Suggestion box

Can we discuss this concern that is resulting in it being voted against? Does anyone else vote against this? Should we try take it to a wider pool of voters?

Of course we can discuss it. We've done that the last three times. At some point, I feel it makes more sense to just resolve this problem with one of the many other solutions we've had for it. Sorting games, easier GM right transfer, observer roles for games...

Sure, we can put it to a sitewide vote somewhere other than here. Whatever. At this point I'm resigned to accept this anyway

I see the problem and the need to resolve it.

I just don't think this is the right way to resolve it and after this one got shot down multiple times, all I'm saying is that we should maybe just be open to going with a different solution

We have had many different solutions proposed. Most of them can work to resolve some of what is being asked for.

The discussion keeps getting off-track, though.

I propose we work on sorting/grouping. In all places they are displayed.
I propose we work on allowing players to 'retire' games that have been inactive and where the GM has been Zzzz.

I don't see how either of these will suffer from the concern of stalling games.

Me neither.

And neither of those solutions is the one I'm arguing against

I do, however think that easier transfer of GM rights is a better step than just allowing players to retire a game after a GM disappears as it would accomplish that and more

Possibly. But it does muddy the waters a bit about our role in a game. I don't actually want to be listed as the GM for dead games I did not GM.

Maybe a different title? Or just a rights issue, not a title change?

This also means the individual players can't choose for themselves if they want it 'hidden' or not. But I don't think that is a big deal, not for me anyway, all the ones I want hidden are dead... actually... except for the GP Tutorial game permanently near the top of my list.

If I may ask, what is the solution you're arguing against? The hiding of forums? Just to clarify, because I'm genuinely not sure and probably missing the context.

And you mentioned that the consensus was not to implement it, but in all Nope threads about game retirement or snoozing I found it was more like "there is no clear consesus" or "old branch, no longer discussing", not a negative consensus... Was there a vote somewhere outside the site, like on Discord? (Aside from the advent vote.)

You know I respect your opinion, I wouldn't want to push something that you don't like with my requests - and I probably can solve it for myself at the end of the day. :D It is just an inconvenience, after all.

---

Also, I don't like the idea of GM rights transfer, for the same reasons as vagueGM mentioned. I mean, it's alright on its own, but it won't solve this specific problem for me because I wouldn't want to use it and get stuck as a GM of a game I never ran.

There are places where the game's owner/moderator/admin/resource provider is not the same as the 'GM'.

'GM' implies a function that has nothing to do with admin features like archiving/retiring/cleaning up, and should not be a part of this issue, they are not the same thing and this is how we keep getting sidetracked.

...I was supporting this. I'm not sure where I mentioned admins at all?

I think what vague is saying is that GM and forum admin should be decoupled, which would solve that particular issue

Indeed. Quoting for context can seem like a direct response. Sorry about that.

I was agreeing with your support... um... :)

---

There are a slew of issues around 'GMs'. Maybe we should open a new topic for them. If someone makes us a 'secondary GM' we can not give up that right, but also can not do a whole bunch of other things. Differentiating 'Admins' and 'GMs' might be a way forward.

All cool! Just confusing. XD

But, erm, how would that solve the issue of ghosted games? I mean, even if you make someone other than the GM into a forum admin for the game, they still can ghost like everyone else. And if both GM and the forum admin ghost? Would players be able to choose a new forum admin? But that would be the same issue as changing GMs then, no?

Or will it be the case of site-wide forum admins with an ability to close game forums? That sounds like a weird job, but I guess it's more reliable?

That would be my assumption, yes.
Yes, we would need to solve the difficulties with that changing. But, with this, they would not be listed at the GM for a game they were not the GM for.

If its players' choice, then how will it operate? A majority vote? What if majority of players is also inactive? What if there is only one player + inactive GM?

I'm just imagining what problems there might be, not trying to say it's a bad idea or anything. :D It actually reminds me of how Fandom.com has admins and bureaucrats as separate roles (bureaucrats can change user roles, but have less general permissions than admins), and I like that site.

In a lot of games I want gone from my forum list I am the only active player in the game, with others either inactive or having left already. Would it be possible for a sole player to somehow become a forum admin?..

If we go with a majority vote, then a single active player would have the majority.

I don't know how often this would come up, so we might not need an 'automated' way of doing this (which would rely on the players understanding the underlying process), the Mod/Admin team could probably do these elevations when they are called for?

Many wiki communities have distinct admin and moderator roles. It is quite common for their powers to be non-overlapping so they have to coordinate to make changes. Commonly the Moderators would deal with the people, they would be asked to look into the situation and see that all but one the player is inactive (in your example), chat among themselves, PM the inactive GMs and players and come to a decision, they would then task an Admin to make the change. No one group has all the power, they have to agree and talk first before things are changed.

Often the Admins are technical people and don't have the people skills to be Moderators, and often the Moderators are people people and don't have the technical skills to be Admins. Someone with both sets of skills can only be on one group at a time, but could swap roles if they wanted to.

This, though, is not a technical challenge or discussion, it is a social one. The technical changes can come later, once we have reached a decision.

So it still comes to asking the administration to interfere, except with more instances and regulations, and instead of making someone a GM (like one would ask now) it will be making someone a game forum admin. I think I'd feel guilty distracting admins with this stuff... Though it would be their job, so I don't know. It will be the same process as for changing the GM, so nothing will change for ghosted games all that much, except for fixing the problem of having the unwanted GM title...

Well, anyway, I kinda regret posting an apparently controversial suggestion, so I'll just go and find a workaround until anything changes. :) But my second suggestion (?) about notifications for being kicked from the game still stands! I fear it was a bit ignored in light of the first, but it can still be useful. That is, if there are no notifs about it already, and I did not simply miss the fact...

I think the issues of how it would be done can be left till we know what needs to be done. If there can be a working system for the players to do it themselves, then that saves the admins a bit, and makes it more likely to be used. But player interfaces can come later.

There are a few things that should have notifications attached to them, and the notification systems could use a bit of a reunification.

Ah, alright, I guess both suggestions are already being considered. Oops! Good to know it is being discussed, though. :D