19 votes

Groups Suggestion: Game Design and Game Development

No big deal, this suggestion is just twenty-three days late. I was actually writing a comment to suggest these groups when the group suggestion topic was locked. Professional levels of procrastination ensued, causing this to be delayed until now.

Please keep in mind that I'm making this suggestion and proposing these ideas for the immediate inclusion of these groups. Potential future features that might affect the placement of these groups aren't something this suggestion is concerned with.

I'd also like to point out that there is definitely some overlap between the subjects of the two groups I'll be suggesting. How that might be handled in the future (such as cross-posting and shared comment sections between groups) is another thing I'm not concerned about at the moment.


Subject

It would be nice if we could have groups for discussion about game design and game development, so I'd like to go ahead and suggest those groups.

The idea is to have both a game design group and a game development group. The relationship between these two groups would be similar to the relationship between ~tech and ~comp. The game design group would be for more general discussion about the design of games. The game development group would be for more "technical" discussion about the creation of games. By "technical" I mean "specialized", not "technological". So, content in the game development group would not be just about programming, it would be for any of the specialized aspects of game development, such as level design, art design, asset pipelines, QA testing, and a myriad of other subjects.

The game design group would be for discussion about the design of games. The game development group would be for discussion about the process of building games.

Now that I've explained the subjects and distinctions of each group, let's move on to the more contentious topics of when, where, how, and why to create these groups.


When

When should these groups be created?

If you ask me, I'd say "soon". As in, tomorrow, next week, or whenever the rest of the new groups are created. There's a decent amount of topics tagged with gamedev already, with several more being posted every month. Topics tagged with game design are slightly less popular than topics tagged gamedev, but only by one or two topics. Both of these subjects are very easy to source content for, so I don't doubt I'd have an easy time populating these groups with content, just like I do with ~comp. I'd also personally be more active in these groups than I would in ~comp because, as much as I like to post topics about programming languages or whatever, I don't usually feel knowledgeable, confident, or qualified enough to really get into discussions about those articles. (One day...)

On the other hand, any schmuck can come by and give their opinion on a game's design. I've done it several times already.

So, I think that answers the questions of whether these subjects have or would have enough content to be worthy of their own groups.

However, the bigger question here is, in my opinion, will ~games have enough content left if both of these groups are created?

Yes, it will. Go browse ~games right now and count the topics yourself.


Where

Where should these groups be placed in the hierarchy?

This is the part of this suggestion that I'm least enthusiastic about discussing, because the placement of topics is almost always a contentious subject.

Let me start by saying that there has been some previous discussion about the separation of ~games into subgroups based around digital/video/computer games and analogue/tabletop/traditional games. It may end up being that we get a ~games.digital and a ~games.analogue (which I unironically like the most compared to ~games.tabletop or ~games.video or whatever else). We may even only get ~games.digital and have the ~games top level default to analogue game content. Personally, I think ~games.digital and ~games.analogue is cleaner.

Whatever, my point is, if we get both a group for digital games and a group for analogue games, or even if we only get one of those, I think we should initially just have ~games.design be the only game design group and it would include game design content for both digital games and analogue games.

At the same time, the reasons for wanting a separation of digital game and analogue game content in ~games could hold true for the ~games.design group as well, in that the digital content might overwhelm the analogue content.

So, where, when, and how many game design groups we should create is kind of just up in the air until we know how ~games is going to be modified. I think the cleanest solution would be to just have ~games.design regardless of what digital or analogue specific subgroups we get, but I can understand the reason for wanting separate digital and analogue game design groups as well. I don't particularly care how it gets set up, so long as it does get set up.


Then there's the game development group, which is a whole other ball game.

As for the name of the game development group, I think ~gamedev is the most immediate, obvious choice.

Typically, "gamedev" or "game development" means "video game development" and I was initially of the opinion that the game development group should only be for digital game development.

However, I think we would be better off by bucking the rule that "gamedev" means "video game development" and also accept analogue game development content in ~gamedev. The downside to allowing analogue content in ~gamedev is that, in my experience, analogue game development content is most often synonymous with analogue game design content, but I think we'd be better off allowing both digital and analogue content in ~gamedev at first and just see how it goes. If there's too much overlap with analogue content between ~gamedev and ~games.design, then a stance could be taken.

Alright, the group would accept digital and analogue content, it would be called ~gamedev, but where should it be called ~gamedev?

The location of the game development group is going to, I think, have a great effect on the culture of that group over time. For that reason, I strongly think ~gamedev should be its own top level group.

At first glance, you're probably thinking that doesn't make much sense compared to just having ~games.gamedev or even ~comp.gamedev, but thinking about the placement of the game development group strictly based on nomenclature could lead to disastrous consequences for the development of that group over time.

Think about the relationship between ~tech and ~comp. There's certainly a lot of overlap between those two groups, but ~comp is easily defined as a place for more specialized content versus the general, more approachable, overarching content of ~tech. That specialization is important. It's basically the only thing separating ~tech and ~comp, but it's imperative for the culture and development of those two groups.

Preserving the specialization of ~comp, especially as an entirely separate, top level group from ~tech is going to, I think, make the experience much better over time for the users who participate in ~comp.

If we were to tie the game development group much closer to the more generalized ~games and ~games.design groups in the hierarchy, I think that would ensure that the content of ~gamedev would be less specialized by way of "contamination". I say this because it would put ~gamedev in closer proximity to what would inevitably be a much larger network of consumers rather than developers. Having an overwhelming crowd of game consumers so close to a space meant for the development of games could make it difficult to discuss aspects of the gaming industry where consumers and developers differ on opinion and practice.

Similarly, I think placing the game development group under a group like ~comp would not only contaminate the game development group, but also contaminate ~comp itself, as the goal of the game development group would be to include content not just about programming, but about all aspects of creating games. Some of ~gamedev's subjects just wouldn't be a good fit for the more narrow focus of ~comp. (And ~tech, as an alternative parent group, is too general, so we once again run into the issue of contamination.)

Being a group dedicated to specialized content, I think ~gamedev deserves its own specialized space.

So, I think the game development group should just be ~gamedev. Give it its own, top level space and let's call it a day.


How
from tildes.models.group import Group
request.db_session.add(Group('games.design'))
request.db_session.add(Group('gamedev'))
request.tm.commit()

this is a joke


Why

We're lucky enough to have a handful of users on Tildes already who are not only interested in the development and design of games, but who are actually undertaking the journey of building their own games as well, both digital and analogue.

Aside from them, we also have a strong coalition of users who are knowledgeable enough to effectively engage in discussion on both the subjects of game design and game development.

The gaming industry is a brutal, rapidly evolving, increasingly popular, and increasingly profitable newcomer to the realm of entertainment. Despite its relative youth however, it has already proven itself capable of shaping our society in very meaningful ways. Whether it be groups of friends dungeon diving at a table, the potential malice of microtransactions, or even the dark underbelly of the Internet harassing game journalists, the gaming industry is only going to continue to grow and have a greater influence in our lives and the lives of those around us.

At the center of this behemoth industry are the people who actually design and build these games. They're some of the most intelligent, passionate people on the planet and from them millions of others are inspired every year to take up the noble mantle of creation. It would be foolish of us not to eventually carve out spaces dedicated to these subjects where these people could congregate and exchange their ideas, experiences, and opinions.


17 comments

  1. [15]
    Algernon_Asimov
    Link
    I'll start by lodging the obligatory objection to "analogue" being used to describe board games. Even though I'm the one who raised this name in the group proposals thread, it was a joke. I didn't...

    I'll start by lodging the obligatory objection to "analogue" being used to describe board games. Even though I'm the one who raised this name in the group proposals thread, it was a joke. I didn't mean it to be taken seriously. I have never heard anyone refer to board games as "analogue games". While this nomenclature might make sense to people who focus on games in the digital space, because analogue is the complement to digital, it does not make sense to us actual boardgamers because we do not define our gaming as "not digital".

    Groups need to be discoverable and comprehensible. Most people would know what ~games.boardgames or even ~games.tabletop is for. They will not know what ~games.analogue is for.


    With that out of the way, I think it makes sense to have separate design and development sub-groups under each of ~games.video and ~games.tabletop:

    The design paradigms for video games and tabletop games are different, as are the development processes for each one.

    And, with @Deimos probably building a feature to subscribe to tags (source), it will become possible to subscribe to "design" or "gamedev" if one wants to see all design & development posts about video games and tabletop games.


    Finally... to throw the cat among the pigeons....

    @NaraVara's proposal for a ~design group got a lot of support. If @Deimos decides to create that group (my bet is that he will, based on such a strong groundswell of opinion in its favour), then would it make sense to create ~design.games?

    6 votes
    1. [14]
      cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      It's also worth noting that many video games systems also use "analogue" stick controllers as well.. which makes that term even more ambiguous and confusing to use for tabletop games. And I 100%...

      It's also worth noting that many video games systems also use "analogue" stick controllers as well.. which makes that term even more ambiguous and confusing to use for tabletop games.

      And I 100% agree with your suggested ~‍games.video/tabletop.design/development hierarchy, since I really don't think gamedev should be a top level group when not even programming is... and likely won't be? since it will prob be ~comp.programming.

      However, I don't think ~design.games actually makes much sense, since even though it has the word "design" in it, game design is rather distinct from most other fields of design, e.g. fashion, consumer products (i.e. industrial design), urban planning, architecture, etc.

      5 votes
      1. [12]
        hungariantoast
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        If we do get a ~design group and we can have synonymous groups, then I think ~design.games would be fine, but only if it's a shared space with the same content as ~games.design. Otherwise, if...

        If we do get a ~design group and we can have synonymous groups, then I think ~design.games would be fine, but only if it's a shared space with the same content as ~games.design. Otherwise, if we're limited to a singular placement, I think ~games.design (or derivatives) works best.


        EDIT: After giving it more thought, I don't think it really matters this early on where the game development group is placed. The issue with developer representation being overwhelmed by consumer opinions from a ~games parent group is only something that would really become a problem with a much larger userbase. So, for now I think it would be fine to put a game development group under ~games as ~games.development or whatever derivatives we end up with. If consumer ideology interfering and overpowering the developer-centric discussion of the group becomes an issue in the future, then we can just move the group.

        I sort of changed my mind on this, but I'm going to leave the rest of this comment regardless.


        As for ~gamedev:

        You mentioned programming not getting its own top level group, but programming as a subject fits very cleanly into ~comp, and that means that having a ~comp.programming subgroup would create very little friction between the child and parent groups.

        Game development as a subject doesn't fit cleanly anywhere, neither in ~games, ~comp, or ~tech.

        Only some of the content of a game development group would be relevant to ~comp, programming, or computer science. A lot of its content wouldn't though.

        As for ~games:

        Keep in mind, ~games is for "News and discussion about games of all types - video games, tabletop games, board games, etc." Game development doesn't really fit cleanly into that description.

        Descriptions can be modified however, so let's talk about the bigger issue: contamination.

        ~games is, without a doubt, a consumer-oriented group. By putting a game development group that would be developer-oriented underneath ~games in the hierarchy, I think we'd be guaranteeing a lower quality of content in the game development group, because the target audience for the group, game developers, would have issues with representation.

        So, if we have ~games.development, what happens when a topic in that subgroup becomes popular enough to bubble up to the parent group? It becomes overwhelmed by the much more popular and ideologically differing ~games parent group. The entire feeling of the "bubbled up" topic changes, the conversations start flowing a different way, and we go from what was a purer representation of discussion between development-minded individuals, to the opinions and votes of consumers. Contamination.

        Now, I'm not trying to gate-keep anyone, be an asshole, or anything like that, but if we've learned anything from the popular gaming spaces online, it's that game developers and game consumers can have very, very different opinions on certain subjects. I really think it would be a mistake to place a game development group underneath a much more populated ~games, where the representatives of one ideology vastly outnumber the other.

        3 votes
        1. [2]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          As a former Business Analyst, I object strongly to the idea that consumer opinions would be considered "contamination" when discussing how to develop games for those consumers. Game players (not...

          we go from what was a purer representation of discussion between development-minded individuals, to the opinions and votes of consumers. Contamination.

          As a former Business Analyst, I object strongly to the idea that consumer opinions would be considered "contamination" when discussing how to develop games for those consumers. Game players (not "consumers"!) are the people for whom games get developed. Developers need to pay attention to what players want. What's the point of developing games that noone wants to play?

          Maybe it would help if game players and game developers got to talk to each other more often - especially if, as you say, there are some differences in ideology between these two groups.

          Anyway, some game players would be interested in reading about the development of their favourite games.

          3 votes
          1. hungariantoast
            Link Parent
            First, most games aren't made for consumers, they're made because they're the games the developers want to play. It's only a tiny fraction of games that are actually marketed or sold for the...

            First, most games aren't made for consumers, they're made because they're the games the developers want to play. It's only a tiny fraction of games that are actually marketed or sold for the enjoyment of others. /r/roguelikedev is a great example of this.

            Either way, consumer opinions can be valuable when it comes to certain subjects in game development, I'm not saying that consumers shouldn't interact in the game development group, that would be crazy.

            What I'm saying is, when the population of consumers in ~games vastly outnumbers the population of developers in ~games.development, the opinions of those developers can very quickly stop being heard.

            For instance, recently there was a topic about a game studio that chose to sign an exclusivity deal with a game distribution company and that decision predictably generated a lot of outrage. The presence and opinions of actual game developers was almost entirely missing from those topics, instead replaced and overwhelmed with the opinions of consumers.

            That's exactly what I want to avoid.

            So, it's not about removing consumer opinions from the game development group, it's about trying to keep the developers from being overwhelmed by a much larger, and often much more frantic population of gamers.

            8 votes
        2. [9]
          cfabbro
          Link Parent
          The bubble up mechanic is entirely theoretical and how it will work in practice is completely unknown at this point. However, I imagine if someone is subbed to ~games but not...

          The bubble up mechanic is entirely theoretical and how it will work in practice is completely unknown at this point. However, I imagine if someone is subbed to ~games but not ~games.video.development then they will not see any of that content "bubble up" to ~games. And I am with Algernon on this one too, in that IMO there is more than enough crossover between gamers, gamers interested in game development and gamedevs that I can definitely see a decent amount of people subbing to both and wanting that content to bubble up. Whereas I don't think nearly as many ~comp users would want ~comp.gamedev content to bubble up to ~comp. But who knows... I could be wrong there.

          2 votes
          1. [8]
            reese
            Link Parent
            Am I the only person who finds the group hierarchy to be confusing and arbitrary? Please tell me I'm not the only one. I look at groups and immediately wonder why they are mechanically distinct...

            Am I the only person who finds the group hierarchy to be confusing and arbitrary? Please tell me I'm not the only one. I look at groups and immediately wonder why they are mechanically distinct from tags. I'm sorry if this is a horse that's already been beaten to death, but this is not a design approach I get. Some form of user testing should probably take place in order to inform decisions like these, specifically card sorting at the very least, but even that particular form of testing kind of assumes there ought to be any hierarchy at all.

            If we're going on gut feelings, which is what I've observed so far, then my gut tells me that Tildes should replace groups altogether with at least one required tag, either freely associated or from a provided set. A list of popular tags can be suggested to users when they submit topics, both as a static list upon page load and dynamically with JS. Cap the total tags to a few per topic. Then users can whitelist/blacklist any tags they want for filtering. Some of those tags would just so happen to match what we presently call 'groups'. So instead of comp.gamedev, you might have comp and gamedev for a given topic, which may make sense if, for example, something about the particular instance of gamedev is computationally novel or demanding. Just my two cents after lurking on this website for a while, watching users dedicate hours of their lives figuring out which group should contain another, if at all. Seems like a big waste of time to me.

            5 votes
            1. [4]
              cfabbro
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Nope you're not the only one with doubts about the value of groups vs tags... I do as well, and I think even Deimos has admitted he is unsure whether groups are the ideal way forward or if tags...

              Nope you're not the only one with doubts about the value of groups vs tags... I do as well, and I think even Deimos has admitted he is unsure whether groups are the ideal way forward or if tags and filtering should just take over. The current plan of using hierarchical groups is all rather experimental and theoretical at this point, although we do have some real world examples of such a system being successful to go off of too, e.g. Usenet was hierarchical and largely worked fine.

              Groups hierarchies do have drawbacks, there is no denying that, but so does flat tag based organization as well, just as they both have benefits. It's just a matter of trying to determine which is best suited for what we want to accomplish organization-wise here, while also keeping user comfort and usability in mind as well. And I think Algernon did a good job of describing why groups have value to most people, which is why that is still the model being used.

              p.s. It's also definitely worth noting that the reason groups and tags behave similarly (and have the same character limitations) is because tags were originally (and still are) envisioned as basically precursors to groups. E.g. If in ~comp, programming topics begin to dominate to the point where they drown out other computer related topics, then ~comp.programming can be created to take some of the pressure off and allow more diverse topics to thrive on ~comp again. And in cases where sub-groups created like that stop being active, they can be easily folded back into their parent group and apply the subgroup tag to all the content from them so none of the old content is lost in the process.

              6 votes
              1. Eylrid
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                Groups can have a sense of place that tags don't; things like their own mod teams and rules, custom styling, sticky posts, wikis, etc. Groups don't yet have much of those things that set them...

                Groups can have a sense of place that tags don't; things like their own mod teams and rules, custom styling, sticky posts, wikis, etc. Groups don't yet have much of those things that set them apart, so they feel like tags.

                We need to decide if Tildes should be a collection of communities, like reddit, or all one community like a classic forum. Do we want the users in separate boxes, or just the topics in separate boxes and the users in one big box? If it's the former, then we need groups that are their own place, with things that make them unique and set them apart. If it's the latter then tags alone are more appropriate.

                Edit: Another thing about groups: context. When posting in a community dedicated to a specific thing you can assume most of your audience has basic background information about that topic. You can get straight to the meat of what you have to say. But if your post is going to be seen by a broad audience, you have to explain a lot more. That feeling that most people aren't going to get what you're saying without having their hand held can put people off of posting. (This is why I think the "We'll see what people post and then make groups around that" approach is flawed.)

                Also, also, the same subject can spark very different conversations in different communities. For example "Bernie Sanders wants to spend $216 billion to replace all diesel trucks with electric trucks" would lead to very different conversations in groups for truckers, Tesla enthusiasts, economists, or political scientists.

                4 votes
              2. [2]
                reese
                Link Parent
                Some of the responses I get/see on Tildes feel more like a display of dominance rather than constructively explaining an alternative viewpoint, so I appreciate you taking the time to enumerate the...

                Some of the responses I get/see on Tildes feel more like a display of dominance rather than constructively explaining an alternative viewpoint, so I appreciate you taking the time to enumerate the motivations for this design choice.

                I'm glad to hear the implementation already addresses the projected interplay between tags and groups in lieu of them sharing the same character limit. It sounds like a happy middle ground between organic growth of communities and curation of said communities. Your note about the subgroup tag is alleviating. I think much of my criticism is attributable to my ignorance of just how much thought already went into this. I'm impressed, to be honest. The time investment into subgroups sounds like it's only speculative right now because, in these early stages for Tildes, there's not necessarily enough engagement to easily discern which tags should instead constitute (sub)groups.

                2 votes
                1. cfabbro
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  No prob. But to be fair, I'm guilty of that sort of behavior on occasion too. :/ Tildes is still in the very early days so people trying to assert dominance is only natural, albeit admittedly...

                  Some of the responses I get/see on Tildes feel more like a display of dominance rather than constructively explaining an alternative viewpoint, so I appreciate you taking the time to enumerate the motivations for this design choice.

                  No prob. But to be fair, I'm guilty of that sort of behavior on occasion too. :/ Tildes is still in the very early days so people trying to assert dominance is only natural, albeit admittedly pretty unproductive and I'm sure off-putting to many... which is why I have been making a genuine effort to stamp that behavior down in myself as much as possible these days (not always successfully though).

                  An yeah, most of us who were involved in helping Deimos brainstorm ideas for the site, back before it even had a name, have extensive reddit experience and have been theorizing about how to improve social systems for 10+ years on /r/theoryofreddit, /r/ideasfortheadmins, etc. So a decent amount of thought, planning and debate has gone into nearly every aspect of the site here. E.g. Even the bottom positioning of the new top level comment box was deliberate.

                  Now, whether or not all the theorycrafting we have done and things that Deimos has planned here will wind up working out... who knows? But at the very least, thought has gone into it all. :P

                  2 votes
            2. [3]
              Algernon_Asimov
              Link Parent
              Statistically, there have to be a few other people here who agree with you. What you're suggesting is not an uncommon a point of view among developers and programmers and other IT-type people....

              Am I the only person who finds the group hierarchy to be confusing and arbitrary? Please tell me I'm not the only one.

              Statistically, there have to be a few other people here who agree with you. What you're suggesting is not an uncommon a point of view among developers and programmers and other IT-type people.

              However, the general public prefer to subscribe to groups (Reddit) and/or individuals (Twitter).

              Then users can whitelist/blacklist any tags they want for filtering. Some of those tags would just so happen to match what we presently call 'groups'. So instead of ~comp.gamedev, you might have comp and gamedev for a given topic, which may make sense if, for example,

              You would need to build an interface to construct Boolean formulae. I want to see all topics tagged with both "australia" and "politics", but not topics tagged with only "politics". And show me all topics tagged "science" but not tagged "geology" or "chemistry". And so on.

              The list of tag combinations that people would need to build for themselves will get large and complicated.

              Cap the total tags to a few per topic.

              If you're going to make the whole website operate on tags instead of groups, then it's foolish to restrict the number of tags that can be applied to a topic. Each topic would need to be tagged as widely as possible, to make sure anyone who's interested in it can find it in some way.

              2 votes
              1. [2]
                reese
                Link Parent
                There is no requirement to build a convoluted interface. The blacklist could carry precedence for hiding any topic that contains a tag specified within. Any more granularity than that is too much...

                There is no requirement to build a convoluted interface. The blacklist could carry precedence for hiding any topic that contains a tag specified within. Any more granularity than that is too much work for the user anyway. And as a user I would find having a list of tags to be less complicated than locating and traversing an arbitrary tree of categories conceived by someone else.

                You say it's "foolish" to restrict tags on a tag-oriented site. Using words like that to describe others' suggestions comes across as sort of mean-spirited, just so you know. There's nothing inherently wrong with capping the tags to some reasonable number. Again, pinning down exactly what that number ought to be comes down to user testing. What works and what doesn't? It helps to answer these questions with data.

                Also, I don't know if I'm comfortable equating subreddits with groups since, in reality, it seems anybody can make them and name them whatever they want. I see them as tags without the curation we seek on Tildes, and without the discoverability expected of any pretty much any modern website. Furthermore, I'm not keen on taking past examples of the way things worked and projecting them onto how new things should work, since that mentality can negate progress. (Obviously you should build on the shoulders of giants, but we're talking about variations of features that do not appear to have been tested in the wild.)

                2 votes
                1. Algernon_Asimov
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  Right. Whereas groups are easier. Why does there need to be a cap at all? What's the point of a cap? What benefit does it provide? I'm not equating subreddits with groups (necessarily). I'm...

                  There is no requirement to build a convoluted interface. The blacklist could carry precedence for hiding any topic that contains a tag specified within. Any more granularity than that is too much work for the user anyway.

                  Right. Whereas groups are easier.

                  There's nothing inherently wrong with capping the tags to some reasonable number.

                  Why does there need to be a cap at all? What's the point of a cap? What benefit does it provide?

                  I don't know if I'm comfortable equating subreddits with groups

                  I'm not equating subreddits with groups (necessarily). I'm pointing out that user behaviour indicates that they're more comfortable with subscribing to a group/community/sub-forum/whatever for a particular subject than subscribing to a tag for that subject. This isn't about copying Reddit or Twitter, it's about seeing what users prefer to do and working with that.

                  2 votes
      2. NaraVara
        Link Parent
        There is some overlap once you start getting into interaction, experience, and interface design. And there was a micro trend in the late aughts about “gamification” as a design ethos. But I don’t...

        There is some overlap once you start getting into interaction, experience, and interface design. And there was a micro trend in the late aughts about “gamification” as a design ethos. But I don’t think that’s any more overlap than anything else.

        I’d be way more inclined to put a Mark Rosewater blog posts in a game design group and might not even think to include it in a design group.

        2 votes
  2. Deimos
    (edited )
    Link
    Thanks for the (as always) extremely detailed suggestion. I was away last week so I'm trying to catch up on everything now and didn't have a chance to read it until today, but I think it generally...

    Thanks for the (as always) extremely detailed suggestion. I was away last week so I'm trying to catch up on everything now and didn't have a chance to read it until today, but I think it generally sounds good and agree they'd be useful groups. As part of being away, I'm way behind on everything including adding the new groups, but I really want to get that done this week.

    I agree that the trickiest part is trying to figure out where to fit them into the hierarchy. I think I want to have a general discussion about the group hierarchy as part of adding groups, so we can probably talk about it in more detail then. I think there's a fair amount of confusion about the hierarchy (which is largely my fault for not clearly defining much about it), so hopefully we can try to resolve some of that soon.

    3 votes
  3. LukeZaz
    Link
    Absolutely want to throw in my support for this suggestion wholesale, including the group placement. Most everything I consider posting here usually has to do with game development or design, as...

    Absolutely want to throw in my support for this suggestion wholesale, including the group placement. Most everything I consider posting here usually has to do with game development or design, as those are the topics I know most about, so I'd definitely use both of these proposed groups.

    2 votes