Re: BriDynN: TWG's Community Initiative Project
Okay, so looking at all the suggestions, here's how I think the new Host Signups are going to go down.
OPENING OF THREAD
This is where the host of the previous game will start the thread, and post a specific time when they're going to kick off the signups. At this stage, people declare Intent to Vote in the thread.
PROPOSAL STAGE: Proposal of Games
This is where people put their games up for the vote as usual, nothing much changed here.
VOTING STAGE: Voting for Games
In the voting stage, everyone who declared ITV during the opening stage votes on whichever game they would like to play in. Host counts votes as normal, but only people who declared ITV will be included, so in this way it's like counting votes during a game. We can even have "insta-host" at a majority of all votes as well; at your discretion of course.
Alternatively, we can skip the registration in Opening Stage and just have a deadline for voting, counting anybody who votes (this also means that the previous host can skip the Opening stuff and post the Signups Thread whenever he feels postgame discussion is flagging). Of course, this would make it unfair to have an instant win condition, as there's no way of telling what an actual majority will be.
DISCUSSION STAGE: Learning About the Setup
In this stage, all players can now look at the selected game critically and ask any questions, raise any concerns about balance, etc. and the host can perform minor tweaks as he or she sees fit. However, there should not be huge changes or things that break the spirit of the game that's trying to be hosted. People shouldn't vote one thing
Xiz has a great idea; if there does arise such a situation where legitimate concerns in the winning game cannot be acceptably addressed and there is a failure to launch, we can take the runner-up game and go from there.
------
The thing about this approach is that it doesn't support general review of game setups. While I'll give you the fact that it's not necessarily what people want, and it is more efficient to focus on the games that is actually going to be played, if we go with something like this, I think resurrecting the Game Workshop would indeed be necessary, so people aren't stuck never getting feedback for their games and can make them as presentable as possible for proposal.
I think this is the soundest "workflow" for the process though. Still debating how long these stages should be. This is definitely as refined as it needs to be.
---------------------------------
OTHER THINGS:
@Manti: I have a rough outline of a good Beginner's Guide and the topics it will cover, and I will get in contact with you ASAP to discuss it.
History thread stuff is underway and doesn't really affect things too much.
Everything else I think would best be considered later. I will still write something for them though.
Okay, so looking at all the suggestions, here's how I think the new Host Signups are going to go down.
OPENING OF THREAD
This is where the host of the previous game will start the thread, and post a specific time when they're going to kick off the signups. At this stage, people declare Intent to Vote in the thread.
PROPOSAL STAGE: Proposal of Games
This is where people put their games up for the vote as usual, nothing much changed here.
VOTING STAGE: Voting for Games
In the voting stage, everyone who declared ITV during the opening stage votes on whichever game they would like to play in. Host counts votes as normal, but only people who declared ITV will be included, so in this way it's like counting votes during a game. We can even have "insta-host" at a majority of all votes as well; at your discretion of course.
Alternatively, we can skip the registration in Opening Stage and just have a deadline for voting, counting anybody who votes (this also means that the previous host can skip the Opening stuff and post the Signups Thread whenever he feels postgame discussion is flagging). Of course, this would make it unfair to have an instant win condition, as there's no way of telling what an actual majority will be.
DISCUSSION STAGE: Learning About the Setup
In this stage, all players can now look at the selected game critically and ask any questions, raise any concerns about balance, etc. and the host can perform minor tweaks as he or she sees fit. However, there should not be huge changes or things that break the spirit of the game that's trying to be hosted. People shouldn't vote one thing
Xiz has a great idea; if there does arise such a situation where legitimate concerns in the winning game cannot be acceptably addressed and there is a failure to launch, we can take the runner-up game and go from there.
------
The thing about this approach is that it doesn't support general review of game setups. While I'll give you the fact that it's not necessarily what people want, and it is more efficient to focus on the games that is actually going to be played, if we go with something like this, I think resurrecting the Game Workshop would indeed be necessary, so people aren't stuck never getting feedback for their games and can make them as presentable as possible for proposal.
I think this is the soundest "workflow" for the process though. Still debating how long these stages should be. This is definitely as refined as it needs to be.
---------------------------------
OTHER THINGS:
@Manti: I have a rough outline of a good Beginner's Guide and the topics it will cover, and I will get in contact with you ASAP to discuss it.
History thread stuff is underway and doesn't really affect things too much.
Everything else I think would best be considered later. I will still write something for them though.
Comment