+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Waterfront District (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Operations Center (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-17.html)
+--- Thread: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server (/thread-8427.html)
RE: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server - Kris Kringle - 10-04-2020
Would #legislators-lounge really be open to all citizens, even if sensitive topics might be discussed?
RE: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server - Somyrion - 10-04-2020
One channel I added to my version of the unified server outline was an #applications-center channel just above #government-discussion. Currently, each ministry server has its own applications channel. At the very least, it posts a link to an application thread in its welcome channel. Obviously, doing that in a unified server doesn't really work: you don't especially want the single #welcome channel getting clogged up with five different ministries' applications. The #applications-center channel was meant to host all the ministries' applications in a single location -- and potentially, if we got a unified application working, it could serve as a sort of "civil service registration office" for people to ask questions about signing up for ministries. I'm curious as to why it's been removed from the plan.
(10-04-2020, 05:42 AM)Roavin Wrote: Some ideas I have to consider:
- We have 2-3 separate spam channels, depending on how one sees it. Maybe merge them?
- What if the "Lobby" becomes the seaport and only includes the welcome and announcement channels (and maybe a "geting-help" channel or such), while the "Spam & Specifics" category is renamed "Lampshade District" and becomes the sort of "community" category
- A #getting-help channel for anybody to get help, be it from mods, admins, or whatever else.
I like all of these ideas, though I'm least sure about the first one. I'd be perfectly fine eliminating the #meme-island channel altogether, but we also want to be sure people realize that #drama-llama-palooza is for sharing music, art, and writing. Not anything at all that comes in a visual format.
(10-04-2020, 05:47 AM)Nakari Wrote: I like the getting help channel. Depending on how sensitive it's expected to be, could always remove message history for it?
I think it would be nice to have an all-ministries lounge, might be a convenient place for ministries to collaborate.
I believe we currently have quite a few archived channels still publicly visible - how would people feel about making them invisible?
I'm not sure an all-ministries lounge is totally necessary. My feeling is that, given the number of TSPers who are involved in at least one ministry, it would end up looking not much different from #government-discussion. As Roavin said, real inter-ministry coordination could take place in #cabinet-office if private, and in #government-discussion if public.
(10-04-2020, 11:38 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Honestly, embassy channels are rarely utilized. I’m not convinced we need them, rather than have a single “diplomacy row” channel or something.
I'm inclined to agree, but I think that's something for the MoFA to decide. No harm in leaving them around now (because that's how the MoFA is currently set up) but pressuring the MoFA to remove them later as a policy choice.
(10-04-2020, 12:23 PM)Pronoun Wrote: To my understanding the OWL drafting and discussion channels are currently open to all citizens who are interested and join the server. Is it possible to keep #ga-discussion-drafting and #sc-discussion-drafting open to citizens who are interested?
OWL discussion and drafting channels should still be open to all citizens, yes.
(10-04-2020, 12:23 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Would #legislators-lounge really be open to all citizens, even if sensitive topics might be discussed?
I don't believe that's actually the intention. I imagine it would stay the way it currently is.
RE: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server - Purple Hyacinth - 10-14-2020
Why is Citizen's Court only visible to citizens under Roavin's plan, when the channels were open to everybody in the current setup?
RE: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server - Roavin - 10-14-2020
On #legislators-lounge: Yeah that'd be legislators only still ofc, sorry that I didn't specify in the overview I gave above.
On #meme-island vs #coconut-grove: Looking at it, it does look like the content there is in both cases frequent enough and different enough that they deserve to be separate channels so I'd keep it that way for now.
On the Citizen's Court visibility: That's just an organizational aspect of things. Citizens now have their own corner, which they never had before, while the new #nationstates-corner channel still allows friends (and foes) from elsewhere to participate in our discussions. We could absolutely be convinced otherwise if it's controversial or problematic.
On the public OWL channels: If those are to be public, wouldn't it make sense to have those in the Citizen's Court rather than the OWL category, then? A key paradigm here is making only relevant categories appear.
RE: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server - Pronoun - 10-15-2020
(10-14-2020, 09:42 PM)Roavin Wrote: A key paradigm here is making only relevant categories appear.
I agree — but my assumption would be that putting them in the OWL category would allow users who are not interested to collapse that entire category and hide all OWL-related channels?
RE: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server - Roavin - 10-15-2020
Sure, but the category would still appear in that case.
RE: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server - Somyrion - 10-15-2020
Doesn't matter much to me on OWL, so long as the appropriate people have the appropriate permissions.
RE: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server - Farengeto - 10-20-2020
To echo the calls on Discord for the past week: save the Court channel.
RE: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server - Roavin - 10-20-2020
Why should the Court channel be saved? Or, why should it be archived?
Note in general: The "why" is more important than the "what".
RE: [DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server - Penguin - 10-20-2020
(10-20-2020, 03:03 PM)Roavin Wrote: Why should the Court channel be saved? Or, why should it be archived?
Note in general: The "why" is more important than the "what".
Well for starters - Indiana Pictures. 2nd - every other branch of the government has a channel for needs and while the Court doesn't have a lot of things happening all the time, keeping them there and on the forums is nifty doodle. C) I would like to reiterate Indiana Pictures E) It gives the appropriate place for people to ask questions When a Justice has posted something.