evdk
comrade troglodyte :M
So you only had this poll to troll anyone voting on it? Wow, it's like I am really voting for a political party or president in real life: nothing changes.
You actually expected that this would influence anything?
So you only had this poll to troll anyone voting on it? Wow, it's like I am really voting for a political party or president in real life: nothing changes.
Same applies to Dragon Age, both of 'em. I guess I could have pointed out that part of his erroneous description but meh.No grindan areas, finite supply of enemies only.You just described Divinity 2.
I don't want filthy JPGs in my GG.There's already a forum for JRPGs, and it's called General Gaming.
You're missing the obvious, bro. Being a weaboo fag makes your opinions irrelevant.I don't want you in my RPG Codex, do you see me complaining?
Many people make the mistake of thinking polls should tell you what to do. Polls are really only an indication as to how many people are yet to be won over - or how many people care and how much they care about it. When we first polled on this issue, over 70% of people wanted to keep the single forum. With the new proposal, that dropped 12%. But you'll also note that the first half of this thread is still people complaining about "what defines Classic".So you only had this poll to troll anyone voting on it? Wow, it's like I am really voting for a political party or president in real life: nothing changes.You know, despite all the complaints, I think this is working out.
asper: I believe the forum names - especially for jRPG and the Console forums - will attract the appropriate type of poster to them.
Also, this poll was supposed to run for a week. It doesn't make much sense to repeat the same argument over and over if the poll is supposed to run for a specific time.Or maybe people just can't be arsed to continue arguing about it because it's obvious you're going to ignore them and do whatever you want anyway?
Forum sucks now. Nothing was gained by this arbitrary split (cept appeasing OCD tards) it's just annoying to browse now, let alone post.
Multiple votes are allowed.
So many people (admins in this case) make mistake of doing things people would rather have done instead of doing things as they please? I see your point...Many people make the mistake of thinking polls should tell you what to do. Polls are really only an indication as to how many people are yet to be won over - or how many people care and how much they care about it.
Still less reasonable level than the idea of keeping it all together has. Nothing here makes it a better idea then.So we learned that the idea of a split has a reasonable level of popular support.
If you imply that people who don't care about jRPG subforum also don't care about the main division, then you are utterly mistaken. Or maybe you want to be as it helps you prove your point.We can also see that most people ignored the jRPG option. While a majority voted in favour to keep it, most really don't care. So we learned that most people don't care about the jRPG forum, but if pushed, some would rather keep it around. And if the rest don't really care, then they're mostly indifferent to whatever happens.
Well, you seem to coincidentally not see things that make your point harder to prove. There were arguments about pc vs console division, there were some valid statements against it made by myself, mondblut and some others, who I can't recall right now, but can be easily found in this and the earlier thread. Also what Turjan and made said.The discussion in this thread also virtually stopped dead the minute I made the actual change to "Console vs PC" (ignoring of course, those who still continued to raise "Classic" as an issue). From that, we can infer that most, while they care, aren't so up in arms that they immediately revolted.
Well, duh, it's a bad idea because it wouldn't work! Also no point in raising personal preference argument against people who don't share these preferences nor care about them. It's obvious that if we state some arguments against it then we don't like it and want it gone. Yeah, we are raging because we now have to browse through 2 or 3 separate subforums instead of one, but you. Don't. Fucking. Care.From the discussion in this thread we can also see that most people raise legitimate concerns around how a split would work, whether it would be confusing and what game goes where - that most complaints against the split are of the "it wouldn't work" nature, rather than being "it's just a bad idea".
Now that's just typical propaganda BS!Now - it's still early days - but since I posted yesterday saying we'd keep the current layout, the replies have been "cRPG is now readable", "Not too bad", balanced with a handful of complaints and some mostly irrelevant comments.
Yeah, it didn't. You silenced the outrage with hope that poll will change things back to normal. But as they say: it's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes. Some credit this quote to Joseph Stalin, btw.IE: It didn't start World War III, nor spawn a myriad of "merge the forums back!" topics.
I hope it will. After all, accepting inevitability or learning to adjust is what led to settling the communism for good in Eastern Europe. It took almost 50 years for people to realize they have to rise against it. Of course this case is nowhere near communism, but it just proves that people adjusted to much worse things so it means shit and certainly not that it's a good idea.Again, it's still early days but it's failed to create an overwhelming protest movement. With most either accepting inevitability or learning to adjust.
And question for you, DarkUnderlord, which you didn't answer:It's an attempt to justify personal taste execution with some far-fetched classifications.
Again, WHAT'S THE POINT?!Are you implying there were some inappropriate types of posters in old GRPG? If yes, how exactly? If not, what's the point of dividing things?
Except the fact that there are popamole in CRPG and there are proper RPGs in MfC. Where is your God now?!Sure, checking two or three forums is more inconvenient than just checking one forum.
But if you want to read about popamole or JRPGs then you should have to suffer a bit.
Your mistake is to assume the poll is a valid representation of all those who read and post in the forums in question, and whether or not that aligns with the values the staff see and the direction they'd like to see the site take. We have 800 active members visiting every day, and around 3,000 - 13,000 guests - depending on how you run the numbers. And the poll is self-selecting (you have to care about it enough and think to visit Site Feedback to comment on it).So many people (admins in this case) make mistake of doing things people would rather have done instead of doing things as they please? I see your point...Many people make the mistake of thinking polls should tell you what to do. Polls are really only an indication as to how many people are yet to be won over - or how many people care and how much they care about it.
Still less reasonable level than the idea of keeping it all together has. Nothing here makes it a better idea then.So we learned that the idea of a split has a reasonable level of popular support.
No, I'm saying 110 people voted to merge everything and then didn't bother voting specifically for the "ditch the jRPG forum" option - which was the whole point the poll was multiple choice. Might've been better if I'd just added more options that allowed that vote to be expressed, but I thought I'd try this multi-vote thing.If you imply that people who don't care about jRPG subforum also don't care about the main division, then you are utterly mistaken. Or maybe you want to be as it helps you prove your point.We can also see that most people ignored the jRPG option. While a majority voted in favour to keep it, most really don't care. So we learned that most people don't care about the jRPG forum, but if pushed, some would rather keep it around. And if the rest don't really care, then they're mostly indifferent to whatever happens.
All of which I addressed with the comment "most complaints against the split are of the 'it wouldn't work' nature".Well, you seem to coincidentally not see things that make your point harder to prove. There were arguments about pc vs console division, there were some valid statements against it made by myself, mondblut and some others, who I can't recall right now, but can be easily found in this and the earlier thread. Also what Turjan and made said.The discussion in this thread also virtually stopped dead the minute I made the actual change to "Console vs PC" (ignoring of course, those who still continued to raise "Classic" as an issue). From that, we can infer that most, while they care, aren't so up in arms that they immediately revolted.
There's a difference between @Turjan's point as to what this split is trying to accomplish, vs "people will get confused". Turjan raises a valid point (the answer to which is: to encourage discussion about specific types of games and have those discussions in their own forums, so they can be easily located by people who are particularly interested in them - without having to go to page 2 or try and find it in walls of new topics), where-as "it won't work" is purely speculative.Well, duh, it's a bad idea because it wouldn't work!From the discussion in this thread we can also see that most people raise legitimate concerns around how a split would work, whether it would be confusing and what game goes where - that most complaints against the split are of the "it wouldn't work" nature, rather than being "it's just a bad idea".
Taking your "browsing multiple forums is bad!" schtick to the nth degree - I could simply merge all threads into a single forum. But that would suck, wouldn't it? Why? Because you would have to skip over all that politics bullshit you don't want to read, the forum would move too fast and the topics you want to read would be buried underneath the avalanche of all the inane shit.Also no point in raising personal preference argument against people who don't share these preferences nor care about them. It's obvious that if we state some arguments against it then we don't like it and want it gone. Yeah, we are raging because we now have to browse through 2 or 3 separate subforums instead of one, but you. Don't. Fucking. Care.
These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other.Yeah, it didn't. You silenced the outrage with hope that poll will change things back to normal. But as they say: it's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes. Some credit this quote to Joseph Stalin, btw.IE: It didn't start World War III, nor spawn a myriad of "merge the forums back!" topics.
I hope it will. After all, accepting inevitability or learning to adjust is what led to settling the communism for good in Eastern Europe. It took almost 50 years for people to realize they have to rise against it. Of course this case is nowhere near communism, but it just proves that people adjusted to much worse things so it means shit and certainly not that it's a good idea.Again, it's still early days but it's failed to create an overwhelming protest movement. With most either accepting inevitability or learning to adjust.
I meant their major complaint that "it won't work" was incorrect - and that it does seem to actually be working.Also, stating that it's "inevitable" just proves that you are going full-scale high-handed here making full use of illusoric social support.
See above.No point in further quoting of propaganda BS, so I'll just repeat two things I wrote earlier:
And question for you, DarkUnderlord, which you didn't answer:It's an attempt to justify personal taste execution with some far-fetched classifications.
Again, WHAT'S THE POINT?!Are you implying there were some inappropriate types of posters in old GRPG? If yes, how exactly? If not, what's the point of dividing things?
You could use the "What's New?" feature and set it up to only display the three RPG forums -> http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?account/whats-newCould it be possible to hack in a read-only "virtual forum" that aggregates the contents of the three RPG forums?
Sure, checking two or three forums is more inconvenient than just checking one forum.
But if you want to read about popamole or JRPGs then you should have to suffer a bit.
Still, this 42% of disagreeing folks are the folks that mostly didn't have any problem with GRPG or they didn't state it in any significant form. Even MMXI, who originally came up with pc-console division, said he wouldn't mind merging it back. That's what some people prefer, but that's not the most suiting solution for the users as a whole. And it's not even consistent and rocksolid-based, as GRPG was. There are some crossplatform RPGs with heavy PC mod support, there are console RPGs that are closer to what you consider "a PC RPG" than some of today's PC RPGs and there are PC RPGs which are consolized to the point that console port could be made just by turning down some graphic effects, there are games inside one serie that go to different subforums. This division may be cool in theory, but in practise it's flawed and retarded. In opposite to GRPG. So we have one flawed option with minority (even though significant) for it but mostly not minding going the second option, and we have that second one pretty solid option with majority prefering it over any change. The choice is obvious.The poll isn't the be all and end all of everyone's opinion. Not saying it shouldn't be taken into consideration mind you, just saying it would be wrong to simply go "well the poll says that, so that's what we'll do". Someone is also always going to be upset, no matter what decision is made. If I took the 58% for example and merged everything, I'd have 42% of the forum disagreeing with that decision. A number that is close enough to be able to say "half the forum".
So this is about who cares more suddenly, not about what is better? Maybe it's like MOST Codex users don't give too much shit about what happens here? But that doesn't mean things should go just like few that care more want to.Re: what made said about "maybe people just can't be arsed to continue arguing about it because it's obvious you're going to ignore them and do whatever you want anyway?", I covered with my comments about how much people cared. Think of it this way: I have someone who really, really, really wants a donut. And I have someone who's fighting against that person getting a donut. I say "I'm thinking of giving him a donut". The person who's against this, at that point, gives up and goes home. Question: How much did they really care?
And what's this "specific type of games"?? PC games aren't that distinctive from console games. I made some examples above. That's the whole point - it won't work because your division exists only in your fantasies. You ended up accomplishing nothing beside boosting your butthurt egos, butthurting some other people, making even more people's lives a bit more difficult and creating a mere illusion of refined classification.Turjan raises a valid point (the answer to which is: to encourage discussion about specific types of games and have those discussions in their own forums, so they can be easily located by people who are particularly interested in them - without having to go to page 2 or try and find it in walls of new topics), where-as "it won't work" is purely speculative.
Browsing multiple forums is bad when it doesn't serve any actual purpose. And here it doesn't. Why? I wrote it two times already in this post. Because your division is not based on anything solid, it's just "games we like vs games we don't like" which (coincidentally or not) ALMOST fits the pc-console division.Taking your "browsing multiple forums is bad!" schtick to the nth degree - I could simply merge all threads into a single forum. But that would suck, wouldn't it? Why? Because you would have to skip over all that politics bullshit you don't want to read, the forum would move too fast and the topics you want to read would be buried underneath the avalanche of all the inane shit.
Except they still don't because of what I wrote three times already here. It's just a mere illusion.One of which has multiple features at their disposal to overcome their major complaint ("I have to open another forum!"), while another user group had no such option. They now have that option, without any major inconvenience to the other group.
How exactly?These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other.
Illusion, ILLUSION! It does not work, it cannot work. The criterium does not work out for the purpose.I meant their major complaint that "it won't work" was incorrect - and that it does seem to actually be working.