"Archive" section?

[SlotMonster]

I have a suggestion: maybe it's possible to create some kind of "Archive" section, where mods can put any thread with useful contents/discussions/shared information, such like thread about RTP started by "binary128"?
So, no really useful thread will be buried under newest threads, which could be useless

[maxd]

Another way to accomplish the same end would be to tag such threads with a unique marker. I already do this for posts that have useful information about using the forums, how-tos and that sort of thing. Works quite nicely.

[SlotMonster]

I should figure out how to do this then

[ksech]

Another way to accomplish the same end would be to tag such threads with a unique marker. I already do this for posts that have useful information about using the forums, how-tos and that sort of thing. Works quite nicely.

For us easily confused folks (meaning me ) can you explain how this is done? Thank you in advance!!!!

[binary128]

I have a suggestion: maybe it's possible to create some kind of "Archive" section, where mods can put any thread with useful contents/discussions/shared information, such like thread about RTP started by "binary128"?
So, no really useful thread will be buried under newest threads, which could be useless

SlotMonster,

Thanks for the compliment that the thread that I started on RTP, and the excellent discussion which arose therein, is worthy of "special attention". (A compliment may not have been your intent, but I take 'em whenever I can get 'em. )

However, I'm not patting myself on the back in saying that I think it is a good idea. I've observed that without a clear understanding of terminology, some conversations/threads can become confusing. When people get confused they are more likely to plant the seeds of an argument. These seeds quickly grow into a full-blown "derail". At that point, a thread which had an excellent start transforms into an unpleasant interchange.

In addition, I think that there is a barrier of sorts between new Casinomeister members and older members because of terminology. Older members use these words, or even more confusingly their acronyms, and the newer members are clueless. They are thus less likely to remain members, or may be intimidated at making their own contributions to threads.

I think that the original reference article (not the numbers, but the words) is pretty good, and made all the better as a result of input from Casinomeister members. (Yes, it is long, but it's not a really tough read, all of the data is there, and it is technically accurate.) In addition, there is a wealth of other information, provided by a host of knowledgeable and experienced members, throughout the rest of the thread.

I think that having "reference material" of this sort available for new members would help them climb the "learning curve" of the forum, making them more valuable contributors. To be accurate, in essence this is one of the reasons why we felt it was important for us to write the original reference article in the first place - to educate our customers.

Chris