At the moment, about 25 tasks are active, 9 of them are free calls.
This is an excess of the norm by 21 and 5, respectively. For the billing period of 30 days - a month.
Therefore, it is necessary to make a program guide.
Registration for the event can be left here. After that, it will become clear whether it is worth starting a new task if no one approves of it.
So, it is necessary to give an abbreviation, an acronym and a summary of the meaning of the event.
I think that the limit of 8 hereditary tasks and 6 for free tasks will be more than enough to set this as the upper limit.
Event structure should have 4 phase form:
- Creation of rules and possible discussion of rules for subject of validity. After that - activation of the task.
- Setting deadlines for project acceptance.
- Review and judgement are required to fit into a certain interval, so that the movement of the organizer had specifics quality and performance.
- Cooling process. The presenters and participants need time to forget about the whole task. So the events don’t lose their exclusivity and interest. You can put on 8 - 12 days.
The presenter is obliged to immediately assign a feature of his event to a contest, challenge, competition, depending on the stiffness of the analysis, in order to avoid unnecessary disputes.
But… why? Why limit this and impose rules, when people are having fun?
Theoretically, there should not even be a limit to how many challenges one can host or enter at any given time - so what’s the point of imposing them?
what are you trying to propose here? A limit on challenges, or just random rambling like usual?
Yes, apparently I have not considered all sides of the problem.
It seems to me that a limit of 8 tasks per month will have a greater effect than if too many challenges are created in the allotted time. Is it right that there should be a restriction, or is it not necessary at all?
It seems to me it should, since there will be no dispersion of attention to those tasks that do not deserve attention.
I don’t see the point of artificially limiting how many challenges can be going on at once. Some are just going to be more popular than others, and some might just see no activity at all.
They just filter and sort themselves, no need to make it a pointless competition to even get close to competition.
This is how to kill an already struggling community.
Have you ever used interactive television? Or, for example, to show four screens on one screen at the same time, and highlight the screen where there is going an interesting film? This is called a way to bypass the system when a person uses the product but pays nothing, in this case, does not watch the advertising. I have long dreamed of this. But here you turn on the program yourself, and the cinema hall is watching. Is it right to be responsible with the selection of the material you are viewing? Most likely yes. So now you’ve chosen the chaos of freedom versus chain dependency. But in order for the plot structure to be correct, you have to follow the rules that creates the skeleton of this form. Therefore, by attaching some rules as a foundation to the rules that are laid down in the tasks, you can get more points of order, interest and productivity.
How to do this - allocate an ether for a set of consecutive tasks and for a set of free ones. It is only need to keep track, so that there is no overkill, and if there is one, then build a queue, that is, register an entry.
If looking for the most interesting events, rejecting boring ones, can be too much, then building a queue is quite fair.
There may be problems of waiting and choosing tasks depending on the authority of the organizers, as well as spam from those who wish, so we must take this into account. However, complete strictness to the order in the queue will add fun, since the level of seriousness of the organizers will not matter at all.
from the little that i can actually comprehend of this, it’s a horrible solution to a problem that doesn’t even exist in the first place.
unable to enter a challenge for whatever reason? then just don’t. simple as that. it’s ok, not everyone is a terminally online goblin with so little of a life, they must enter every challenge for a small indie game as their only source of entertainment.
alternatively, if there are too much challenges running at 1 time and you’re scared yours will get little entries because so, wait until another time to host it.
A good solution to the problem, but we still need to slow down sequential tasks that run in parallel.
Excuse me, but some of us might be.
With all due respect, what the actual fuck are you on about?
Reread it and you will understand better.
did you just rewrite what i said in your own words
This only seems like a “problem” if you, for some reason, want to participate in every single challenge that comes up
Why would you want to torture yourself like that lmao
Okay, considering that almost no one wants to limit the number of challenges, this means that everything remains as it is, but you will not be able to: register, track, select the most interesting tasks at the moment, depending on priorities, and stand in line for the event. You will not be able to collect the number of participants from 10 to 50.
However, the 4-phase organization of time intervals should be implemented as an agreement.
Bro what, nothing is wrong with how it currently is, if you know what you are looking for you can easily find it
The forums have been up for yearsss and no complaint like this one lol
Also you can’t just assume everyone has an equal amount of time to work on things, and you can’t keep people from starting a challenge because it’s not “optimal” for one person
It won’t always work out perfectly for everyone, that’s just how it is
I don’t even have any idea what this thread is about lol cause it’s just in the off topic category without context