Scrapping Private Game Status
 

PLEASE READ THIS EXTENSION AND UPDATE - Rigo

We are considering removing the facility for games to be made private.

Private threads and private tags will still be around and function as they always have.

There are some technical issues with private games which arise periodically which require admin attention to fix by hand edits. A few days ago we discussed and began looking at coding a fix. It's a significant amount of effort to apply the fix.

Later when fixing one of the problems by hand it became apparent that a lot of games now seem to move from advertising to private in a way that wasn't envisaged. We seem to be moving gradually towards "private" being the norm for games which have finished advertising.

We discussed the idea of not allowing games which have attached adverts to be made private. The code to maintain private games has tentacles affecting many other parts of the code meaning the effort required to maintain this feature for the small number of unadvertised games becomes prohibitive.

A significant problem with private games is the restriction it paces on the ability of GMs to check out players existing games and vice versa for players checking GMs. Among the most effective actions which can be taken to avoid failed games is checking out a member's existing games and the growth in the unintended use of private status increases game failure rates.

Another problem is that games are joint property formed by the collaboration of players and GM, if a player is removed from the game he/she no longer has access to what is his/her joint intellectual property.

EDIT: Part of the issue is, it seems, we're not doing a very good idea of enforcing private games as currently envisioned. Arella's post reveals that, and also makes the point about all the tendrils this feature needs to have, and the additional effort in supporting it going forward.

All of which leads us to the position that our best course of action is to remove the private game feature altogether but we didn't want to go ahead without discussing with the membership first.

Comments?

PLEASE READ THIS EXTENSION AND UPDATE - Rigo

As someone who doesn't use private games, the loss of them won't affect me at all. Will this affect making threads or parts of posts private?

Edit: I tallied the responses (in an entirely unscientific manner: I tried not to double count people who posted multiple times, and had to interpret some responses to fit them into categories)

Have No Opinion: 13
Unreservedly For Abolishing: 20
For, But With Reservations: 10
Against, But With Reservations: 15
Unreservedly Against Abolishing: 12

If you count the number of people who (like myself) said they'd never used it and wouldn't miss it as "Have No Opinion", then sentiment is pretty closely balanced, with more people certain that they'd like it gone, than people who are certain they want it kept.

Nope, won't affect anything else, we will just be removing the ability to set the game status to private.

I personally do not have an issue with this, tho I am sure that there will be plenty of reasons NOT to do this.

I do like having the game private to set up things in regards to posting pre-game threads (houserules, IC/OOC sections, game-world lore, etc.) before starting an ad or inviting players.

I think that having a Private function is a necessary feature as it has been a part of the site for quite some time. Like I said, I do not have an issue with this as Most folks will just work around not having a private game.

So... yea or nay? neutral... :p

That's why we've posted this thread with our thoughts instead of just enacting it. We like to consider ourselves pretty smart folks, but even we can't know every way that our website is being used.

That said - why is it necessary to make a game private before you advertise it? What are the chances someone's going to stumble upon it, and what would the consequences be if they did?

hmmm... good point. I have done searches for specific game systems and come across tons (ok... a few) games and I guess that it being seen shouldnt be relevant as they cannot access the threads anyhow. I see your dilemma in regards to the true purpose of keeping this around. Everyone should have access to all the material they post here on the site. I would not need to worry about the private function as you could even post it as private for <"player"> if you wanted to keep it from being seen by others especially if you wanted to have a campaign remain hidden from others that may want to join if you ever started it again.

I support this change.

I also support this change- especially if it makes life easier for those of you generous enough with your time to help run the forums.

I've seen private games on other forums used to delve into the seedy while still complying with the PG-13 standard (M standard for those of you outside the US), but since Myth-weavers doesn't allow that (which I why I game here instead of questionable-seediness-ville) it seems like redundant functionality.

- Logain

I'm all for whatever makes life easier for the staff.

I'd be fine without the ability to create private games. I can create private threads wherever necessary.