Please continue commenting on this thread if there are any issues with this new implementation.

Y'all made a good job, friends !

εїз εїз εїз

ETA: Myself and a handful of various crit JS have compiled a list of pages that will need edits to reflect the new name changes. The first section are the top priority mega visible locked pages and threads that will need immediate fixing and the rest are various pages, guides, and essays that will also need editing at some point.

http://topia.wikidot.com/collab:forumnamechange
Staff are free to edit this sandbox as they see fit to add or remove pages.

With the change, a number of guide pages and informational threads may need to be updated. Could I request someone/someones to compile a short list of the pages that are priority for this name change?

I also agree that any reference to greenlights should be kept out of the name of the forum because he's right, greenlights aren't the goal. Getting critique is. I have seen a fair number of users just chucking the same idea at different reviewers hoping to find ones willing to stamp their approval on it. Granted, this approach thankfully doesn't work out well for the most part, but it's not behavior we want to encourage regardless.

Also, there's no guarantee that the Ideas forum will actually be used for discussing ideas rather than becoming a dumping ground for people using the shotgun method.

It seems like the needs of people seeking a greenlight and more experienced authors seeking critique are very different and it would be sensible to have different forums to serve their needs.

This might come off as elitism. Also, what if a first-time author doesn't want greenlights, and just wants to post a thread with the seemingly designated Cool Kids? Greenlights are only required if someone wants to make a thread in the drafts forum.

Also, I feel like experienced authors shouldn't need an entirely separate forum to themselves for conceptual discussion. If it's an issue of attracting the attention of reviewers, they can always reach out to someone via PM.

ETA: another thing… it's pretty rare for someone to receive greenlights without needing to make at least some tweaks to a concept. A lot of authors are "just looking for a greenlight" but it's rarely a case of rubber-stamping at a glance and more like getting an abstract repeatedly revised and approved by supervisors before a paper can be written.

It seems like the needs of people seeking a greenlight and more experienced authors seeking critique are very different and it would be sensible to have different forums to serve their needs.

"Conceptual critique" and "Draft critique"

I think this is the winner here; the operative difference between the two forums is meant to be what is getting critiqued.

I think we can also try rewriting the category descriptions to something like:

Got an SCP idea you want to pitch or acquire greenlights for? Post it here. (Try to keep it below 500 words and don't post a sandbox page without being asked, please.)

and:

Are you a veteran SCP author or a newbie with 2 greenlights on a concept? Post your draft here for review. (Please bear in mind that it may take a few days for a reviewer to get to your draft.)

Just to make the intent of each forum at least a little clearer.

I feel that chat is a better place for this sort of conceptual discussion since it allows multiple reviewers to discuss in real time, and there's less spam for mainsite staff to clean up.

That said, "Conceptual Critique" is good. Or… why not "Concepts & Greenlighting" ? This name pops in my head within a few seconds and I think it's pretty good, thoughts ?

Edit: I'm also going to mention I'm not a massive fan of names like 'Greenlight Forum.' The main goal for a person using the forums shouldn't actually be greenlights, it should be having a good concept. When your concept is good, it gets greenlit.

Also, receiving messages with little content besides 'please Greenlight' and a forum link is already slightly annoying, and I can only see renaming the forum like that exacerbating the issue.

Calling them "Conceptual critique" and"Draft critique" would solve that of course.

Either way i am definitly pro renaming them.

McB recently mentioned to me that the Ideas and Brainstorming forum should be renamed so as to encourage more full-fledged concepts for review, rather than authors tossing in random scraps and expecting reviewers to generate the remaining material for them as part of "brainstorming".

I'm in agreement with this. What do we want to rename the forum to? Conceptual Critique? Ideas Critique? Something else?