5

I've proposed to have a migration path from Gaming to Server Fault not just to give questions on this topic (example questions: 1, 2, 3) a place where they'd fit better, but rather to give them better chances of receiving awesome, correct answers.

What do you think?

  • You can't cater to everyone... – Ivo Flipse Feb 28 '11 at 7:49
7

Of the questions you linked to 1 and 2 are software specific and not really system administration and will almost certainly get closed as off topic. Number 3 is more suited to SF.

There's a huge fuzzy gap between administering a system and administering an application, which is all a game is. e.g. A question about managing Microsoft word via Group Policies is system administration. A question about headers and footers in Word is not.

5

This is a tough one, as there would only be a subset of possible questions for which migration would be appropriate. If the questions are directly related to the configuration of the underlying operating systems, then I could see some benefit out of migrating. For more technical questions about the game server daemons themselves, though, I'd think they would be more well-answered if they stayed within the gaming community, as there's likely to be more collective experience with those applications there.

  • Fully agreed with this to be honest. I wrote as much on Gaming Meta that the majority of game server questions will probably be much more about Gaming than server administration. Migration path seems out of the question since we don't get enough good examples, but if we did get a question about the underlying server, would you guys mind if we did direct them here? – Grace Note Nov 11 '10 at 20:11
  • No, not at all. The more the merrier. :) – EEAA Nov 11 '10 at 20:48
  • @ccornet, when considering sending questions over here please bear in mind the intended SF user base. i.e. IT professionals, not just anybody who "runs" a server. – John Gardeniers Nov 15 '10 at 9:40
  • @John Your concern has been noted and I will keep that in mind when deciding whether or not to direct someone here. – Grace Note Nov 15 '10 at 13:05
3

I have to agree with ErikA - Questions on an item of game software don't belong on SF just because they have a "server" module, but we can and should handle questions on the platform.

I can certainly see that platform questions need to come here but looking at questions from the example links I don't think any of your samples support migration to SF, except for one that might, perhaps.:

"How do I change the bot skins on my CS:Source Dedicated Server? " - nothing to do with SF.

"Hi, I've got a minecrack inventory editor for Macs running on local maps but what about for the 'classic' server setup? There are clearly one-per-user inventory files in the server world directory but … " - nothing to do with SF.

"TF2 dedicated server on really old PC?" - possibly something that we could answer on SF. Maybe. But the answer is surely going to be along the lines of "What do the system requirements say?", do people really need to have their questions migrated to SF to be told that?

"What are all the admin mods available for Counter Strike 1.6?" - nothing to do with SF.

"Any way to limit Steam Server Search results?" - nothing to do with SF.

"In Source engine games, when are server.cfg and autoexec.cfg executed?" - nothing to do with SF.

What none of us want to see are questions bouncing around because its hard to tell if they "should" be migrated or not.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .