bowlofspinach says:
Okay, but again, that's assuming that the way you would use it is the way everyone uses it. People might have other reasons to idle it than because its inactive.
I didn't say you can only use it for inactive games. You can use it however you want.
What is
does is this:
-moved to spoiler
-removed from front
-removed from forum
-kept in Latest
How you
use it is up to you.
I said the goal of the feature is to deal with inactive games, so the minimum requirement is to do that. If it is also useful for something else, that's great! If it needs to be tweaked or expanded to do something else, that's a different discussion, or at least I don't think we should throw out the above functionality if we can't get consensus on the extra functionality.
Windyridge says:
Then let's break it down and start with
The original idea of snooze was to hide the game until someone posted?
This would limit the feature to inactive games only, but since the design goal is to deal with inactive games, that's fair. Basically, it's the feature I'm describing, but automatically reversed if there's activity. I would prefer it to be user-controlled, but I would rather have an activity-reversed feature than no feature at all!
RE: Reading through the rest of the posts
Reminder:
Quote:
FEATURE GOAL
To give players a way to "retire" inactive games
Okay, I'm getting the impression that I was wrong, there isn't consensus that it would be nice to have a
player-controlled way to organize the visibility of
inactive games (sort of like the way "
retire" works - i.e. moved to spoiler, removed from front and forum)
Sooo, I think this feature is in fact ...
I'm sad, but that's life.
We should probably move the rest of the discussion to a thread about site-controlled game organization.