DF Spoilers Reference child board

[Serack]

This suggestion is a place for things like some of the DF spoilers stickies to live and otherwise be born and grow.  The FAQ section would be a good spot for stuff like this if it were allowed to be dynamic, but since others can't contribute there, the most useful things there had to be moved over to spoilers.

One of the points of making a seperate home for these, is that ones that are deemed particularly significant can be saved from oblivion via the sticky function without cluttering up the main Spoilers discussion area. 

Remember the topic built a year ago that listed every time there was a Soul Gaze?  It would have been perfect for this section, but now it is gone.  (I think I archived it on another computer though, I'll have to look later)

[Priscellie]

The question is how to avoid clutter.  If folks are allowed to post there freely, what's to prevent this board from becoming functionally identical to the Spoilers/Books sections?  If folks want to nominate certain threads for inclusion in the FAQ, that's awesome!  Frankly, that's how it was designed to work.   Folks come up with awesome things in the main boards, then the best bits are culled out and preserved under glass.  Then if more awesome stuff on the same topic is generated on the main boards, a mod can merge it in.

We want to make sure the most brilliant and useful stuff is preserved, but we need the whole community to help us identify what that is.

[Serack]

The question is how to avoid clutter.  If folks are allowed to post there freely, what's to prevent this board from becoming functionally identical to the Spoilers/Books sections?  If folks want to nominate certain threads for inclusion in the FAQ, that's awesome!  Frankly, that's how it was designed to work.   Folks come up with awesome things in the main boards, then the best bits are culled out and preserved under glass.  Then if more awesome stuff on the same topic is generated on the main boards, a mod can merge it in.

We want to make sure the most brilliant and useful stuff is preserved, but we need the whole community to help us identify what that is.

Well the FAQ is kind of off on it's own and lonely... And without member contributions, it kinda seems to stagnate... (and now has inertia towards this trend continuing IMO)  Having it as a "child board" would kinda pyscologically make it more closely associated with the discussions in the spoilers.  However I'm not confident of the best way to strike a happy medium between a behind glass museum that might be prone to stagnation and irrelivancy, and a dynamic discussion that might become functionally redundant to the other similar boards.

One possibility is to have a locked "child board" to move away from the FAQ's inactivity inertia, with multiple designated mods that actively suggest topics for porting (and ensure that they don't fall off the radar in the spoilers section) and then do whatever maintenance that might be necessary for presentation purposes.  Maybe call them curators.  My experience with my work on the WoJ section is that I can sometimes burn out and lose interest, letting some details go unfinished for a little while (I still have one GS release Q&A that I had missed in the latest big set of updates and have now been sitting on for over a month, and before that I spent quite a few months from August to Febuary mostly inactive) so having a number of people working in this capacity might be a good idea (and it is quite enjoyable to contribute in a capacity like this).

I have an image of a function of the "Curators" where they maintain a "significant theories" thread, and when a "Curator" sees a new theory that seems particularly significant contributed in the spoilers section, they say so, and suggest to the OP that they spend some time tightening up the wording and support and such for "preservation."  Then the "Curator" either requests an admin type to port over the tightened up version into this new, under glass, topic or copies it over and gives credit kind of like I do with the transcriptions.

Similar with "lists" and other reference threads like the aformentioned list of soulgazes.

[Priscellie]

That's a really awesome idea!  Bringing this to the other mods' attention.

[Serack]

Other "Curator" functions

After a new book is released, someone in the regular spoilers section might post a topic with new instances of X that has a topic in the "Reference" board, and one of the curator can copy over those instances into the topic under glass.

[Serack]

Some newish thoughts.  If this idea were to come about, there are many popular theories and topics that have been discussed multiple times, and actually some of the best discussions have probably decayed and are gone.

I can forsee a flurry of new activity in the spoilers section where new topics are started dedicated to different posters trying to come up with their best version (both in supporting evidence, and in formatting) of various popular theories like "Simon is Cowl" and various versions of "X fixed LC"

Also, I know I am not the only person that archived some of their favorite posts before they got eaten by the autodelete monster (Although my hiatus for the back half of last year saw several of my favorites get consumed before I took the trouble ), and those people might dredge up those old posts for revival too.

One other thing.  This process might help shine a light on the members that show the most enthusiasm and proclavity for building well communicated, supported, and formatted theories.  As such this might help determine who could be the best nominees for "Curators."

[knnn]

Some newish thoughts.  If this idea were to come about, there are many popular theories and topics that have been discussed multiple times, and actually some of the best discussions have probably decayed and are gone.

Indeed!  I personally lament not archiving some of the stuff I saw on forums years ago - being able to preserve future topics would be awesome.
A side thought -- does Fred perhaps have stale copies of the forum (say from 3 years ago) backuped to a hard-drive somewhere?  If such a thing existed, I would be willing overjoyed to comb through it for old posts/Jim quotes, etc.  and disseminate the information.  I could probably also try to find a way to host it (with all the threads locked), or else a way to allow others to make their own local copies.

I can forsee a flurry of new activity in the spoilers section where new topics are started dedicated to different posters trying to come up with their best version (both in supporting evidence, and in formatting) of various popular theories like "Simon is Cowl" and various versions of "X fixed LC"

Also, I know I am not the only person that archived some of their favorite posts before they got eaten by the autodelete monster (Although my hiatus for the back half of last year saw several of my favorites get consumed before I took the trouble ), and those people might dredge up those old posts for revival too.

{raises hand}  I resemble that remark.   

One other thing.  This process might help shine a light on the members that show the most enthusiasm and proclavity for building well communicated, supported, and formatted theories.  As such this might help determine who could be the best nominees for "Curators."

Interesting idea.  The only problem I foresee with this is kind of thing is that it looks like you need the child board (and the curators to run it) in order to run this type of competition in the first place.  At the very least, you'd need someone to score the various submissions.

One possible way to organize would be as follows:

1) Open up a new child board to everyone on a trial basis for an entire month.
2) Let anyone submit a theory/list/resource.  It must be well described, researched, readable, etc.
3) The only type of response allowed to such a thread would be a post with an alternative, complete re-write of the entire theory.  Anything less would not be considered. 
4) After the month trial period, someone (by vote, moderators, whatever) decides who gets to be a Curator.

- Obviously this is a lot of work so maybe one could make things simpler by just creating a thread for nominating existing posts/threads/users, or maybe by limiting the amount of posting in the new board to 3-5 submissions per person during the trial run.

[Serack]

Interesting idea.  The only problem I foresee with this is kind of thing is that it looks like you need the child board (and the curators to run it) in order to run this type of competition in the first place.  At the very least, you'd need someone to score the various submissions.

One possible way to organize would be as follows:

1) Open up a new child board to everyone on a trial basis for an entire month.
2) Let anyone submit a theory/list/resource.  It must be well described, researched, readable, etc.
3) The only type of response allowed to such a thread would be a post with an alternative, complete re-write of the entire theory.  Anything less would not be considered. 
4) After the month trial period, someone (by vote, moderators, whatever) decides who gets to be a Curator.

- Obviously this is a lot of work so maybe one could make things simpler by just creating a thread for nominating existing posts/threads/users, or maybe by limiting the amount of posting in the new board to 3-5 submissions per person during the trial run.

The issue with this is that the administration seems to be genuinely and justifiably concerned that an open reference forum would overshadow/redundify the other discussion boards. 

Most of those functions can be accomidated by the present spoilers section.  Also, since the spoilers section is for discussion and because of how so many of these discussions go for reference like threads and good theories, several of the responses will inevitably be good suggestions for editing rather than complete reworks.  Which makes complete sense, because if someone can think of a minor suggestion, why should they have to submit an entire new version to bring it up?

[Priscellie]

Maybe we could have a rule where members can't do a write-up of a thread/theory/whatevs less than a month old, to force the actual discussion and development of those ideas to stay in the Spoliers/Books sections?

[Serack]

Maybe we could have a rule where members can't do a write-up of a thread/theory/whatevs less than a month old, to force the actual discussion and development of those ideas to stay in the Spoliers/Books sections?

However, a good theory is one that people will want to contribute to and discuss.  I can see the case for board antiredundancy.  And someone might write a theory addressing who fixed LC from an overarching perspective, while someone else wants to post a more narrow Doylist analysis of the timeline.  Two threads on LC in one month...  Who decides that they are diverse enough to be allowed to be posted in the same month?  I agree the earlier suggestions of letting them undergo discussion and mature in the spoilers section, then if they are demed to have enough gravity, port them over to behind the glass.

[Priscellie]

Hmm.  I wonder if we can rig the new board so only Curators (and mods/admins) can create new threads there, but anyone can reply?  Then as the discussion develops, the curator can modify his/her initial post to include the new ideas generated, so it remains definitive.  No glass, but with a better signal to noise ratio than the Spoilers/Books fora?  It may also be wise to ask that Curators not modify other Curators' topics without permission/approval, to protect their work.  We can also create a hidden board that only the Curators (and mods/admins) can see, so they can privately discuss board organization and other Curator-y matters.  Working together, they can keep redundancy at a minimum.

My only concern is that this may come across as elitist, having one person per topic charged with dictating what information is preserved and integrated into the main post.  Proponents of less popular theories (or at least, theories that deviate from that Curator's vision) may feel sidelined.  We want to make sure everyone feels heard.

I do like knnn's idea of allowing anyone to "audition" for Curatorship.  I already have some folks I'd joyously deputize immediately, but I don't want to deny anyone the opportunity to step up and contribute to the forum in an awesome way.  Maybe in addition to the first batch of Curators, we can have a secondary member ranking of "Curator Candidate," who have two months to demonstrate their worthiness before being evaluated by the existing Curators and Mods.

[Serack]

Hmm.  I wonder if we can rig the new board so only Curators (and mods/admins) can create new threads there, but anyone can reply?  Then as the discussion develops, the curator can modify his/her initial post to include the new ideas generated, so it remains definitive.  No glass, but with a better signal to noise ratio than the Spoilers/Books fora?  It may also be wise to ask that Curators not modify other Curators' topics without permission/approval, to protect their work.  We can also create a hidden board that only the Curators (and mods/admins) can see, so they can privately discuss board organization and other Curator-y matters.  Working together, they can keep redundancy at a minimum.

My only concern is that this may come across as elitist, having one person per topic charged with dictating what information is preserved and integrated into the main post.  Proponents of less popular theories (or at least, theories that deviate from that Curator's vision) may feel sidelined.  We want to make sure everyone feels heard.

I do like knnn's idea of allowing anyone to "audition" for Curatorship.  I already have some folks I'd joyously deputize immediately, but I don't want to deny anyone the opportunity to step up and contribute to the forum in an awesome way.  Maybe in addition to the first batch of Curators, we can have a secondary member ranking of "Curator Candidate," who have two months to demonstrate their worthiness before being evaluated by the existing Curators and Mods.

This model is much more accommodating for things like the timeline thread. 

As for the elitist concerns, if the new "board" is locked from having new topics, but existing topics are fair game for new posts, then anyone in the regular spoilers section has the option of developing a well written and supported counter theory, garnering enthusiasm for it being worthy of becoming a reference, and requesting that it get ported over.  This ported topic could then have its OP edited by its non curator originator, and gives an avenue for auditioning type stuff too.

Something to consider:  I suggest a moratorium on new reference theories based on new material from early release sample chapters and maybe for a small time (a month?) after the release of a new novel.  This allows for a measure of maturation of these theories in the normal spoilers section, keeps it a viable place for discussion, and helps keep transient theories from drowning out the long lived, more significant ones in the reference section, without having to worry as much about the initial winnowing being tainted by an elitist judgement call.

(sorry for the long time between responses, 15 hour drive after working 9 hours, concluded by the feverish onset of a cold... Great start to my vacation)

[knnn]

My main concern for allow anyone to post in "special" thread is that our posts tend to roam way off topic.  Any such permanent threads may well become targets for such behavior and worse (obvious trolling and spam are easily culled, but I submit that it is not always obvious).

In any case, if the main issue here is the stagnation of the FAQ, we might be able to start with something smaller in scope:

Let's start a "theory of the week" thread in the DF spoilers section, where we invite specific people to post a theory (we might mandate it to specifically be not one of theirs to encourage impartiality), under some carefully designed format (citations, etc.), and let everybody comment on it for one week.  The original author would then need to modify the post to accommodate everyone's alternatives, cite all constructive responses and submit it as a post in the FAQ (or some other "nearly-FAQ" board).

This way, we:
1) Continually get new material evolving in the FAQ.  One new thread each week would contribute a single post (the modified OP) to the FAQ.

2) Encourage people to participate (both in constructive comments and in formulating the various theories).  The chance to have your words (especially if your name is explicited cited) preserved "under glass" is a nice prize.

3) After the first few weeks, we might invite others to be the OP in the next "theory of the week" thread, or perhaps expand it to include other useful pieces of information (e.g. "minor things to note in Grave Peril", "Possible discrepancies", etc.)

---------

Later on down the line (assuming this endeavor is successful), these could be the seeds of the Curator board.  At this point we could perhaps also run some polls, such as which theories to do next, who should be given a chance to do write up, whatever. 

[Serack]

Revisiting this idea, and summarizing my concept of how something like this could work.

The title would be something like "Dresden Files Spoilers Reference collection"

Most of the reference style stickies in the Spoilers would be moved here but would not necessarily be stickies here. 

Stickies that would be there are.

References and Theories Index
Nominate a Theory/Reference post for inclusion in this Archive
Help point out rampant derailment here (not confident on this one being a good idea)

If possible, anyone can post in this section, but only Curators (Local Mods) and admin types can start new topics.  However, it is expected that many of the topics are going to be generated in and do some maturing in the regular Spoilers section and then get ported over via the nomination sticky => Admin action.  This means that the OP will still have editing rights for their OP, which helps a lot for reference topic creators, and excessive pertying up editors like myself.

New idea:
We could even have something like a monthly poll (to be deleted afterwards maybe) that takes all the nominated and seconded theories for that month and allows X number of votes out of Y number of theories, allowing for wide participation in deciding what theories get ported, and ensuring that the initial discussion gets accomplished in the main discussion section.  The nomination sticky might get locked the first month after a release, and the # of threads allowed in monthly might float some depending on the # of nominees.
Edit:  For the first month or so of nominations we might have to have multiple category polls like Best LC theories, Best References, best GS born Theories...
Edit2:  I'm really fleshing this out.  Each time we do a poll/set of polls, a new nomination sticky gets generated, the previous one gets unstickied, edited to show the nominies polled and eventually the results, and the old polls are deleted relying on the old sticky to record their results.

One more thing:
There ought to be some mechanism that encourages actions like Elegast's where a good theory post with little/no format editing gets reworked without changing the theory, and the OP utilizes these efforts.  I have a hard time expressing how excited I was to see such a great formatting rework of such a well put together theory. 

[knnn]

There ought to be some mechanism that encourages actions like Elegast's where a good theory post with little/no format editing gets reworked without changing the theory, and the OP utilizes these efforts.  I have a hard time expressing how excited I was to see such a great formatting rework of such a well put together theory.

In general, I am quite impressed with Elegast's efforts.  He hasn't been on the forums long, yet he's done a very good job of foraging through the various theories (old and new) and putting his own spin on things.  It's always interesting to read his posts.

Specifically regarding re-formatting - I very much agree. I'll go a step further and actually say that I would prefer a write-up from a different author (specifically not the originator of the theory - I personally find that I can get very defensive of my own theories, and have to work hard to remain impartial).