Timeline for Game-specific sites
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/ with https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/ with https://boardgames.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 13, 2016 at 4:35 | comment | added | Stephen | I think a part of the problem with BCG is that it's too broad for what it is - a MtG Q&A site. I don't feel welcome there to ask questions related to the Board Game Industry because 2/3 of the questions are about magic. Like it or not, Board Game Geek has the community behind it and has a much better delineation between games and therefore even with a lower overall signal to noise ratio is more useful than BCG right now for most questions. | |
| Jun 1, 2011 at 17:49 | comment | added | Pat Ludwig | @something -great! Hopefully it will attract some votes sooner or later. | |
| Jun 1, 2011 at 17:04 | comment | added | Something Odd About His Name | @Pat: well... at least from a go perspective, that one answer is fairly complete. | |
| May 19, 2011 at 1:50 | comment | added | Pat Ludwig | Well thought out answer. I think we have a bit of a chicken&egg syndrome on B&CG. You linked to my question about what software is needed, but as you can see, there is only one answer and one upvote (which was from me). I think that if some folks backing Go/Chess/Magic showed up and discussed what software was actually needed and achieved some sort of consensus that we would have a much better chance of getting it implemented. As it is, I have a hard time faulting the devs for ignoring that question due to the complete lack of interest by the community. | |
| May 18, 2011 at 19:23 | comment | added | Brent Warner | Yah, I think that makes sense. Given the (in my opinion anyway) failure of BCG, and the inability for any of the game specific sites to even get into beta, I think there just isn't enough of a user base to make these sites work on Stack Exchange, regardless of whether they are separate or not. | |
| May 18, 2011 at 18:43 | comment | added | Something Odd About His Name | I should probably mention... I think Go, Chess, Poker could all exist quite nicely on BCG, but not in its current form. I don't see the choice as being between an independent Go site and joining with BCG... it seems fairly obvious to me that at this point it's a choice between a SX site with adequate support (wherever it lands), and our current online hangouts. | |
| May 18, 2011 at 18:39 | history | edited | Something Odd About His Name | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 186 characters in body
|
| May 18, 2011 at 18:33 | comment | added | Something Odd About His Name | @Brent: Good point. shidogo was able to embed eidogo because it's based on the first stack engine (and they had the code). But at the very least, understand that while we can make a strong argument for go.sx supporting linking to eidogo... until BCG actually supports go/chess/poker game displays, arguing that those players should "just help on BCG" is silly. | |
| May 18, 2011 at 17:51 | comment | added | Brent Warner | "The advocates of the individual sites are willing to put forth the effort to make their independent sites comfortable for the appropriate player base" I don't understand this statement. The things you talk about are not things that can be created by admins, they need to be created by the Stack Exchange team. And if they are created by them, they could just as easily be used at either BCG or a specialized site. | |
| May 18, 2011 at 14:50 | history | answered | Something Odd About His Name | CC BY-SA 3.0 |