Forum

[tedstein]

How about a forum structure? Posts are listed in descending order, from newest to oldest. Posts wherein a user is tagged are highlighted. I'm not sure if posts with a reply should bounce back up to the top or not? Then it might be TOO much like a forum. We could combine the two, where by default posts are sorted from top to bottom by date originally posted, adding in the features of Facebook's timeline (dotted, sorted by time, allowing images to be the main identifier of the post, sort of like FB+4chan), but with the added possibility of having a post jump back to the top of the que once a new reply is done (so "sort by date posted" or "sort by date replied").

What do you guys think?

I've always liked VBulletin's layout; clean, easy to use, and used everywhere on the net;

http://www.vbulletin.com/vb5demo/forum/main-demo-forum/off-topic-discussion

[InvertedVantage]

I was talking about forums as an integrated part of how Masques is arranged, not as a separate function. TBH if you want Masques to function as a social network for social activism, then people are going to need an easily accessed, archiveable method of discourse that can be used by large amounts of people or small. Facebook style wall posts will eat any sort of legitimate discussion, that's why I think the forum system should be integrated more fully into the project from the get go and not just something that's tacked on later. :)

[tedstein]

Matt, what do you think about integrating forums into v1? I do think it is a pretty powerful feature.

Also, it is just another couple content types and an interface:

forum_topic

• id
• message_id

forum_post

• id
• forum_topic_id
• parent_post_id
• message_id

We could also add files with a file_forum join table.

I am OK with adding this to v1, but will default to you. Launching in a timely fashion is, of course, important.

[tedstein]

I might have changed my mind. Forums could be uber-complicated because of permissions involved. Thoughts?

[macourtney]

I agree with Ted. Permissions for forums are very complicated and I don't think we can get it into v1. However, I do think forums are important and I want to keep them in mind and get them in as soon as possible.

[InvertedVantage]

If we build the forums into the entire system as the way the replies are structured, then the basic functionality can already be there in how users interact with group pages. After that you can add in permissions and sub forum support in v2.

[tedstein]

@InvertedVantage I hear ya. But...

2 things:

1. Forums will be as native as native can be when we add them. Not some afterthought.
2. Public groups are coming right after v1, but not in v1. Masques v1 only has local groups, not public groups.

To elaborate on (1) forums being native:

We are building an extensible system -- everything is based on a 'share' and is a content type. The only thing you can share that isn't a content type is a message (but messages are still linked to shares). We will be able to add a forum as if it were native because everything is transferred as a share.

To explain:

If you shared a photo album (content type):

• A share record appears in your friend's stream.
  When your friend requests details, the share grabs:
• An album record, linked to the share.
• A number of file records, linked to the album (which, again is linked to the share).

When we add forums (as content types), it will be:

• A share
• A forum topic linked to the share.
• A number of forum posts linked to the topic.

This "everything is a share" allows cool things, such as 3rd party Masques apps that users can install, and those apps behave as if they are native. This also allows us to add a "native" forum later (meaning, hopefully, sooner).

Shorter version: The "engine" transfers shares, content types, and messages. We can add new content types and they will behave as natively as any other content types.

To elaborate on (2) the difference between local groups and public groups

A local group (all that v1 will have) is simply a collection of your friends, or a way of organizing them so you can easily share with them. A local group doesn't have an identity and you can't request to join a local group. Your friends (that you put in a group) will not know that they are a member of the group.

A public group (coming after v1) will have an identity and members can join (some will be public and open, others requiring invits/approval). Public groups are not coming in v1, but we realize how important they are. Public groups are probably linked to things like forums.

Public groups are coming, but not v1.0.

[InvertedVantage]

To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean (not comprehending your explanation, sorry), and I'm not sure if you know what I meant? In the Timeline thread, it seems like you think my suggestion is one to go with, but here you say it's a no-go?

What is a share record? What would this "share" be grabbing? Why is it fetching it and is it not intrinsically a part of the share to begin with?

Will you consider implementing the system I spoke of here?

#31 (comment)