The Site > Site Suggestions & Support
DF Spoilers Reference child board
Priscellie:
Hmm. I wonder if we can rig the new board so only Curators (and mods/admins) can create new threads there, but anyone can reply? Then as the discussion develops, the curator can modify his/her initial post to include the new ideas generated, so it remains definitive. No glass, but with a better signal to noise ratio than the Spoilers/Books fora? It may also be wise to ask that Curators not modify other Curators' topics without permission/approval, to protect their work. We can also create a hidden board that only the Curators (and mods/admins) can see, so they can privately discuss board organization and other Curator-y matters. Working together, they can keep redundancy at a minimum.
My only concern is that this may come across as elitist, having one person per topic charged with dictating what information is preserved and integrated into the main post. Proponents of less popular theories (or at least, theories that deviate from that Curator's vision) may feel sidelined. We want to make sure everyone feels heard.
I do like knnn's idea of allowing anyone to "audition" for Curatorship. I already have some folks I'd joyously deputize immediately, but I don't want to deny anyone the opportunity to step up and contribute to the forum in an awesome way. Maybe in addition to the first batch of Curators, we can have a secondary member ranking of "Curator Candidate," who have two months to demonstrate their worthiness before being evaluated by the existing Curators and Mods.
Serack:
--- Quote from: Priscellie on May 04, 2012, 08:12:19 PM ---Hmm. I wonder if we can rig the new board so only Curators (and mods/admins) can create new threads there, but anyone can reply? Then as the discussion develops, the curator can modify his/her initial post to include the new ideas generated, so it remains definitive. No glass, but with a better signal to noise ratio than the Spoilers/Books fora? It may also be wise to ask that Curators not modify other Curators' topics without permission/approval, to protect their work. We can also create a hidden board that only the Curators (and mods/admins) can see, so they can privately discuss board organization and other Curator-y matters. Working together, they can keep redundancy at a minimum.
My only concern is that this may come across as elitist, having one person per topic charged with dictating what information is preserved and integrated into the main post. Proponents of less popular theories (or at least, theories that deviate from that Curator's vision) may feel sidelined. We want to make sure everyone feels heard.
I do like knnn's idea of allowing anyone to "audition" for Curatorship. I already have some folks I'd joyously deputize immediately, but I don't want to deny anyone the opportunity to step up and contribute to the forum in an awesome way. Maybe in addition to the first batch of Curators, we can have a secondary member ranking of "Curator Candidate," who have two months to demonstrate their worthiness before being evaluated by the existing Curators and Mods.
--- End quote ---
This model is much more accommodating for things like the timeline thread.
As for the elitist concerns, if the new "board" is locked from having new topics, but existing topics are fair game for new posts, then anyone in the regular spoilers section has the option of developing a well written and supported counter theory, garnering enthusiasm for it being worthy of becoming a reference, and requesting that it get ported over. This ported topic could then have its OP edited by its non curator originator, and gives an avenue for auditioning type stuff too.
Something to consider: I suggest a moratorium on new reference theories based on new material from early release sample chapters and maybe for a small time (a month?) after the release of a new novel. This allows for a measure of maturation of these theories in the normal spoilers section, keeps it a viable place for discussion, and helps keep transient theories from drowning out the long lived, more significant ones in the reference section, without having to worry as much about the initial winnowing being tainted by an elitist judgement call.
(sorry for the long time between responses, 15 hour drive after working 9 hours, concluded by the feverish onset of a cold... Great start to my vacation)
knnn:
My main concern for allow anyone to post in "special" thread is that our posts tend to roam way off topic. Any such permanent threads may well become targets for such behavior and worse (obvious trolling and spam are easily culled, but I submit that it is not always obvious).
In any case, if the main issue here is the stagnation of the FAQ, we might be able to start with something smaller in scope:
Let's start a "theory of the week" thread in the DF spoilers section, where we invite specific people to post a theory (we might mandate it to specifically be not one of theirs to encourage impartiality), under some carefully designed format (citations, etc.), and let everybody comment on it for one week. The original author would then need to modify the post to accommodate everyone's alternatives, cite all constructive responses and submit it as a post in the FAQ (or some other "nearly-FAQ" board).
This way, we:
1) Continually get new material evolving in the FAQ. One new thread each week would contribute a single post (the modified OP) to the FAQ.
2) Encourage people to participate (both in constructive comments and in formulating the various theories). The chance to have your words (especially if your name is explicited cited) preserved "under glass" is a nice prize.
3) After the first few weeks, we might invite others to be the OP in the next "theory of the week" thread, or perhaps expand it to include other useful pieces of information (e.g. "minor things to note in Grave Peril", "Possible discrepancies", etc.)
---------
Later on down the line (assuming this endeavor is successful), these could be the seeds of the Curator board. At this point we could perhaps also run some polls, such as which theories to do next, who should be given a chance to do write up, whatever.
Serack:
Revisiting this idea, and summarizing my concept of how something like this could work.
The title would be something like "Dresden Files Spoilers Reference collection"
Most of the reference style stickies in the Spoilers would be moved here but would not necessarily be stickies here.
Stickies that would be there are.
References and Theories Index
Nominate a Theory/Reference post for inclusion in this Archive
Help point out rampant derailment here (not confident on this one being a good idea)
If possible, anyone can post in this section, but only Curators (Local Mods) and admin types can start new topics. However, it is expected that many of the topics are going to be generated in and do some maturing in the regular Spoilers section and then get ported over via the nomination sticky => Admin action. This means that the OP will still have editing rights for their OP, which helps a lot for reference topic creators, and excessive pertying up editors like myself.
New idea:
We could even have something like a monthly poll (to be deleted afterwards maybe) that takes all the nominated and seconded theories for that month and allows X number of votes out of Y number of theories, allowing for wide participation in deciding what theories get ported, and ensuring that the initial discussion gets accomplished in the main discussion section. The nomination sticky might get locked the first month after a release, and the # of threads allowed in monthly might float some depending on the # of nominees.
Edit: For the first month or so of nominations we might have to have multiple category polls like Best LC theories, Best References, best GS born Theories...
Edit2: I'm really fleshing this out. Each time we do a poll/set of polls, a new nomination sticky gets generated, the previous one gets unstickied, edited to show the nominies polled and eventually the results, and the old polls are deleted relying on the old sticky to record their results.
One more thing:
There ought to be some mechanism that encourages actions like Elegast's where a good theory post with little/no format editing gets reworked without changing the theory, and the OP utilizes these efforts. I have a hard time expressing how excited I was to see such a great formatting rework of such a well put together theory.
knnn:
--- Quote from: Serack on June 01, 2012, 07:18:40 PM ---
There ought to be some mechanism that encourages actions like Elegast's where a good theory post with little/no format editing gets reworked without changing the theory, and the OP utilizes these efforts. I have a hard time expressing how excited I was to see such a great formatting rework of such a well put together theory.
--- End quote ---
In general, I am quite impressed with Elegast's efforts. He hasn't been on the forums long, yet he's done a very good job of foraging through the various theories (old and new) and putting his own spin on things. It's always interesting to read his posts.
Specifically regarding re-formatting - I very much agree. I'll go a step further and actually say that I would prefer a write-up from a different author (specifically not the originator of the theory - I personally find that I can get very defensive of my own theories, and have to work hard to remain impartial).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version