Minecraft Forums

Quote from Dante80

In regards to the proposed restructuring of the Mapping and Modding community subforums, here is some feedback that could help with dealing with the problems this restructure strives to solve, while keeping compatibility with the community's wishes as high as possible. This proposal is made with the texture pack subforum in mind, and is posted to provide community feedback on both the problems the section has, and the structure we believe will be the most flexible and effective in countering said problems while at the same time promoting community growth and development.

PROBLEMS WITH THE CURSE PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING

• There is not subforum for texture creating discussion and related content. A simple glimpse at the current texture pack section will show that the community adds content in discussions about texturing tutorials, creative contests, texture pack review channels or topics, help/feedback on graphic making programs, general discussion on MC version texture changes etc etc. The proposed structure has no provision for ANY texture pack related discussion that is not an entry.
• The proposed 4(5?) way split of texture pack entries will destroy the current community structure and discussion in the section.

1. For starters, most/all texture packs are de facto and de jure WIP projects, as their respective creators always strive to make them better based on community feedback and support, and are always updating their entries with new content. It is both counterproductive to impose a subjective threshold on what is considered a WIP project vs a legitimate entry, especially since certain creators specialize in certain texture categories (like modding support, mob or item texturing).
2. The bug and help/use sections are absolutely redundant when texture packs are concerned. Texture packs are not mods to need those sections. Bugs for certain textures inside a pack can be discussed in the texture pack entry, and all the help needed to install a pack can be contained in a simple paragraph in the topic OP.
3. The splitting of the actual entry from the discussion about it is an exercise in futility. It produces multiple entries for the SE, disrupts user experience when accessing the section and impedes community feedback on a certain entry by having the user go to a different section to comment on said entry.
4. Splitting the content on MC version based formatting will produce a multitude of search engine entries given the current and historical MC development cycle and also introduce a variety of problems in certain projects that are either community/fan driven for update or rely on community feedback TO update.
5. We understand the planned use of tags for optimizing search queries for each section according to MC version and type of content, but sadly thats not how the userbase searches for entries right now (and it will be very had to change that in the foreseeable future). The user searches for an entry relying on 2 things. Name of the entry and -possibly- resolution.
6. The introduction of that many sections will have an adverse effect on the current sticky section topics, both in their content creation/addition and feedback aspects.
7. Content contribution for new texture creators is gravely inhibited by the proposed complexity of the restructuring. If with the current, basic structure needed for a new entry we have maybe 15 entries per day that do not comply with it in some/all aspects, just take the time and think please what will happen after the proposed structure takes effect.
8. The addition of the version, type of content and additional rule filters in the texture pack section will have a grave effect on the amount of work needed by the volunteer sectional moderators to try and have the community to adapt and preserve said filters when adding content.

PROPOSED STRUCTURE FOR THE TEXTURE PACK COMMUNITY SECTION

Posting Content Rules on these forums
ALL General Forum posting Rules also apply


A content provider is someone posting a language pack, map, mod ,texture pack, Tool. etc for people to download

• Content Provider would write their thread once per texture pack entry, only in the Texture pack entries section.
• Content providers must clearly state and link to any pre-requisites (threads) required to installing their content.
• Content providers must also Only post and link to d/loads of their own work, (in whole or or part thereof) or that they have written permission to re-distribute. attached within their distribution and stated clearly in their OP thread.
• 1 mod, texture pack,etc.. / thread not as is it used to be one content provider / thread , to make it easier for members to find mods without having to know authors name.

Reporting a post:

• Only original content authors (or their proxy) can report copy infringement , they must also provide a link to original material that they have written (if you spot anything like this then contact the original content author so they can submit a report)
• Original content authors can nominate up to 3 delegates from the community that can report copy infringement.

By posting on these forums you agree to abide by the above set of simple rules



Proposed structure
-Texture packs
-----------------------------Texture pack entries
-------------------------------------- example topic [TP1_8][16x16] My Texture Pack [v1.00] L/U 20110731 (yyyymmdd)
-----------------------------Texture pack discussion
-----------------------------Older/Archived Texture pack entries

• L/U = Last updated in sortable numerical date order (no matter where people come from)
• [16X16] = an example of resolution the TP uses. Helps with search query optimization without the need to make section subforums for certain resolutions.
• the Tags: eg [TP1_8] are there because the search engine doesn’t recognize periods , and require at least 4 letters

Comments
Texture pack creators make one entry/topic for each of their texture packs. The entry is formatted as the example shown above, and any/every additional info the creator wants to put in the entry title can be put on the topic description, NOT the title.

The texture pack discussion subforum does not contain texture pack entries, but serves as a place to discuss texture creation for the game. All general or specialized threads for texturing tutorials, help, popularity polls, review topics etc should go there. No title formatting is needed. In essence, the discussion subforum contains everything but the actual texture pack entries.

Ongoing discussion, bug support and feedback for a said texture pack entry is done in the entry thread. When the topic meets a certain number of posts (and thus becomes a server resource liability), it can be split into a current entry topic (preserving the title formatting used) and a numbered discussion archive topic that goes to the old/archived entry section. Texture creators can link to older discussion archives of their packs in their current entry thread.


WHY SUCH A CHANGE SHOULD IMPLEMENTED

The current proposed restructuring of the texture pack section has already alienated a good portion of the creative artists involved in the thematic discussion. Almost all of the changes hinted on this announcement are actually counter-productive in solving the problems they try to address. Content organization in thematic forum discussions should be helpful enough to further the discussion itself, and at the same time flexible enough to account for quantity or quality issues of added content with the minimal amount of needed moderation and/or secondary screening.

We firmly believe that constructive criticism and idea fusion can provide a better solution both for the community and the administration, and implore you to at least address the points given in the above proposal.

With kind regards,
(artist/member username with link to endorse post)






................................


Ok guys, this is a rough draft, it can get us started on working to make it better and more compelling as a counter proposal. Feel free to post amendments or changes needed, and then we can move this to a new thread for signing before presenting it to the administration.

Remember guys and gals, we have to work together on this if we stand a chance on reverting/changing this restructuring proposal. The administration and userbase should be united in making this community thrive for all of us. I firmly believe that a compromise can be reached for the common good.

But we can only reach it united. Cheers...^^

Quote from evercharmer

Dante80, that is an amazing proposal. There is one thing I can think to suggest when it comes to reducing server strain, however. At the Bethesda Softwork forums, they lock threads after 10 pages. It's no longer necessary as they can certainly afford servers to take whatever strains, but it sticks around to help keep things tidy. I'd say suggest something more like 15 pages, though. At the Bethesda Softwork forums, when it gets around page 9 the OP will make a new thread for their content and link to that in anticipation of the lock, asking everyone to move their discussion there. Then the thread is locked and we all move on. If the thread gets to page 10 and the author is nowhere to be found, the thread is locked anyways and the author can make a new one when they come back. Because the old one is locked, nobody can bump it up. (NOTE: Locking is not the same as deleting. The thread remains visible for everyone to read, and eventually is purged from the system. I don't know how often that would happen around here, though. Hell, I don't know how often that happens at the Bethesda Forums, lol. But usually thread makers will link to old threads in the first post so people can read through them and see if they have similar issues to old posters.)


I also have a question to people who want the division based on resolution: What about packs that have several resolutions? I'm not directly opposed to the idea, but I'm not sure where those would go, either. Also, what about some of the odder resolutions popping up now?

Quote from Lilyo

Could you add a second question that asks if people think a discussion subforum like dante said would help?
I feel like gestenfaust (stupid name) should unsticky the remix discussion thread and sticky this one. Can someone PM him?

Also at above, what are you on about with locking threads? Thats a horrible way ofdoing things...