This is particularly true for support forums, maybe less for this kind of forum.

[+Lee Stewart]

I would much rather have similar information in one thread, regardless of the time gaps—some topics, like those related to Forth, don't get a lot of attention. It is difficult searching for the information among disparate (time and topic) threads, especially when folks do not use topic tags. It is practically the same problem for threads as the current topic is for fora.

 

...lee

[Tursi]

"Trigger Reactions"... but are you posting information or just calling someone out? If someone has left, that doesn't make new information invalid.

 

Support forums are a different beast. A thread usually represents a specific case. Although any support forum thread that doesn't end with a resolution should be a prime subject for resurrection, if the problem still happens to people.

 

I guess it's just one of those opinion things.

[+arcadeshopper]

imho in development till its done then announce in main the finished project

[The Usotsuki]

Makes sense to me. </DAX>