Topics and the Groups they can belong to

  • In a blatant attempt draw some attention away from the horrors of the upgrade, there are some features of the forums that I'd like to open up to suggestions.

    Groups are a thing and we can have topics and sub-topics that are only available to groups. While this is nothing new to forums in general, I'd like to open things up to people here for use. Do you want to try a PbP? Multiple groups for different settings? A super secret group for TS (@EmmahSue will be the admin auto-added to all such groups)? Groups for gaming interests?

    Let's hear those ideas! In future upgrades (whoops), groups will likely come with more functionality, so why not play with them now?

  • Why? Anyone can post anything right now in whatever category fits it. Why sectionalize things further? Just because we can?

  • @TNP Because not everyone is interested in everything and the groups don't have to be strictly related to the current categories on MSB. The groups and topics would be for easier categorization and allow for easier self-selection. If people decide they don't want to explore the possibilities, they'll be left unexplored. I'm just bringing attention to the opportunity.

  • WoD. More than a few broad-themed things seem to get bogged down in the specific complications of WoD, and while it's a fairly pervasive system, it isn't the only one out there to consider. Would also open up a space to dig into those specifics if/when desired without concern for stepping on other systems' toes or getting overly specific.

  • While things do tend to get bogged down in WoD-specific stuff, I generally just ignore things when that happens. And WoD topics sometimes dovetail into things I'm actually interested in. It's less alienating than an entirely different section of the forum I can't read, I guess.

  • Tutorialist

    A non-wod group. Or, idunno. 'development' group of some sort. A 'code' group seems pretty obvious for the discussion of in-development code and stuff-- stuff that non-coders probably wouldn't be interested in, but I don't know if sectionalizing code chat away from non-coders is a good idea? (What if they want to learn? Of course they could ask to be added to the group, I guess.)

    Maybe a 'readers' group? To have a bunch of different threads about books -- rather than stuck to like (two? three?) we have now in the tastes less gamey section?

    Of all my suggestions the 'readers' group makes me happiest.

  • @surreality @Three-Eyed-Crow Yeah, I don't mean so much the meat and potatoes of MSB to be parceled off. Also, the groups can be open access, so you can just join ones you're interested in without applying or whatever. Mostly I meant it as a possibility for offshoot type stuff that you might not usually find here, but that might be of interest to people.

    A readers group isn't a bad idea. Might be a decent test group just to let people explore it.

  • Code and non-Wod still seem like MU* things, which is what I come here to read. This might be more applicable to things that are flat-out not text gaming-related at all, like books and video games and stuff.

  • Okay, so there's a new group here which should allow anyone to join. Once you join, you can see and post to the new Book category.

  • Just for contrast to my ranting over the utterly shitty UX upgrade experience, this is a feature that actually makes sense to have in a software upgrade. Instead of randomly changing shit that worked fine and that people have gotten used to in its existing form, this is actually new functionality that cannot be adequately done by existing means. (Of course, this being a web app by people who are painfully obviously in the Silly-cone Valley "change at all cost!" culture future upgrades will fuck everything up, but we can enjoy it while it lasts.)

    I'd like to see groups for "task forces" as we identify things that could be worked on. For example should there be a large enough consensus for making a new MU* client, a group of people could be formed to hammer out the details and start working on it. If a project for making a real, proper, easily-configured "MUSH: Batteries Included" starts up, again, people interested in it could form a think tank to discuss it.

    The Play-by-Post thing is interesting, but perhaps a bit across purposes with a board explicitely labelled by name as being for MU*es? (I'm not opposed to the idea, just wondering if it's a fit.)

    Having a group that is just for WoD players would be nice; it would cut down on the 90% of the stuff I don't read here. :)

    General topical interests allowing finer splitting of areas of interest would be nice. Reading is one such one mentioned, but equivalent groups could exist for movies, music, comics, video games, etc.

  • Admin

    'Code' seems like an obvious group. Not everyone cares or even understands posts in that category.

    Maybe 'media' as well - TV shows, movies, music, comics, that kind of thing.

    'Sports' maybe? For things ranging from working out to actual sports - we're all a buncha nerds but surely some of us follow teams or individuals.

  • The crafts thread was pretty active for a while. A 'geek projects' group would definitely have a headcount behind it, though no clue re: activity levels.

  • Pitcrew


    Do you want to try a PbP?

    I feel like I could communicate entirely in Magic cards at this point, if I weren't so lazy.

    Please assume I've posted a card for an Artifact titled 'A Bag Of Dicks' and that it has the ability 'When tapped, target moderator eats this card, and A Bag of Dicks is removed from play.' and 'Return A Bag of Dicks from the graveyard to the field whenever a moderator posts.'

  • @HelloRaptor
    For you:

    ETA: I'm also thinking about redoing the theme to mimic imgur's commenting. With a 140 character limit. Thanks for the inspiration!

  • Pitcrew


    • That gallery is fantastic.
    • 'Go eat a bag of dicks, @Glitch.' is only 25 characters (31 if you count spaces) so I'll be okay.

  • Admin

    • Why wouldn't you count spaces?

  • Pitcrew

    @Arkandel said:

    • Why wouldn't you count spaces?

    No idea, but when you click on the word count at the bottom of Microsoft Word it pops up a box with other stats, including 'Characters (no spaces)' and 'Characters (with spaces)', so I figured it was a thing to somebody, somewhere.

  • Admin

    I'm sure those are the kind who work in sales or marketing - or, worse, lawyers. They're not people. Don't mistake them for such.

  • Pitcrew

    On the spaces thing, I had one professer who wanted a specific amount not counting spaces so to some it might be a thing.

  • Someone I knew in the military had some horribly anal-retentive report type to write at one point that involved as many things as possible going to the end of the line. So I can see at least one (pointless) 'need' for the full count of characters in the line, including spaces.

Log in to reply