Ok, I'll attempt to respond with the utmost clarity, so there's no confusion here (not that there was before, but I want to keep my posts efficient).
Regarding # 2. Regarding maps in Beta: Maps should be able to have a related thread (e.g. A thread linked to the map's profile) only if they are in Beta. AND maps that are in beta with a related thread should have their comments on their profile disabled (no comments can be made about a map on its profile page if it is in Beta with a related thread activated). But Beta maps without a related thread can have their comments active. This should be a note to the author before selecting the "In Beta" checkbox for their Map so they know.
larchy's responce said:
Restrictive? How about getting rid of comments altogether and just having discussion topics? No reason why a forum thread can't be inlined on the map's page where the comments currently are and it would remove the splitting up of feedback in different locations as well as precluding the need for any of the above malarky.
OK, so all maps will have the option to turn on feedback for their map, and if they do, it will open a forum thread right on the map's profile page? -That sounds cool. And if they do choose to have a discussion, then there could be a locked thread posted (like the linked threads posted now) in the Maps forum that simply link to the map's profile (like they already do). So basically, I'm saying, keep the ability to add a forum post in the map's forum, but let it be locked automatically so it only serves the purpose of keeping our maps (with discussions enabled) in the map forum table in-line. So we can still keep track of which maps came first. I know their update date is recorded and you can search for that through the map's section of the site, but if someone is searching for just discussions of maps, they can search through the map's forum and find threads linking to their map's profile pages where the actual discussions are being held...
If a person chooses not to enable feedback, then none of this occurs, and the maps remain without a comment system? I think the regular comment system should be the fallback. That is, if they choose not to enable full forum feedback, then they simply get the quick comments system like we already have now. -Is that just redundant? -Or should ALL maps get a forum thread in their profile? -with a thread linking to it from the map's forum?
Regarding # 3. Only after maps have been considered out of Beta (The user updates the map's profile and unchecks the "In Beta" checkbox) then the related thread (if there was one) would become locked and the comments for that map's profile would become activated. Once a user uploads a map without selecting the "In Beta" checkbox, OR if they update the map's profile and switch it to NOT in Beta, then they can never switch the map back to being in Beta because we would not want anyone abusing the locking and unlocking of their map's related thread by constantly changing the status of their map's profile and not have it reflect user's comments. If it was a mistake and they need to switch it back to Beta, then an admin would be able to do it for them.
larchy's responce said:
Dunno, I mean 'beta' just means not finished. Why restrict an author's right to modify his work? They could just delete & reupload if they really wanted to get around this too... strikes me as restrictive and not workable in practice.
You're right. If we get rid of having two separate ways to comment on maps, then we wouldn't have to lock anything. If in this new In-laid Thread system for map profile pages, you could include separate line breaks like this:
(also note the placement of the "user online" and "Map Author" title in that example). The line breaks would let others know when the map was updated during the discussion. If an author updates it multiple times before another comment then the update bar in the thread will take the latest update and once a comment is made after that update, the next update will be posted as another bar after the latest comment.
Regarding # 6. -And also, to stick with tradition, we should have a smaller line mentioning: "This is SnarkPit version 4.##" -Whatever version you reckon we're on?
larchy's responce said:
No idea. Larchpower v3 or something by now smiley Prolly version 7 or something
Well, the old pit listed itself as "v4.5" It read: "This is SnarkPit v4.5." (without quotes of course). I would consider the very first implementation of the site you posted as v5.0. Each major update (whatever you constitute as a major update) would add +0.1 to the version count. I haven't been keeping track, but if you've made over 9 big updates since then (which I wouldn't be surprised if you had) Then when you release this version you're working on, I would have something that says: "This is SnarkPit v5.9." written at the top somewhere.
Regarding # 16. Can we have the old Snark icons (or revamped Snark icons) for the "no posts/new posts" icons in the forums? It'll add to the nostalgia smiley
larchy's responce said:
Make some smiley
I'll talk with Muhnay about it sometime, unless he catches this post first :P. -I'd like to see some kind of animated icons for new replies and hot topics (threads receiving 50 posts or more).
The rest sounds fine I think
[EDIT]: Almost forgot... I'm cool with the LunarPages plan. It's pretty cheap, and they seem to have a good history. I'm for it, but This is really up to Gwil since he has already payed for another year of hosting with Globat. I don't know if he will be able to get a refund, but it's all on his accord as to when we would make the switch. -Oh and Gwil, If you have a Paypal account go ahead and post it! Some of us are just waiting to make a donation!
Blog:
www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn:
Eric Lancon
Twitter:
@Riven202