Feature: Comments on RP posts (OOC Flip-Pane)

It is actively being discussed again, and many have missed in the past, so we can think about a way to implement this if it is not too much work:

A different site had a feature where each roleplay post could have comments added to it, these would appear 'behind' the post, clicking the Comments(n) button would 'flip' the post and one would see the comments instead of the post.

This had the upside that people could comment on posts and not disrupt the roleplay flow. Comments and RPs were tied together.

This also had some downsides, for instance one could not see the post that was being commented on while reading the comments, and it was very hard to find a comment later, since one needed to click on every post to search for if that was the rp the comment was on.

---

One potential solution, off the top of my head, and possible not for v1:

As a simple mechanism, when saving a post (1) the system can scan it for links (it is already scanning for illegal tags or javascript and such), if the link is to a post on GP, we can create an entry in a new database table...

... say `rp_comments`, which contains two indexed integer ids, one the post_id of this comment and the other the post_id of the 'rp thread' it links to. (For each link, in case they go to different 'rp posts'.)

When rendering a post, we can check for the post_id in the 'second' column, and if it exists in the table, we can create a 'Comments' section/button/spoiler that links to each comment. Maybe it can include the first x number of characters/lines so we don't need to go there for short-enough posts.

If the db join and lookup is too expensive on each post render, we could add a single-bit-field to the posts table that indicates if the post we are rendering has 'comments' and only process this if that is true. This would be NULL for everything at first, but new `has_comments` flags can be added with new posts.

Once this works it would not be onerous to do a one-time check of every post (starting at the most recent and working backwards), to see it they have internal links, and then adding them to the `rp_comments` table for future viewing.

As a side-note/second-step we could designate a 'Comments thread' when creating a 'game thread' (same place we do 'discord integration'?), this would just be the thread id (and we could automate creating that thread if it does not exist?). Then we could add a Comment Button that creates a post in the Comment thread that contains a link back to 'the RP' (this does 'force' a style, but many people don't like 'manual' work, doing it manually should still work fine since this just handles the copy/paste URL and posting to the 'right' thread, or even just 'opening that thread in a new tab').

---

Footnotes:
1. Possibly only in designated threads? (2)
2. But I see value in this 'list of back-links' for general posts if we can bring the cost down.

---

Let's discuss?

I'm gonna move this to Site Discussions in general since it's not a bug.

Essentially, we're talking about the other site having had subthreads, right? Only on that site, it was basically the superset of how we treat forums/subforums/threads/posts, but there it was game/threads/posts/subpost, if my understanding/experience is correct. So I think if we want to tackle this, it needs to be a focus on what this achieves to figure out how we may want to solve that problem with how GP works.

If we ignore the site the idea comes from and how it worked there, what's the purpose? What is the problem we're trying to solve? It sounds like some folks may want further separation (in structure) between RP and OOC, while allowing for more OOC on RP elements. But what does that do for the game? I think specially not having seen the implementation outside of my own experimentation on the site, I don't know how it helped gameplay, so I'm unable to think of how to work on an implementation.

I like the idea of checking a post for links to GP, which is readily doable (though the current site doesn't scan for tags or js; PHP has built in functions that simply remove HTML tags of any kind), but its still not clear on why. So lets start there to figure out the how.

Essentially, I see this as an efficiency issue. We have all the tools to comment on posts through quotes, links, OOC tags, extra threads, etc. What this is proposing, to me, is taking those and just putting them together in a single location. It isn't really adding anything we can't already do. It's proposing a one-step comment option rather than a two-step.

I see the value in having an easily accessible, standardized comment field. I also see a lot of work for others so that we can add laughing emojis to a post. Personally, I'm not sold on the necessity. It's nice, but not needed.

Let's not worry about the time involved until we can figure out 1) what the requested feature is, and 2) if it's something folks really want. I'm hoping with the SDC, we can implement a backlog. If it's something we want for the site, it can always go into the backlog, and where in the backlog would depend on if people feel like it's a need, want, nice to have, alongside complexity.

Good. I should have looked for a better place than Bugs, I labeled it Feature because it was not a bug... and because Feature Request was too long. :)
At its essence it links posts about a post to that post. When I make an OOC post about a RP post I include a link to that RP post. (Take for example the [ref] link in the third post of this OOC [link]). This is fine when looking at the OOC about the RP post —we can see the link— but there is nothing to suggest to anyone looking at the RP that there were comments about it.

I am proposing we engineer a way for the RP post to 'know' that someone has commented on it and display a link to the comment.

All we really need would be an indication, maybe at the bottom of the post, that things link to it. I would like to keep this subtle, so readers who don't care about the comments can easily ignore it. Something small that expands when clicked would be ideal.
I don't think that is called for. All I am proposing is a way to know if some other post refers to this post. This is a generally useful feature, and would fulfil the requirement for the whole OOC Flip-Pane feature from elsewhere, while still maintaining the superior system of these 'Comments' being a proper thread that works and can be read from top to bottom and searched.

I missed this feature of the other site, but quickly became irritated with how it did it when I started to see how things were better here (except for the lack of back-reference). I wouldn't want to implement what they did, I like that everything is just a forum thread, and the only thing that makes one an OOC or Comments thread is how we use it.
Indeed a good question. Here is an example that might help. It is just from the most recent thread I made, so not particularly good (and I hope @Owlbeer does not mind being put on blast:):

The player (new) made a post with strange formatting, I posted a 'comment' about that post suggesting how they could achieve their goal, they said thank you and got it right on the second try. This mainly illustrates the need to comment on posts, anyone reading the post does not need to see the discussion as it is resolved.

Further down that thread in post 9 [link], I clarify if 'Final' and 'Jindal' are the same character (with a typo). Someone reading the RP might still be confused about the name confusion since they have no way to know there was a discussion that cleared it up. Having that RP post note that another post references it is the aim.
That is why I proposed this solution. It seems easy enough and covers the RP Comment requirement as well as being generally useful.

The 'side-note/second-step' is not at all needed for this, people can manually copy/paste a link to the post they are commenting on or referring to, it just might be an nice ease-of-use addition for the specific use-case of 'RP comments'. Same with creating a connection between them on thread creation, that can all come much later and build on this feature once we have internal links visible.

I also think that such a feature would be useful. Even though it's possible to have 2 threads (OOC and IC), it's often difficult to connect an OOC post with the correct IC post if there is no exact link in added that OOC post.

On the other hand, OOC text inside the IC thread don't really bother me. But it's not possible to add OOC text to someone else's post.

In terms of execution, to me it seems like a tough balance between keeping things looking 'neat and tidy' and at the same time make the feature useful. (Taking into account vagueGM's comments on it being difficult to search for a comment afterwards and such)

---

Would the following be possible?:
When using a link like this in any thread, clicking the link doesn't navigate to that page, but instead opens a pop-up which shows only that post.

It's kinda the reverse of doing a scan for every reference. The drawback here is that you can't tell from the referenced post that a comment has been made.

Just an idea, either way :)

That's actually a good point. Just an indication can already help greatly.

Ok, so rather than look at this as the "subthread" direction (which was basically what TK did), lets start with with post references. I take the key feature we want there is back references? I make post 1 that does something. Someone else makes post 2, where there's a link in it to post 1 for whatever reason. We're not proposing a change to post 2, but rather something on post 1 that shows it was referenced in post 2? A subscript? What would we want that to look like? Something simple like:

Yes. That is what I am proposing.
For now, maybe put those inside a spoiler or snippets or abilities tag —anything that starts closed and can expand— so people who don't want to see them don't end up with a page full of references. Show nothing if there is nothing. Maybe the 'spoiler text' can show the number of Reference?

In the long-run I would like to be able to see the contents of the posts from that References list, but that can come later once the functionality is in place.

Ok, that's doable. I can see the value in a bunch of different places, though we need to consider if it should be opt in or opt out. For example, references to things like kalajel's bundle posts or to public repo threads would be overwhelming.

That is why I want it in a small, easily ignored, spoiler at a minimum. :)

Opt-in/out per thread could be worth it? But we could start with opt-in per game and see how it goes, then extend it to 'Community Posts' later?

If I could Comment on posts I would comment:

💯 AGREE

... on the above.

After my 9 years here, with multiple multi-year games etc, I can confidently say this is not at all needed.

The fact that there are kind community-oriented individuals here who are willing to devote time to even talking about it? Much less work toward active implementation???

That says way more about how great GP is than whether or not it has "Comments".

Whoever raised this "issue" as an issue should recognize how lucky they are to have found this place due to that fact alone.

It would definitely be a quality of life improvement, only.

While I liked the flip-tiles on the other site, there *were* some pitfalls — Vague mentioned the biggest one, which was trying to find a specific post someone made somewhere.

Basically we’re talking about enabling ‘comments’ on each post. If that’s easy, and would include reactions, cool. If it’s not, I think there are way higher priorities. Including the GM Panel I need to write up!

If this can be added inside a spoiler of some kind what is the need for linking them to a separate thread? Just have the spoiler hide the text and expand to show it in the OOC box. Have the OOC box either scroll (like when you edit an ability block) or compress individual responses over 2 lines. This keep the original post and responses all on the same page. Put the spoiler below the original post, inline with "Delete", "Edit" and "Quote", so it is clear to not be part of the original post.

Full on OOC conversations not related to a specific post would not need to be linked, but could via the current method.

I'm very pleased to see this feature enhancement being discussed, as it was a very important feature of the Tavern-Keeper.com site, which was relied upon heavily for both game management and social bonding during the four years I ran my game on that site, and there doesn't appear to be anything to mirror it on GP.

I'm not very technical, so I really have no idea how TK managed to make this feature work. But its main advantage was that it was extremely simple for the GM and Players to use, and so encouraged pro-active play and social interactions related to gameplay.

Agree there, Didz. It's like having a running sidebar / commentary / peanut gallery and can really foster group cohesion.

I think it's good that VagueGM is keeping an eye on the performance cost. I think one reason TK closed down was the server expense. GP has a low user base (and, unless PbP becomes super popular, probably always will), which keeps server costs down. But staying aware of performance demands and VagueGM's suggestions of ajax on-demand loading of comments (great plan, Vague), should hopefully keep GP self-supporting through donations.

I have mixed feelings about this feature, but I want to call for it being optional if it's implemented, and personally I would prefer opt-in.

I can see the uses of this, but it's not a feature which appeals to me for OOC communication - it's the opposite, actually, I feel like it would discourage me from joining the games which have it. I wouldn't want people to comment on my posts as there'll be no way for me to remove these references if I don't want to see them, and I also sometimes link posts as in "info was revealed here", for which I really don't think a reference back is needed - so I'll have to either link to a thread page or just quote instead so the reference is not added,

I'd rather stick to my usual OOC banter, and this feature being default will make that harder.

(To be fair, I also just don't like the idea of adding comments to someone else's post, so this wasn't for me from the beginning. XD)

Expense was certainly mentioned as the main reason for TK shutting down. The site owner stated that it was costing him $300 a month in server fees and was leaving him out of pocket. However, I don't think that was the main cause of the problem. The site was very badly promoted and had no subscription system, and I always got the impression that I was the only person using it. It's only since joining GP and seeing all the other new members in the 'TK Refugee' thread that I've become aware that there were so many others using the site. It's also apparent that many of us were paying little or nothing for the benefits we were receiving.

When you look at other sites that are charging a minimum of $4 per month for membership, you begin to realise just what a bargain TK was and that it would not have taken many members to become patrons to cover the server costs. Just the cost of a pint every month would have kept it running, but Bill never asked or insisted on payment at all.

I'm not sure what the user base of GP is, but I get the impression there are more people on here than there were on TK. But that might be a false impression arising from the more active community forum.
To be fair that wasn't the way it was used in my game and shouldn't be how a decent group of players would use it.

Far from making it easier to make abusive comments about another player's post I found it was a feature that was used to compliment other players on their contribution and to encourage richer roleplay. We found that most of our players did want feedback on their posts, and that it helped to bind the group together and improve our commitment and enjoyment of the game.

I certainly got a kick out of the feedback I got on my GM posts and was encouraged to keep up the standard of my narrative asa result.

But I can imagine some toxic players might try to abuse it, although I'd be more concerned that they were in my group than worrying about how they spread their poison.

Oh, of course! With a group you trust not to do something you dislike it's not an issue. :D I don't even expect people to generally misuse it; the problem is, I just experience anxiety over the weirdest things sometimes and would feel weird about asking people to remove seemingly harmless comments that bother me. So it's easier if it doesn't happen at all.

I get your love for feedback on posts, certainly! I myself post a lot of OOC about other characters' actions and the general situation. But I don't need it to be tied to a specific post and I'm pretty content to just comment in the game thread or the OOC thread without the need for it to be linked (or if there is a need, then just using quotes). I suppose for me personally references just don't add anything - I already do this stuff, just via a different method.

My proposal had two parts. First, I really want it to be discrete and easy to ignore if people are not interested. Second I really only want this as an extension of the existing OOC banter/discussions, I mainly want a way to see that such OOC has been done about this post.

We might need three lines of opt-in:

• The player could choose not to ever see these links, on any page.
• A thread can be marked (on the creation screen) as relevant for showing links to it.
• A thread can be marked (on the creation screen) as not being relevant for having its links processed and tracked.

But, most of all, if it is a small icon in the bottom corner, it should not bother anyone who does not care. I never use the 'Mark as unread' link, but it does not bother me that it is there, and that is not small. If this were something small we can expand if we are interested, that might be fine.

If all this is is a way to see that someone has asked an OOC question (which we should already know at the time, because we are reading the 'OOC thread' (but it might be a benefit later)), then it should not change the way people use the 'OOC banter'.

Adding features does change the way people use a tool, though, and, just like having Discord available has split the community between those the use it and those that don't, adding a tracking tool like this might 'encourage' people to change the way they chat... I don't know, people are weird.

Even if not on the thread and posts, there is benefit in having some way to know if people have referenced this post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:What_links_here

Would it be worth having a mechanism to track whether a user has read a comment (opened the "spoiler"), showing it in bold or something if it's unread? If we're concerned about the SQL join then we could store an array of userids in json or something on the post record.

But these are different things. Whether you've read the thread or not is something no one but you sees, but references will be something that everyone sees. Even if I ignore it, I will still know that it's here, and other users will see it regardless of my wishes.
(Yes, it theoretically should not bother me. It does though. I didn't say it was reasonable. :V)
I hope it won't, but yeah; people are weird indeed. It will be disappointing if I'll need not only to watch out for Discord requirements but also for these comments. :( I might be in the minority (or an exception, I don't know), but still.
I agree partially. I don't think it's particularly useful if, say, I post something like "Hey, this tree was first mentioned in this post a month ago" and the post gets a reference for my post. Like, the description of the tree is already here, anyone reading the post will know it, so what's the use of seeing my reference on the main post?
Neither is it harmful though, so I don't know. I guess I'm mostly neutral about how useful it is. :D

Sure, when the posts have no value tracking their links has no value. On the other hand, when the players have an OOC discussion about what they want their characters to do in a situation [example], later being able to see why the following RP post suddenly went in a particular direction (based on that discussion) has value.

That was the part I do agree with. :D I'd still find it inconvenient having to refrain from linking stuff in "no value" (I disagree that reminding someone of where the info came from has no value) posts just so it wouldn't clog up the references.

Yes, making people not link things would be a step backwards. We need a solution for that.

But I don't think it really matters if these 'no value' links are there, everything has value.

In my example above I make two links to the reference page for the rules about the Moves we are discussing, those reference pages don't really need to 'know' how many times they have been referenced... but then again, it might be interesting to see how many time the Persuade rule has been talked about and in what context?

If this whole thing is discrete enough that we can ignore it, then there is no need to not make links, we can just ignore them.
Hey! I was 'quoting' you! If they have value then there is value in being able to find them later, so this is a non-issue?
Not making references just so as not to clog up the list of references seems ... sorry, I don't understand the problem here? :)

To be clear @FlyingSucculent, I share your concern about messing up the community discourse, I am hoping this just streamlines things and helps those who would benefit from it.

The title is misleading, it stemmed from the most recent discussion about a similar useful feature and probably should not be called 'Comments'.

FS, I understand your concern about changing something which works for you. I was dead set against Discord integration as I didn't want to split the OOC banter. I was wrong. It's my favourite GP feature.

I suspect you'd just end up coalescing around the functionality that your table would find most useful, and deciding to agree to ignore functionality you never use.

The GM and game group should set the parameters of the game and how these things are handled, some games want all the OOC discussion in [ ooc] tags right here in the roleplay threads, some want them in a separate thread, some people won't play in games without discord, some people won't play in games that require discord, some won't play in games have allow any discord at all because they have been burned by people talking there and not being included...

Set the terms and the group will play that way, this no different to "no phones at the table" rules, and such.

Maybe it can be some sort of an extended url tag? Make the site only check for these. Something like [ref] which would work as [url] in all but being detected by the reference list.
I didn't mean that the post had no value! I meant that the refence didn't. :P Although I do kind of agree that it might be interesting to see how often things are talked about.

(On that note, how would references be assigned names? It will be hard to navigate with just Ref1, Ref2; and if it takes the post name, then most of the time it'll just be "OOC Thread". Maybe something to consider for a custom tag too?)
The problem is, say I want to post something like the tree example above. I don't think that the reference to this OOC post inside the main post has value, but I do want to reference the main post in the OOC. But if I add a link, it'll go in the reference list on the main post and I'll clog it up and I'll feel bad about it. So I'll have to reference the post without using the link, which will be a bit inconvenient since I'll need to either link the thread page or make a quote.

(A custom tag would solve it, actually. But it is a bit of a moot point, as I am already unlikely to use references. XD)
Oh yeah, I'm not against the feature! If people want it and it's QoL thing for someone, all the better. I just would prefer for it to be optional so I can avoid people adding references into my posts since it doesn't do much for my experience.

(It's kinda in the similar vein for me with GMs editing player sheets. I often ask GMs to not do this, but it's always this little fear in the back of my mind. :'D)
Hey, I still dislike Discord integration, it doesn't always change. :P

It's all fine when the technology is something I can not use and not be affected by. But in this case, it is something that I will be affected by even if I don't use it as long as someone in the group does - and worse, it is something I won't be able to do anything about short of deleting my post or complaining to the one who did the reference or the GM. And I'll feel bad about complaining.

It's just, if it becomes the default, it'll be a new thing on my list of "request before game", and I already feel like a prick when I request to keep me in the loop if something happens on Discord and for GMs to not edit my sheets. :'D

---

Anyway, this is all a personal thing! Just thought I'd cast my vote for opt-in, but it's not like I can do anything if the majority prefers it to be the default. I vaguely tolerate sheet editing, I can probably tolerate references.

We would need some way to identify them.

I would like for them to be able to show the text surrounding the link, the con-text, as it were. It could be beneficial to be able to read the whole post from right there where we are looking, maybe in a [ spoiler] (or [ abilities] #) type openeable draw.

First off, we need the ability to track the links, the formatting can change as people opine about what they like/need. How they end up looking might affect what levels of opt-in/out people want.
I don't think there is a technical solution for that. I would advise ... not feeling bad? Some people may like to have the link to where you referenced the tree, those who don't care done care.
That sounds like a step backwards. If this is what this will lead to, then it is a bad feature. Let's not go that route, I hope this will encourage more links, there are many OOC posts that I read and don't have the context anymore because it is months later and we are looking for where something was discussed (PbP is slow).
Would you want to not see references, or not allow reference to 'your posts'? Other people read your posts as well, they might want to see the references. As you say, you are creating links to the posts, so there are references, there is just no way to find them.
If a GM edited my sheet after I asked them not to (or if they did it more than 'once by mistake') I would not play with them. Respect is an important part of the game. If they said that they would be editing players' sheets in this game (and I did not want that), I would not play in that game. Other games are available, we are not 'stuck playing with the kids on our street'.
We should try not to feel bad about asking for the things we need. This was a large part of what motivated the Safety Tools movement —which < swearword > people then attacked people for using. Normalising asking for what we need is a good thing, but I get that it is hard.

Having a discussion on discord when not everyone is on discord is just plain rude. Asking for a summary back in the game is a base minimum, and not really good enough, in my opinion, everyone should have been part of the discussion; and summaries, by their very nature, leave out details.
As a player option to or not to see them? Or on a per thread basis? [ref]

Just briefly back to this...
Bill had a Patreon for TK and I paid him $10/month for *years* -- worth every penny. Quite a few others did too, at various tiers. TK had a complex development history, but it was a vibrant and busy place for games in the 20-teens -- before you came on the scene, Didz. You hooked up with TK in the twilight of its existence, when Bill had stepped back and was barely managing things in break-fix mode. Many players (hundreds) just focused on playing their own games over there.

In 2021 I could see the writing on the wall and moved over to GP. It was amazing that Bill paid that AWS bill as long as he did, frankly. We did have some fund-raisers in the late teens / 2020 time frame, but... well, when something is free, people won't always pay for it when you ask them to.

Not trying to be a jerk, because I actually do dislike that TK had to shut down, leading to people losing games, community, a place they felt they belonged, but I really have to question that cost. In total, GP spends about $50 a month in server costs, and we're not on a cheap host. If I make a few optimizations, we could have a lot more users than we do now and still maintain that cost (a number of queries on GP are poorly written and slow the site down). In fact, we're looking at a new email host, which would cost about $24 a year for 2 email addresses. If the costs were $300 a month, I'd really wanna know what was going on so I could help reduce that cost. I also don't like the idea of asking for donations; too much in our lives is based on money, specially entertainment, and I don't want GP to be another one of those costs. And even jobless right now, I can easily afford $50 a month, a price I'm happy to pay so others can have a good time.

A custom tag different from [url] would've been a technical solution. Just saying. :P
Trust me, I wish I could not feel bad. (Also, you're missing the people who *won't* like the references to some OOC post which doesn't matter for the main post.)
It's just a personal thing, even if it leads there for me, I'm quite certain 80% of users won't care. I'm just being selfish by trying to preserve my comfort. >:D
The second one. I get that the other people might want to see references, which would just mean that we aren't compatible as players - so I just won't join these groups. But if this option is a default, I'll need to ask each time each player, and that sounds too much. :( If it were opt-in, then I'll just react if the GM propose to enable it, that'll be easier. (I doubt this feature will ever become something people will state in recruitment threads like Discord.)
Of course. I never said this was a rational fear either.
I meant it as opt-in for the ability to use references on a specific game's forum. If the GM has a toggle "allow references", I would prefer it to be off by default. (Or I guess in case of per forum basis, for all forums to be off by default?)

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I can exercise futility. :P I cannot stress enough that it's a personal thing and I'm not against the feature existing. I'm not even *that much* against it being the default, it'll just make my search of games harder, it's not something big.

I'm honestly baffled a small project like a PbP site would choose AWS. Heck, with even half that price, using AWS's Lightsail would get you

32 GB Memory
8 vCPUs
640 GB SSD Disk
7 TB Transfer*

That's HUGE. This is 100% a case where had I know, I would have offered my help to move services and get to a more reasonably priced environment.

This does turn it into a different thing than the ability to know that comments have been made about a post. What I was proposing does not change how people would use these OOC comments and discussions, needing different tag to make them work breaks all the previous discussions.
I would like to hear from them about what they dislike, then we can work to make something that works. Not dismissing your viewpoint, but asking for more.
If 20% did care, then we have a problem we need to deal with.
Which is important. So we need to get to the root of what you are comfortable with.

Maybe we should shelve this aspect till we have a better idea of how it would work, then we can work out how we choose to opt-in. None of the opt-in options should be very tricky to implement, it is more about how people would want to use them.
That is also an option.

Wasn't TK touted in another thread as a bastion of "encouraging communication"?

So is what I'm hearing then that in reality this Comment feature doesn't actually build a sense of meaningful communication in and of itself? It doesn't build or create a sense of community by the advocates own words.

Which would mean, in fact that requires a bigger thing than a nuanced feature difference.

And in fact GP already has it (at least community, if that can somehow be present with "encouraging communication" absent)?
I don't think it adds any actual value.

I think it could encourage more superficial communication, "relieving" ppl of more meaningful contribution, and doesn't bring actual value.

I don't want to ever obligate the ppl who make this site function day to day to do absolutely anything at all. But I dislike that a random pet peeve has somehow suddenly taken precedence over other features that, imo, add more value.
Maybe I've missed it but I feel like I've heard from really just one person who actually cares about this, and literally everyone else could take it or leave it. I don't see anything close to 20% of users claiming there's a problem. Not even 10%. Maybe not even 1%?

Indeed, the site going on 10+ years without it makes me think there is no problem at all, regarding people's ability to comment on others posts, or with ooc communication.

That seems very confusing to me.

You say you don't want other players to make comments about you posts and yet freely adfmit that you post a lot of OOC comments about theirs. As for the objection to having a comment tied to a post, it actually seems to me that if the comment is not tied to a post then it is essentially pointless and not even an OOC comment at all. Surely the whole point of an OOC comment is to distinguish it from an in-character comment. But if you are posting in another thread why would this even be a probability?

After all, this isn't an OOC post because it's obviously not in a roleplay thread. Likewise, if one of my players posts a comment in 'The Tavern, ' I don't need them to tell me they are not posting in-character. Likewise, general 'chit chat' about the game outside of the Session Log does not need to be identified as OOC because it clearly isn't.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary.

If a player has no interest in reading the comments made on their post, then that's entirely their prerogative, and I entirely respect FlyingSucculent's right to ignore the feedback from the rest of his player group. However, the player should be entitled to see if there are any comments on their post and be given the option to read them should they wish.

This was how it worked on TK, the Comment Button in the bottom right was merely highlighted if any comments had been posted. It was then up to the player to click on it if they wished to read them. But had every right to ignore them if they wished. Also no notifications were sent out for comments, so it was assumed the player would check for comments when they next checked the Session Log particularly if they were waiting for a response from the GM.

Well said.

This is about options, not dictates. If the option is there, then the GM can decide whether their game will use it as part of its posting structure. or any of the other features on offer, such as Discord

It was extremely good at encouraging in-game communication, but its general community forum was pretty much dead as a parrot.

We might be posting six or seven comments a day in our game, but none of those posts were visible outside our group. So, to someone visiting the site, it may well have seemed dead.

Dead as a parrot after Bill stopped supporting the site and many regulars left. The general forums were never hugely active, but there were about a hundred or more regular posters in the general forums petty much daily for a good long time. Ghost town from about 2020 onward.

Now sure what to tell you about the AWS costs, Keleth -- Bill might have had other projects in there, but he also originally built the site (with his wife) to support some e-commerce components, some gamifying elements (collecting 'gems'), etc.

This would drive me insane. To be expected to look back at previous posts or else miss out on potentially good conversation. If this were added to GP, I would expect some sort of notification option for this sort of thing.

Indeed. This was a problem, some players (maybe they fell behind) would comment on posts that were a week old and on a previous page.

It was not just for 'potentially good conversation', some players would ask questions they needed answered to be able to proceed, but no one would notice because 'why would they go back to look for little blue marks on days-old posts', some players would start a conversation on one post, only to continue it on another, more recent, one. I quickly found GP to be superior.

I don't propose we do anything different to having, and posting in, a forum thread, so all the current mechanisms will keep working, I am just proposing having a way to see discussion about a post on/near that post.

New features don't always need to be backwards-compatible, and I don't think this is the case where it is necessary.
(Also it's a personal thing again, but it will change how I use OOC comments. Because I'll start avoiding adding links. And I dread that if it becomes an automatic change for all threads I'll be stuck with references on my posts which I can't even ask people to remove because the users are inactive.)
I would expect a reference to be something that's meaningful (edit: clarification, meaningful to another user - compliments are meaningful to the poster, but probably much less to another user) to connect to the post. If I look through the references and all I see are "this post contained X info", "Y event happened here", "nice post" and "you made a typo here", I'm going to be slightly peeved about it and start avoiding checking references at all.

It's nice if it's a discussion about mechanics or some relevant conversation about lore, but more casual mentions just seem unnecessary.

Also I agree with emsquared about superficial communication - in cases where people use it as a replacement for "Discord reaction" style of responses. Granted, this is probably more about comments than references. (This thread is a bit mixed with what we are discussing, isn't it? XD)
Where it comes to websites, I'm a believer in the needs of majority, I guess! Especially if the minority is very minor.
True, I was just mentioning it in advance to point out that not everyone (me) is going to be comfortable with it being the default. Feels like it's easier to state position in advance than to suddenly oppose it when it's almost done. Probably.

---

That's not what I am saying.
I am saying that I don't want links attached to my posts which I can't have control over. If people comment about my posts, I have nothing against it. But the moment this comment is forever tied to this post in a way I can't ignore (as in I'll always see this reference while looking at the post), then I'm getting antsy.
My objection is to a technical tie. If someone says "I'm commenting about your post X", then it's all dandy. But if this causes said post to have "Someone commented about it here" attached to it, then I don't like it because I can't remove it.
I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding due to terminology. Personally I call *all* non-roleplay posts OOC posts - whether it's about mechanics, something unrelated to the game or whatever comments about posts. Just to make sure we aren't confusing each other! :D
Please don't put words in my mouth. Never have I stated that I don't want to see feedback from the player group. I assure, this is absolutely not what I'm talking about.

I feel like you are entirely misunderstanding my problem with this feature. I don't have a problem with comments about posts. I have a problem with me not wanting to have references attached to my posts. Nothing else, nothing more. If you can propose a solution of implementing comments/references in a way which guarantees that I won't have references on my posts before I explicitly consent to it, I'll be full in support!

(I don't know if it's a good comparison, but I don't generally like Discord reactions on servers for the exact same reason.)

---

Bottom line is, I know my objections to this are not something most users will have. Anxiety is not a rational thing, I can't explain to you why it bothers me if you don't feel the same. Sometimes, it is just a feeling.

PS: sorry if any of my comments are harsher than intended, I'm not always good with tone. I don't want to argue with anyone, just explain my position.

I don't think I found Tavern-Keeper until 2020-21, so it already seemed dead by the time I joined. After my discouraging experience of trying to run a game on Roll20 I was just looking for a hosting site that did what I needed it to do, was easy to use, and didn't require any coding. So, I was just happy to find it, but it was obvious something wasn't right even before you posted your warning.
We never really used it for 'chit-chat', so there was never much need to search for threads of conversation. It was just a tool for managing reactions and commenting on the current post. If anyone did want a lengthy conversation, then we would take it outside the Roleplay/Session Log entirely and post something in 'The Tavern'. Which was probably the nearest equivalent we had to an OOC thread.

But. if anything important was posted in a post comment, then it would usually be copied out into a 'Character Journal' if it was a clue or some piece of information the player wanted to remember, or if it was a rule clarification or lore issue then it might be added to the 'Campaign wiki' for future reference.

But mostly it was just trivial party bonding and game management stuff.We never really had that problem because we operated a very strict 48-hour posting pledge. So, everyone was expected to check the Session Log for new posts at least once every 2 days, and if the situation had moved on, then it would be doubtful that any comments on the earlier posts had any relevance to the current situation.

As GM, I obviously had to check the new posts daily and would look for any that had comments just in case it required a reply. But that was just part of my normal game management role.
Yes! That would happen from time to time, but it was my job to make sure that if a player had asked a question as a comment on their post that I answered it promptly. The classic example was just before TK shut down one of the players asked me if Grunewald Lodge where his character was located was any where near a town or village, as the player had forgotten. So, I posted a linkto the local map and explained that Graustadt was about three hours walk away, and he was then able to edit his post to decide on what action his character would take.[/quote]
I think that problem is mutual. You don't seem to grasp why I consider it so important to the way I manage my game.

But just to resolve one misunderstanding.

I don't see why a post comment should be any harder to edit or delete than a post made in a separate sub-forum.

I can't say I ever felt the need to do so in my game, but then I'm careful who I play with. But if there had been the need, I would have either deleted the comment myself, or more likely, I would have PM'd the player and asked them to remove or edit it.

Why are you trying to explain it though? I'm not arguing against it being important for some users in a way that it's not for me - I don't need to understand why to acknowledge it, I believe your words enough.

I'm not opposing this feature in general, I only ask for it to be off by default. Would it being off by default somehow detract from your experience if you can easily turn it on at any point?
I'm talking about comments made by other users on my player posts. I can't delete them because I'm not these users and not the GM (unless it's a forum which has edit permissions for anyone, which is usually not the case).

Now, if you mean that in case this feature was implemented it would be possible to delete others' comments on your post... Hmm. I guess it's more tolerable, although I would be hesitant to delete someone's comment. But at least it would return control to me, so I suppose it is a better variant in my eyes.

I didn't see this:How nasty and disrespectful.

This user has 3 posts in a game on GP.

Hasnt actually played or ran a thing here.

Doesn't actually have a clue how the systems we have actually perform in play.

Yet comes in and doesn't hesitate to throw shade on the community and individual users?

What is even going on here.

I appreciate the defense, although I do hope it wasn't meant as shade and more as a genuine statement.

Either way, I'm sorry my comments derailed the thread a bit! I think I already said all I can here, and further discussion for me will just be arguing about personal preferences - which is pointless at the root. I didn't mean to turn this into an argument, so let's just agree that we have different views and leave at that!

Support and critique of this requested feature was respectful and engaging. I ask that the conversation continue to be this way, otherwise we will end it.

There is no need to diminish user experiences and expectations on GamersPlane because of the way they participate in community or game forums. We can still discuss new features without having to devolve into one-upmanship about what's better, especially when there are many different ways to engage in the site.

I will say as a former TK player that the flip pane is a +/- for me. It kept the story cleaner but could caused a loss of information unless you read all OOC. I was in a game with several chatty players and a DM who would post instructions in the OOC. This caused me frequent problems as I did not read all posts and just skimmed over what I mostly saw as socializing.

I think a hybrid might work better but would be up to each game GM to implement/enforce.

1. Keep non game banter in a separate thread
2. Allow comments to original posts
3. Minimize comments visibility but keep a comment counter and read/unread status visible
4. Minimize by either minimized to a spoiler, reduced in font size and possibly contrast intensity. Then if someone want to see it better they just click to expand or enlarge the font

But is that any different to a comment made by another player about one of your posts in a separate OOC thread?

If you didn't like the comment, then you still couldn't delete it without involving the player or the GM. Or perhaps I'm missing some unique feature of OOC threads.

Though to be honest I'd be very concerned if I was seeing comments on posts or in OOC threads in my game that needed to be deleted anyway. But I accept that it could happen.

I don't consider that nasty or disrespectful. I was merely acknowledging that if FlyingSucculent doesn't want to use a post comment system in his game, or wants to ignore post comments made on his posts, then that is entirely his choice. How can acknowledging his right not to use something be considered insulting?

As for the rest of your post, all I can say is that I am doing my best to work out how toset up my game. But basically, I'm a GM and a storyteller, not a programmer, and it's proving a both tedious and a bit of a challenge to work out how all the coding works and how to set my game up the way I want it.

And before you make the obvious comment. Yes! I have wondered if this is the right hosting site for my game. Yesterday, I was seriously thinking of giving up completely, as it's been almost a month now since TK shut down, and it's possible that my players have moved on anyway.

I agree.

Post comments are not really suitable for non-game banter, which is much better off in the tavern. I can't say we had any real problems with players not reading comments containing GM instructions (at least not the ones on their posts, because usually they were waiting for guidance or an answer anyway)

We did occasionally have players blaming the lack of notification from a comment as an excuse for being in breach of their posting pledge, but that was really a different issue and was really no excuse at all. They just ended up getting a nudge from me for not checking the session log.

e.g.
Player: Sorry GM I didn't realise you had replied to my question.

When in fact, I was checking the Session Logs daily, and so would have answered within 24 hours, and everybody knew that as we were all bound by the same pledge,

It is for me, as it will be attached to my post in a technical way. I understand that it's not something which will bother other people, but it is something which will bother me. :'D It's like a difference between someone using an emote as reaction on Discord and someone leaving a message with the same emote in response - not that different, but it matters to me. lt's not about message contents, but form.

Anyway, I think it's just a question of preferences, and this feature is ways off in either case, so I don't think we should continue this conversation since it's veering off from the main topic of the thread. I do hope there is a compromise with these things - we'll see, I suppose! :)

I agree. We all have our own preferences when it comes to how we manage our games.

i actually prefer comments to be specifically linked to the post that they are commenting on because it keeps things simple and easy to follow. My group rarely bothered with social banter in the non-session threads like 'The Tavern' except to let me know they were going to be AFK.

But as I said yesterday, I would not see 'Post Comments' as a mandatory feature, and like the dice roller, they wouldn't be needed at all on non-Session forums and posts. It's just a different way of managing your game and encouraging player interaction at the table.

Might I suggest that if you want to see how GP works, then you play a game with an experienced GM?

It's like you're trying to turn GP into TK, and GP is a different site with different ways of doing things. Once you've experienced playing in a game, you can ask a GM "how did you...?"

Psybermagi has invited me to joon his Tiny Stories game, so I'm slightly ahead of the curve on that idea and already noticing how OOC comments constantly break up the narrative of the Session Logs in GP. However, I'm mainly interested in how Psybermagi is structuring and coding his game set-up so it's still helpful.

I've been a 'Forever GM' now since the 1980s, so I certainly don't need instructions on how to run a game, I just need to know what tools GP can provide to assist me in doing it.