tweak/snooze_your_games

This is pure JS - the games snoozed are in local storage.

Games with unread posts are shown regardless of whether they're snoozed.

It only works on the "Your Games" section (not recent activity menus or forums or threads).

To what end? Don't inactive games vanish from there anyway? What am I missing?

Ignore me. I see what you are doing.

I see no real use for it and would only worry that it might further encourage games that hit a break to fully die.

If it happens, okay, but I would vote no

I see it sort of as a softer version of retiring a game to get it off the list. This can be unretired, unlike retiring.

I like the idea of this feature or something similar. That is I wish we could "retire" a game from a player's side of the interface. Right now, only GMs can retire a game. I have a few games that are no longer active but the GM hasn't retired them (for example if a GM ghosted). I don't want to leave them because I would still like access in order to revisit them to read them for nostalgic purposes. Ideally, I would like them removed from the "Your Games" section of the main page and the "Games Forums" section of the forum page, but still have access to them from the Games page (similar to how retired games are still accessible in the spoiler at the bottom). I'd also like it if this feature was reversible. In fact, I wish GM retired games could be reversed as well. For example, I'd like to retire my Xmas game from last year, but with the ability to bring it out of retirement if I have time to continue it next year instead of keeping it active the whole year without posting or retiring it and having to create a whole new game again to continue the story next year.

Hear Hear!

Yes, this!

That was the idea of snooze. It's player retirement until there's a post again.

I'm glad you mentioned "unretirement". I was wondering about that myself.

Unretiring would be nice.

The case of a game that 'might come back next year' sounds like a perfect candidate for 'snooze' rather than retirement.

The snooze feature still doesn't sit right with me for some reason. I can't totally say why. But I'd much prefer just the option to unretire a game

Agreed. That's why it's not going to be part of the merge.

I don't think snooze or "unretirement" should be dependent on post activity. At least, there should be the option to snooze but have it stay snoozed even if there's activity. For example, I might have played a great game with a group for a year where the story comes to a good conclusion. The rest of the group wants to continue with another story arc but I want to have time to try a new game. I don't want to lose access to the game, but I don't want to be re-snoozing everyday that they keep playing. And then maybe in another 6 months, I craving a return to the game, so I pop in and ask if my character can return at the beginning of the next story arc. Once I return, I can choose to unsnooze it.

Well, as I understand it, snoozing wouldn't prevent you from seeing notifications anyway. It would only hide the game itself on the front page.

My understanding is that snooze removes it from the front page until someone posts in the game, then it pops back up again.

I would prefer the snooze to have the same behavior as retirement. Removed from front page and Games Forums section of the forums page, but still have access via the games page. It wouldn't pop back up because of activity (or at least that should be an option), but it would be reversible, so you can unsnooze/unretire when you choose (probably a button next to the game on the games page).

That sounds like a fantastic feature.

I didn't realize it would reappear once someone posts in it. But now that you mention it, I think Adam said that.

What I just worry about with this is that it would make games die that wouldn't have to die if people snooze them and forget about them.

I don't really like this idea, but would accept it if there's overwhelming support for it

We definitely don't want want to encourage games to die!

Maybe "snooze" isn't the right name for it. Instead it should be an expansion of the retirement functionality. It's not something people should be using mid game. It's to help manage old games or games that are on hiatus.

Maybe we should look into unifying this new snooze with the retire option. In this case 'Retire' would need to have an individual player option, and they would need to be able to unretire. This might be less of a 'retire this game' than a 'retire me from this game'.
The player should be marked as 'retired' in the game's list. Maybe 'retire' is not the correct term.

I don't see this significantly increase the rate of game death, and I can see how it could have the opposite effect. Currently a player would need to leave a game they are not active in, this would allow them to stay in the game but be able to ignore it for a while and not have it clutter up their dashboard.

Barely related but made me think of this one I dea I had and still really like. I think it would be great to have a new third role for games. GM, player and maybe Observer or something.
Functionally like player except without posting rights. Just so you get the new posts directly into your latest game posts feed. I'd say in public games, you should be able to apply for that and get in without needing GM confirmation but in private games, the GM would have to confirm you.

I dont see how the snooze idea would help with your situation of sitting out an adventure. You'd still get all the updates on your feed. You just wouldn't see the game on your front page

I'm not sure I am comfortable with that idear. Either our game is public and everyone can see what we write or it is private. Having a lurker that we don't know is there or not, would be ... odd.

I would rather see a better forum/tread options, where you could assign or remove writing privileges. Players have ReadWriteEdit privileges in all treads, observer would only have Read privileges expect for the OOC tread.
Last time I checked this was not a trivial thing to set up.

Sure, that would need to be fixed as well. They user should be able to choose what triggers the unsnoozing --but that is my answer to most things: "user choice".

This should make the game behave as though the user was not in it, but treat it like a public game for them. That way it does not show in 'Your Games' nor in 'Latest Game Posts'.

If the user is subscribed to threads/forums they should behave as per normal, the user can control that for themself.

I assume they would need to be accepted into a private game before they can lurk, for a public game they can see it already, so this just makes it easier for them to keep track.

Yes, that's what I tried to express in my message

I think everyone in this thread is talking about a completely different version of how this feature would work

Agreed.

That is very true. I stay in the tutorial game, although I've finished it, for reference and stuff.

Then maybe we should agree on one definition before we continue to argue against each other.

The way I understand it isthat it only removes the game from being shown in the "My Games" section on the front page. It does not get unsnoozed if someone posts but you still see all posts in it in your feed.

I believe the way vague understands is that it removes the game from the front page and either mutes all posts in it in your feed or gets unsnoozed as soon as someone makes a post in it.

@adam - it's your idea. How is it supposed to work?

This is a dead feature, as this branch isn't part of the merge anymore. I thought you were doing an autopsy.

How it worked (before being removed):

You marked games as snoozed, then this CSS...

#yourGames .tr.noPosts.snoozed{
display: none;
}

...hid games from Your Games with no posts that were marked snoozed.

It'd be no help for antiproduct's use case, as if he snoozed the tutorial game it'd keep popping back up when people posted.

I was merely suggesting ways it could be changed to be useful. Non-optional unsnoozing make it pointless in my mind.

Sure. I think it was Steve Krug who said it was important to wallow in the problem before designing a solution.

I think the different use cases and processes people have talked about are interesting.