Note the highlighted text in the definitions of OGS Development and Feedback categories. If there’s a distinction as to which one a modification of an existing feature or suggestion for a new feature should go in, it might be obvious to the cognoscenti but not to the novitiate. Pax vobiscum.
OGS Development
This category is for discussion of existing and new features as well as OGS API usage.
(Oh, a newly implemented feature has become an existing feature by virtue of being prima facie indistinguishable.)
API Development
Feedback
This category should be used to file suggestions for how we can better improve OGS. Please be specific and constructive. Please do not offer criticisms without concrete suggestions on how to improve as those posts are not very useful and just clutter things up. By offering suggestions on how to impr…
Suggestions Bug report
Also, the text at the end of the Feedback description is incomplete.
P.S. This was intended for the Meta category, please move it.
Moved to meta. As for the “incomplete” text, I believe that’s Discourse truncating it. The full description from that category is:
This category should be used to file suggestions for how we can better improve OGS. Please be specific and constructive. Please do not offer criticisms without concrete suggestions on how to improve as those posts are not very useful and just clutter things up. By offering suggestions on how to improve, everyone can chime in and we can work towards improving the service.
My theory is that the former is for improvements / building upon things we like; and the latter for correcting things we don’t like and / or adding completely new things we want.
The point is that one should not have to develop theories. Ideally those who created the categories understand the intentions and distinctions well enough to give a pretty unambiguous definition in three lines each. Maybe it’s a work in progress.
Under Feedback we have “Bugs” but a bug report is not a “suggestions for how we can better improve OGS”. It makes more sense under OGS Development, although fixing one it is not a “modification of an existing feature”; it’s a mistake.
It sort of comes down to: If it is A, B, or C it goes in X. If it is D, E or F it goes in Y. If you’re not sure it goes to Z.
Since text was omitted because of space I tried writing the same thought more succinctly:
This category is for suggestions about how to improve OGS: new features, changes to existing ones. Anyone’s thoughtful contribution is welcome. Please be specific, constructive and when able, offer concrete suggestions and reasons for a change. Criticism without an effort to help is not the best you can do.
(By the way, the last two sentences could pretty much be replaced by “A critique is helpful, a criticism is not”.)
I was just about to create a new topic about this same distinction, but discourse’s handy similar topic finder pointed this one out…
I agree that the distinction between the “OGS Development” and “Feedback/Suggestions” forum categories is a bit unclear. Actually, it seems that the former category is more popular for people to submit feedback and suggestions even though the other exists as well.
Additionally, it seems that topics created within the OGS Development category are automatically locked 3 months after the last reply. Why is that? Topics elsewhere on the forum generally remain unlocked (unless manually locked by a moderator), which is quite helpful in continuing an old discussion, rather than splintering a discussion over many threads.
It get locked after 3 Months because the OGS is under continuous development and cloud have changed in the meantime.
And please, if you find a old topic, just create a new topic instead of replying to it. You can mention (link) the old topic if you think it is helpful, but it is very frustrating to find oneself reading the initial posts of a years old topic.
AFAIK threads get locked after three months automatically if there have been no replies. Its a discourse feature (discourse is the forum software), nothing to do with OGS game server.
