Strategies and Techniques Subsection

[DIGITAL]

If we're going to have that many threads, I think it would be best to petition for a third subforum to keep this all in.


I believe what Caithness is getting at is not a subforum dedicated to 20G ARS strategies, but a subforum on strategies in general. I really believe such a subforum would be a benefit for us and the wiki since no one really digresses about strategies in General. It was the same for record threads. Before there was a subforum, people were more cautious about making record threads in fear that it would clog General.


With the current state of things, strategies on the wiki are rarely discussed on the forum before they are added. Most of the discussion takes place on IRC but even that is only a portion of what is actually added. We end up excluding some of the forum visitors from the discussion. We're lucky if a forum visitor who looks through the wiki brings up a discussion (I'm looking at you zaphod).

[caffeine]

again about the subforum, no. not gonna happen.

[DIGITAL]

again about the subforum, no. not gonna happen.

http://www.tetrisconcept.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif What would it take to have you reconsider? Me pushing all the topics in General to page 2 with strategy topics? In all honesty, I really see this as a big step forward to promoting wiki completeness. The wiki right now is not truly community focused. Only a few regulars end up editing the articles there with little input from others. If we want to attract more contributors, we need to actually reach out to the vast amount of forum visitors.

[caffeine]

There's simply not enough activity to justify a separate forum just for strategy. I don't see why you guys just can't discuss the article in one thread. It's really not a big a difference as you're making it out to be.

[DIGITAL]

That's the problem. There's not enough activity because people don't know where to post such topics. They may be too specific to warrant a thread of their own in General. Some discussion may end up in the records thread where they are eventually buried (due to decentralization) and nothing is contributed to the wiki. This issue does not only have to do with this thread. It applies to every game.

[mat]

extra forum would be... extra... just do it in long threads like this and, if you really need to, encourage people to make new threads for seemingly small questions or ideas.

[DIGITAL]

extra forum would be... extra... just do it in long threads like this and, if you really need to, encourage people to make new threads for seemingly small questions or ideas.

Perhaps you'd like me to entertain you with a full page worth of different strategy topics in General? This is not about making a subforum for this thread alone.

[colour_thief]

You're exagerating a bit there, DIGITAL. Even if you've got plenty of ideas, the quality of discussion would be low if we talked about everything at once. I agree 100% with caffeine on this issue... There should never be a new sub forum unless posts in the main forum clearly show they could fill it up. And for the foreseeable future, I think the current setup would be just fine for strategy discussions.

[muf]

Well, just a "General Discussion" and "Records", to me, seems a bit minimalist. I realise the wiki has talk pages, but the forum is much more natural for discussion than MediaWiki's awkward editing-a-page-to-discuss-something metaphor. Also, I wouldn't want to check both the wiki talk pages and the forum if I could just check the forum and be done in one go.


I can really relate to Digital's vision on the matter. Having an actual section for strategy, techniques and special moves would be motivating for people to contribute. People are more likely to point out that something needs updating, rather than updating it themselves. This goes for the entire wiki. That said, maybe it could be a possibility to have a "Wiki discussion" subforum and have the wiki "talk" link link to that forum instead. That way you don't have two separate site sections that both function for discussing something.

[DIGITAL]

Even if you've got plenty of ideas, the quality of discussion would be low if we talked about everything at once.

No one said that we would talk about everything at once. I don't see everyone posting in every records topic. I don't see everyone posting in every general topic. The function of a subforum is to house topics of the same nature. Topics will grow and become more sophisticated as the forum posters continue to add to it. They don't pop up out of thin air nor will they grow if you don't give them room. All I'm asking is for us to take the initiative, not wait until it's blown out of proportion and then seek amends.

[Edo]

LOTS OF STUFF ABOUT A SUBFORUM

Regardless of whether or not people think a strategy subforum would be nice, it looks like we're not going to get one in the foreseeable future, so we'll have to make do with what we've got. DIGITAL, you do make a reasonable argument, and I know opinions are quite divided on this. Perhaps you might want to start a thread for people to post their thoughts on how to improve forum structure.

[DIGITAL]

Sorry for clogging your topic edo. I moved all the irrelevant posts out.

[DIGITAL]

Here's an idea. Why are we attacking this issue passively? Why not make the subforum and if it doesn't live up to its expectation, remove it. Simple as that. It's the wiki philosophy.

[caffeine]

i want the strategy and technique discussions to be in General Discussion. that's prime time for me. i didn't want to do the records thread, and we did it anyway, so just give it some time. let's see how the records subforum does in the long run before we get all hasty. you start making subforums for this and that, and eventually you've just got a bunch of empty subforums that confuses people who are already intimidated by TC's very esoteric discussions.

[Chaos]

Here's an idea. Why are we attacking this issue passively? Why not make the subforum and if it doesn't live up to its expectation, remove it. Simple as that. It's the wiki philosophy.I find this to be a reasonable solution. I rarely post, mostly because the main center of discussion is usually heboris and the like, and me with only TDS background, I usually have little to say when it comes down to sheer discussion. But if there were strategy threads, then I think I'd be a bit more active as far as making posts are concerned.

[DIGITAL]

If the reasoning is wanting to see how the records section will do in the long run before making further changes, I can live with that. But with the previous lines of reasoning, I can't help but disagree with.

[mat]

i envision the records forum being eventually replaced by an actual set of scoreboards with form submission and a comments section for each record. and then we'd be back to one general forum for further discussion. right now we need the records forum because no one has taken it upon themselves to finish building a scoreboard.


tetris: strategy discussion is general discussion.

[DIGITAL]

I agree that such a system of records would be a step up. Like how I want an automatic system for sorting videos, replays, game plugins/settings, etc.


General Discussion however is a very different beast. It's a vague concept even when constrained within the realm of tetris related discussion. Yes, many things fit under general but is it a good idea to bunch them all together? Strategies, theoretical discussion, gaming news, etc. You're just making it harder to distinguish between one and the other.

[Chaos]

I agree that such a system of records would be a step up. Like how I want an automatic system for sorting videos, replays, game plugins/settings, etc.

General Discussion however is a very different beast. It's a vague concept even when constrained within the realm of tetris related discussion. Yes, many things fit under general but is it a good idea to bunch them all together? Strategies, theoretical discussion, gaming news, etc. You're just making it harder to distinguish between one and the other.I think reasoning for keeping everything "bunched up" is that if we do in fact diversify all threads in the general discussion, then the general discussion will have no meaning, as everything will fit into different categories, and the only thing that will be left in the general discussion will be threads that don't have enough content to have its own sub-category and threads posted by newbs (not noobs, theres a difference) that didn't know where to post.


I realize that this is only addressing one new sub-category, but I think that this will become a trend, to neatly organize everything.

[DIGITAL]

I think reasoning for keeping everything "bunched up" is that if we do in fact diversify all threads in the general discussion, then the general discussion will have no meaning, as everything will fit into different categories, and the only thing that will be left in the general discussion will be threads that don't have enough content to have its own dub-category and threads posted by newbs (not noobs, theres a difference) that didn't know where to post.

Yes, definitely. We're afraid of spreading everything too thin. But have we considered that we might be thinner as a direct result of not spreading out?

[Chaos]

Yes, definitely. We're afraid of spreading everything too thin. But have we considered that we might be thinner as a direct result of not spreading out?I'm actually on your side of this (not that I like to pick sides), as I'd prefer things to have a certain degree of organization. I'm in the works of organizing about 40 GB of music and I get really picky as to how I go about organizing things. So I would actually prefer the forum to have [say a few] more sub-categories for the sake of organization.

[DIGITAL]

I realize that this is only addressing one new sub-category, but I think that this will become a trend, to neatly organize everything.
I'm actually on your side of this (not that I like to pick sides), as I'd prefer things to have a certain degree of organization. I'm in the works of organizing about 40 GB of music and I get really picky as to how I go about organizing things. So I would actually prefer the forum to have [say a few] more sub-categories for the sake of organization.

Yeah, I know what you mean about organization. It would be overdoing it to organize everything. There should be some level of organization for the areas with potential though. And I had a feeling you were debating for my proposition. http://www.tetrisconcept.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

[mat]

...I would actually prefer the forum to have [say a few] more sub-categories for the sake of organization.


a thread is a subcategory, that's the whole idea of a forum.

[DIGITAL]

...I would actually prefer the forum to have [say a few] more sub-categories for the sake of organization.

a thread is a subcategory, that's the whole idea of a forum.


If you want to make it into a tree structure debate, then why not make subcategories within General and then have all the topics within each subcategory? In its current state, we're actually breaking tree structure by having some theads be on a higher level in the tree than other less deserving threads.

[Chaos]

Well the way things are (and how they are probably going to be), it's not really debating. It's more like those for the sub-category are only coming from a suggestive standpoint since a decision has been made that it's not happening. I'm just throwing a suggestive statement, not really debating the issue as the issue has its answer. I'm sure with time, the sub-category will be necessary somewhere in the future.

[DIGITAL]

Well the way things are (and how they are probably going to be), it's not really debating. It's more like those for the sub-category are only coming from a suggestive standpoint since a decision has been made that it's not happening. I'm just throwing a suggestive statement, not really debating the issue as the issue has its answer. I'm sure with time, the sub-category will be necessary somewhere in the future.

Of course, but I think the true debate is about whether it's a good or a bad idea. Whether it influences the decision process itself is another matter.

[Chaos]

a thread is a subcategory, that's the whole idea of a forum.I always knew a forum as, main threads housed the genre of things, sub-categories to distinguish different threads from others, and topics (threads) to discuss specific aspects of whatever category it fell into.

Of course, but I think the true debate is about whether it's a good or a bad idea. Whether it influences the decision process itself is another matter.True...

[Rosti LFC]

I don't see the point in such a subforum. It's not like we're overloaded with such threads, and most that we have can easily be placed straight on the wiki (which has discussion pages too).

I don't know what a subforum would really add.

[Chaos]

I don't see the point in such a subforum. It's not like we're overloaded with such threads, and most that we have can easily be placed straight on the wiki (which has discussion pages too).
I don't know what a subforum would really add.From what I think, the reason for this to be implemented was to just better organize things (if only just a little).

[DIGITAL]

I don't see the point in such a subforum. It's not like we're overloaded with such threads, and most that we have can easily be placed straight on the wiki (which has discussion pages too).
I don't know what a subforum would really add.

Rosti, the point is not that we're overloaded. We're actually stunting the growth of such discussion by not giving it room to overload. And again, putting it straight onto the wiki leaves little room for community discussion. Wiki regulars are the ones that add to and mend the wiki and it'll stay that way until we actually reach out to the larger audience of forum visitors. Yes, the user pages, recent changes, and talk pages can already accomplish most of what a subforum would do but it fails one thing. Grabbing the forum visitor's attention. I'm sure not that many people here go to the wiki and look at the user pages, recent changes, or talk pages.

[Rosti LFC]

I get what you mean about stunting discussion.

Maybe a trial period or something first?

[DIGITAL]

Yep, that's what I'm thinking. It's what our wiki is based on too. Add something. If it's good, it's kept. If it's bad, it's fixed or removed.

[PetitPrince]

Random idea: How about a tag system ? Is there a good tag mod for phpbb ? (ideally, a per-post mod)

[DIGITAL]

Random idea: How about a tag system ? Is there a good tag mod for phpbb ? (ideally, a per-post mod)

Anything that will allow the user to filter would be nice. That may be even more elegant actually.

[Rosti LFC]

Is it wrong of me to throw in the point that I don't actually find this place to be that cluttered?


Sure, we have a sort of tetrisy broth of topics going on here, but generally I don't have much problem distinguishing between threads that interest me, and threads that don't. It's very rare that I ever want to find a specific post or thread which isn't on the first two pages, and when I do the search function, though far from brilliant, can usually do the job.


More boards could be good, but we're not massively active here for a forum, and if it's split up over 4 or 5 different boards, it could quite easily make this place feel dead.


I just don't think that this place continually feels disorganised to merit a large amount of work sorting things out, and for extra boards.

[DIGITAL]

Which brings me back to my earlier point. General is not cluttered to extreme proportions because we are refraining from doing so. This in turn stifles growth.

[Rosti LFC]

Which brings me back to my earlier point. General is not cluttered to extreme proportions because we are refraining from doing so. This in turn stifles growth.


Is that really the case though? I don't see why people aren't posting threads simply because it would cause clutter.

Fair enough with the ARS guide, but that's a bit special, rather than just general activity.

If we continue to grow, we will get to the point where one board isn't going to hold it all. I just don't think we're close to that point yet.

[DIGITAL]

I sure have experienced it very often. Skimming, all the differing T-Spin types and setups that are linked to them, all the stuff in edo's thread, and a lot more stuff that have come up in IRC. All the newbie tips threads. It's not really a special case that recently came up because edo brought it up. People just aren't posting them on the forum.

[caffeine]

"Which brings me back to my earlier point. General is not cluttered to extreme proportions because we are refraining from doing so. This in turn stifles growth."


Believe me, the last thing I would want to do would be to hinder strategy discussion. I simply don't believe this to be the case. I don't think by creating a forum just for strategy a whole bunch of strategy discussions will suddenly appear. I'll tell you what I have noticed, though. I notice now that there's a record board, I sometimes go straight to general and don't bother reading any new threads there. Sometimes I'm just not interested. Now if those record threads were in General Discussion, I would've maybe read and even perhaps contributed to them. But by forcing me to do more work, I am less likely to do this.


Now I visit this forum a lot. Just think of the people who don't visit so often and aren't as hardcore. They're more likely to go straight to General and skip Records. Then they won't see that 40 lines or Death thread, and won't get interested in competing. That's where I'm coming from.


Unless we're swamped and we need organization, my belief is that it will only hurt growth.

[DIGITAL]

Believe me, the last thing I would want to do would be to hinder strategy discussion. I simply don't believe this to be the case, though. I don't think by creating a forum just for strategy a whole bunch of strategy discussions will suddenly appear.
They won't suddenly appear. They'll appear gradually. General didn't grow overnight.

I'll tell you what I have noticed, though. I notice now that there's a record board, I sometimes go straight to general and don't bother reading any new threads there. Sometimes I'm just not interested. Now if those record threads were in General Discussion, I would've maybe read and even perhaps contributed to them. But by forcing me to do more work, I am less likely to do this.

Now I visit this forum a lot. Just think of the people who don't visit so often and aren't as hardcore. They're more likely to go straight to General and skip Records. Then they won't see that 40 lines or Death thread, and won't get interested into competing. That's where I'm coming from.

You may be looking at this from only one perspective. There may be people that do appreciate the split and do post more records as a direct result of them being easier to find. This may in turn constitute less work. I myself don't appreciate using the search function just to see if there is a certain records thread for me to post in. That's more work for me.

[caffeine]

"I myself don't appreciate using the search function just to see if there is a certain records thread for me to post in. That's more work for me."


But how this relates to strategy data and information: that's exactly the wiki's job.

[DIGITAL]

But how this relates to strategy data and information: that's exactly the wiki's job.

I'd like to think of the wiki as the platter where we display the work we have finished. It's not a really good place for collaboration as it requires a higher entry level as someone would say. TC forum visitors rarely check the wiki's recent change, user pages, or talk pages. By moving the workplace to the forum, we will have more contributors outside of the wiki regulars. People will have a place to ask questions and will feel less intimidated in pointing out small details.

[caffeine]

But you were talking about someone who's just looking for info, not someone who is already knowledgeable about stuff and wants to contribute. Person who's just looking for info will go to the wiki like he should, not the forum. Like you said, the forum is better for tailoring ideas rather than presenting.

[DIGITAL]

But you were talking about someone who's just looking for info, not someone who is already knowledgeable about stuff and wants to contribute. Person who's just looking for info will go to the wiki like he should, not the forum. Like you said, the forum is better for tailoring ideas rather than presenting.

What I said applies to the purpose of the records section in response to the amount of work you need to do to find them.


The other stuff I keep rambling on about is the purpose of the strategies subsection.

1. It makes things easier to find.

2. It attracts a larger TC audience.

3. It encourages contribution more than the wiki because of lower entry level.


Not everyone that wants to contribute will go onto the wiki and start putting things down on the articles themselves or on talk pages. That's so much more work than just simply replying in a thread to ask a question or point out something. The strategies subforum will act as both a place people can look to for knowledge pertaining to strategy and a place to further refine information on the wiki.

[caffeine]

Sorting through long threads for one speck of info is not easy. The wiki is there for that. The forum is for open discussion. One shouldn't replace the other. I still don't see why simply having a subforum would attract a larger TC audience. What we should aim for first is to encourage interest. A visitor passing by every once in a while seeing new and fresh threads for a variety of subjects is effective for this.

[DIGITAL]

sorting through long threads for one speck of info is not easy. the wiki is there for that. the forum is for open discussion. by no means is one suppose to replace the other. i still don't see why simply having a subforum would attract a larger TC audience. what we should aim for is to encourage interest. a visitor passing by every once in a while seeing new and fresh threads for a variety of subjects is effective for this.

You misunderstand me. The subforum does not seek to replace the wiki but to complement it.


What I meant by attracting a larger TC audience is that the forum itself has more visitors looking through the active threads. The wiki doesn't have that luxury. Only wiki regulars tend to look at the recent changes, user pages, and talk pages. They are the ones that mainly contribute, so much of the work that you might as well say all the work. As such, the wiki is not community focused but individual focused.


"what we should aim for is to encourage interest. a visitor passing by every once in a while seeing new and fresh threads for a variety of subjects is effective for this"

THAT's what I'm saying this subforum will do. Those that are not up to posting on the wiki will post on the forum. Wiki regulars will then add that info onto the wiki. We get more perspectives this way.

[colour_thief]

I propose a subforum for discussing subforums.

[DIGITAL]

I propose a subforum for discussing subforums.

Nice try ct. http://www.tetrisconcept.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

[DIGITAL]

General Discussion
Discuss news, games, tactics, or whatever is on your mind.

Tell me I didn't see this?

[caffeine]

well all this discussion gave me the idea. and no i'm not leading you on. it's not going to happen with the subforum.

[DIGITAL]

That's unfortunate then.

[jujube]

i kind of like things the way they are. if we split the forum a bunch of ways we'll form clans and stay within them, not even paying attention to tetris variants and topics we "don't think" we'd like. well, i used to hate olives until i had them on subway sandwiches (yummy), and i also used to hate TGM until i played it more, thanks to motivation from people around here.


hey, check this out:


http://tasvideos.org/forum/index.php


maybe they need all of that subdivision because of the size of the community, but we're much smaller still. if TC was like that we'd get lost looking around and would be crying for our mumsies.

[Zednom]

I know personally, when I'm visiting a forum for the first time, often if I see many sub-forums all with very few threads - I just figure the entire forum is not very active.


Also, like caffeine was saying, I think splitting up the discussion makes people avoid looking at topics that they would have maybe otherwise seen/contributed to if it was listed in the sub-forum they actually view.


I'll use an example with something I'm familiar with. On many Linux boards, for example, there will be a problems/help sub-forum. I think this has an overall negative effect on the forum, particularly if it's one of the less active ones for a less mainstream distribution of Linux. The problem is, not many casual browsers will click on the "Problems" sub-forum looking to answer people's questions - even if they might know the answers - they'll more often than not only go there when they themselves have a problem.


I think this would be the same with a strategy forum here. I would consider myself a casual browser - if there was a strategy forum, I probably wouldn't be going there looking to contribute strategies (because I'm just far too new to Tetris to have that kind of knowledge/confidence) - I'd be looking there just to look up strategies (which wiki articles could provide). Thus I would probably not actively post on a strategy forum, and would only go there to look up strategies.


It's true it may provide an easier method for non irc/wiki(discussion) browsers to monitor the strategy discussion, but I don't know how much it would do for attracting a bigger base of contributers.

[Rosti LFC]

Really, I don't think we have enough activity here to merit spreading it out over several boards. The place would just feel too dead.


And I sort of get what you say Digital, about how people are reluctant to post threads about strategy and the like, but I don't see any huge reason why they really should be reluctant. And if they do, other people who maybe wouldn't have read the threads, might read and reply to them, because the threads are in their faces, rather than labelling an entire board as something they won't ever want to visit.

[Chaos]

I propose a subforum for discussing subforums.I LOL'd. Sorry. haahahahahaaha..

[mat]

Subforum Discussion
Discuss whether we should make a subforum or not.

hah.

[tepples]

I don't see the point in such a subforum. It's not like we're overloaded with such threads
The point is that DIGITAL wants to post a couple dozen topics rapid-fire, and they need a place to go.

And again, putting it straight onto the wiki leaves little room for community discussion. Wiki regulars are the ones that add to and mend the wiki
Then the answer might not be to expand the forum but to promote the wiki. Perhaps organizing something like Wikipedia's "WikiProjects" with a sticky topic on the forum listing the active WikiProjects?

I notice now that there's a record board, I sometimes go straight to general and don't bother reading any new threads there.
What you could do is log in then "View posts since my last visit".

It encourages contribution more than the wiki because of lower entry level.
Say what? You need to register to post to the forum. You don't need to register to post to the wiki.

The problem is, not many casual browsers will click on the "Problems" sub-forum looking to answer people's questions - even if they might know the answers - they'll more often than not only go there when they themselves have a problem.

I have a problem. But I don't want to look like a n00b. So I answer the questions that I can, in order to demonstrate that when I do have a question, I have already RTFM, and my questions are for real. And then I get hooked, and I end up with 10,000 posts on forum.gbadev.org.

[caffeine]

"View posts since my last visit"


i keep meaning to do that. thanks for reminding me. some habits are harder to start than others.