Lack of new people is killing the backroom and the entire forum

[caravel]

One way or another, the mask will have to come off if you're going to be taken seriously.

I see, so in your eyes unless I'm proven to be "ex staff" or a "veteran member", my views on this are valueless? I revealed no inside information, so I see no need for the "mask" to come off. The staff can and no doubt, will check my IP and can reveal if I'm ex staff or not, without revealing who I was.

I am not here to stay, I have simply dropped in and given my worth. People can take it or leave it - most likely they'll leave it. I cared about this place once, I still do a little and it saddens me to see it slowly going down the pan with nothing being done to save it.

Interesting points though, yet I'm not sure why anyone would be so focussed on the choice of personal avatar -doesn't the available range cater for most puerile homo-erotic desires/fetishes?

Because you are most likely a mature poster and established member. From your perspective the current systems in place here are acceptable, because you had to navigate these systems and presumably expect new members to do the same. Perhaps the kids that mostly play these games think differently? It's important for many members to have a recognisable and personal avatar instead of having to choose from a gallery of TW only portrait images. Give members basic rights of an individual, freedom of expression and get the moderators of their backs and people will come, continue as is and the decline will continue.

I know what Andres is getting at and he's right, but you cannot talk this place back to life no matter how hard you try, ACIN is also right, that if there's no threads, no discussion to hold a members interest, they will just go. Putting the onus on the members to just post more and hope, is just not good enough. The current state of the .org is not the members' fault.

This place has simply lost it's buzz and unless something radical is done to turn it around, this will continue. People can scoff at my avatar proposal, but that was only part of my argument. Allowing personal avatars won't hurt anything and is better than just shrugging and doing nothing.

[Sigurd]

Oh he is not a mystery to those who know him. But why the masquerade and why didn't you try this reform when wearing the green?
I remember a certain thread on swearing where you did conform to the current standard. Which rules does aggravate you so, our former bot instagib champion?

[Ludens]

A number of your points ring painfully true, but I wonder at your refusal to identify yourself and the comment that you are not yet banned. It's clear that you're upset with us for some reason.

I agree that the old guard's dislike of the new TW games played a part, although you cannot claim we didn't accommodate them. Every TW release got its own forums, guides, etc. It simply isn't a case of putting out chairs and people will come. If the community doesn't generate interesting content or discussion, people will simply move to another community, in this case the TWC or the OT fora.

Also, I doubt that overzealous moderation is responsible for the stagnation. You'll find a fair number of OT posts even in the Watchtower. The only thing we insist on is that people stay polite and don't derail threads, and I'd rather keep it that way.

[pevergreen]

I agree with some points, and as always, disagree with some others.

Also curious as to who you are. I've got no idea.

There was a period of time where I was worried about the moderators. Not they job they were doing, the fact that there didn't seem to be any new ones. Each time a new moderator was needed, an ex one was moved to the position, or an existing one took on more areas, or got transfered around. It got to the point where people I'd never seen suddenly were moderating a section they'd never interacted with.

As of late, however, my worry has dissapeared. Three new moderators in a short amount of time, with at least one other person asked if they would like to be.

I'd respond to your actual post, but I'm mentally tired.

[Andres]

Oh he is not a mystery to those who know him. But why the masquerade and why didn't you try this reform when wearing the green?
I remember a certain thread on swearing where you did conform to the current standard. Which rules does aggravate you so, our former bot instagib champion?

"Il n'y a que les imbéciles qui ne changent jamais d'avis."

If Kikuchiyo is who I think he is, then indeed, some of the things he says are a complete U turn compared to his previous opinions.

That doesn't automatically mean, however, that he is talking nonsense. In fact, some of the points he raises need to be taken into consideration, imo.

EDIT: I do agree that the "I left and vowed never to come back" part smells like unnecessary drama. It's just as easy to say "hey, I asked to disable my previous account X for personal reasons and I'm now using this new account, because I wanted to react in this thread, since I still care about this place"

[al Roumi]

I see, so in your eyes unless I'm proven to be "ex staff" or a "veteran member", my views on this are valueless?

No but the drama and subterfuge do undermine your credibility. In any case I really haven't been around long enough to know who you are/were (see left).

I do think you raised some good points, most of those in your post in fact. I just felt you dulled the keen-ness of your argument with the cloak and dagger/voice from the grave stuff. On the avatar thing, personaly, the TWC always seems so brash and corny and I honestly do get annoyed with enourmous/distracting sigs and avatars.

I certainly think you are spot on about the accessibility of the Org. The junior member thing (which includes an irritating inability to choose even among the TW avatars ) rang true in particular. I've already said I think the Backroom should be advertised and open on a simple request, with no need for probation or groveling.

[caravel]

Oh he is not a mystery to those who know him. But why the masquerade and why didn't you try this reform when wearing the green?
I remember a certain thread on swearing where you did conform to the current standard. Which rules does aggravate you so, our former bot instagib champion?

I did mention this while I was on the staff here. Swearing is another matter, equating my statements about moderators easing off or relaxing some rules, to simply "allowing swearing" is misleading. This mistake has already been made in this thread by another staffer. It's necessary to think outside the box here and not jump to the same textbook conclusions. My opinions on swearing are irrelevant now, but at the time I argued for a simple swear filter rather than the current intrusive and labour intensive method of editing posts. This idea was immediately shot down. A swear filter IMHO is still the best option, the moderators are not here to nanny or educate people - this is the same opinion I expressed in private discussions with other staff. Spotting and manual edits are also not a catch all - so what's the point? Search the .org for your favourite four letter expletive, I'm sure you'll find something.

A number of your points ring painfully true, but I wonder at your refusal to identify yourself and the comment that you are not yet banned. It's clear that you're upset with us for some reason.

There is no point in me identifying myself. It will achieve little and I'm not here to stop. I'm not yet banned is true. Not alluding to anything there. There is no bad blood between myself and staff members at least I don't think there is, that's another oversimplification of this as "ex mod with a grudge comes back to air grievances" or whatever. Not what this is about. The .org and it's interests are bigger than any perceived grudge or a few staff members that are not the majority of orgahs.

I agree that the old guard's dislike of the new TW games played a part, although you cannot claim we didn't accommodate them. Every TW release got its own forums, guides, etc. It simply isn't a case of putting out chairs and people will come. If the community doesn't generate interesting content or discussion, people will simply move to another community, in this case the TWC or the OT fora.

They were accomodated begrudgingly, not with enthusiasm - let's be honest shall we?. If you remember it was I that first posted suggesting we needed a Shogun 2 forum and fast and then continued to apply pressure. If I hadn't done, then who knows it may have gone the same way as NTW or not happened at all or come along very late. As ever TWC were way ahead of us. When it did happen, it was set up, given a temporary name and the members were left to go at it. The place soon turned to a mess and the never-ending waves of spambots didn't help much either. It took another absolute age to get any mods installed there. I also remember a thread where members were calling out for a mod - it had gotten that bad.

If on the other hand anything needs to be done in the backroom, it happens like lightning. While the S2TW forum had no mod assigned, the backroom had at least four, to hyper moderate a small group of regulars. Laughable, honestly.

My point here is that we have an admin and staff here that have for the most part, like myself, completely lost interest in TW and are unwilling to change or move with the times. Case in point I'm not sure what some of the staff and indeed some members, are afraid of if they abolish junior members? As I said back then, yes you may get one idiot spammer posting something nasty, but you may also get 1 decent member you otherwise might not have had. Other forums seem to manage ok, without such a system.

Also, I doubt that overzealous moderation is responsible for the stagnation. You'll find a fair number of OT posts even in the Watchtower. The only thing we insist on is that people stay polite and don't derail threads, and I'd rather keep it that way.

I think it goes much further than that in some areas. You don't really need to tell me this as I've seen the workings of this particular machine. If someone is not polite to someone else - supposing both parties are adult enough, then it is up to both parties to sort this out. If they haven't posted porn, swearing or links to wears how is it that a moderator needs to get involved. If the thread disintegrates into a flame fest, then the mod can step in, but all too often threads are closed or posts edited on a whim because the mod predicts trouble. It's this that stifles this place.

If Kikuchiyo is who I think he is, then indeed, some of the things he says are a complete U turn compared to his previous opinions.

That doesn't automatically mean, however, that he is talking nonsense. In fact, some of the points he raises need to be taken into consideration, imo.

I don't see how my opinions have changed? When did I not speak against the nannying moderation we have here in some forums?

When except for a long time ago, before I was a mod here, did I support the JM system? I can't remember supporting the JM system for the last few years? I had posted extensively - at great length in fact against the flawed idea that the system somehow keeps the "riff raff" out. When the mods were given extended powers to tackle spambots several months back, I brought up the issue again. I remember arguing that now spambots could be removed efficiently by all mods, that the argument for having JMs in order to contain bots was no longer valid and that we should consider scrapping it altogether. A huge thread followed, what came of that? Nothing as far as I can see? I was not the only staffer posting in favour of this.

When have I ever supported the portrait avatars? Not a huge issue but I don't see my U turn on this - I was all for restricting signature sizes, but never remember opposing personal avatars?

My arguments have always been for consistent moderation and not for example, hyper moderation in the members only backroom, and no moderation at all (until someone happened to walk in on them) in the members only social groups? I don't get where you're coming from with the U turn claim? To me it smacks of "don't listen to this former staff member's views, he said one thing when on the staff and is now saying something else entirely". Maybe try addressing any points in my post instead of this though?

[TosaInu]

New Members can't choose TW avatars?

[caravel]

No but the drama and subterfuge do undermine your credibility. In any case I really haven't been around long enough to know who you are/were (see left).

There is no drama, or subterfuge. Who I am is simply not relevant. I don't intend to stay, so don't want anything dragged up from the past. If it undermines my credibility that's fine, you can take my views at face value and pretend up just another new member that turned up to day.

I do think you raised some good points, most of those in your post in fact. I just felt you dulled the keen-ness of your argument with the cloak and dagger/voice from the grave stuff. On the avatar thing, personaly, the TWC always seems so brash and corny and I honestly do get annoyed with enourmous/distracting sigs and avatars.

TWC is brash and corny and overly bling. Personal avatars don't cause that, what does are the ridiculous titles, stars, awards, medals, banners and complex array of ranks pomp and ceremony, etc. Allowing personal avatars here won't turn the .org into a mess. It might make a better impression with new members, make the .org appear less authoritarian and might gain us some new blood - where's the harm in that?

I certainly think you are spot on about the accessibility of the Org. The junior member thing (which includes an irritating inability to choose even among the TW avatars ) rang true in particular. I've already said I think the Backroom should be advertised and open on a simple request, with no need for probation or groveling.

I don't see the problem in the backroom simply being completely open. It has more than enough mods to cope and there is nothing offensive posted in there. Again it can only benefit.

[caravel]

New Members can't choose TW avatars?

They can. I can select from all the avatars... this is not the issue however.

[caravel]

EDIT: I do agree that the "I left and vowed never to come back" part smells like unnecessary drama. It's just as easy to say "hey, I asked to disable my previous account X for personal reasons and I'm now using this new account, because I wanted to react in this thread, since I still care about this place"

It's hilarious... that you attack my credibility instead of the points I'm making. Just how does this relate to the matter at hand?

I made a huge post, "I left and vowed never to come back" was a small part of it. Did you read the rest at all? Or as usual are you just focusing on and dissecting the bits that you can use against me to discredit me?

[TosaInu]

I've already said I think the Backroom should be advertised and open on a simple request, with no need for probation or groveling.

There is neither probation nor groveling asked/expected to access the Backroom (or anything else for that matter). Some PM I receive start with Lord or something like that, but that's not something I asked for.

There is also no need for groveling by anyone towards any moderator. All that said: no one wants to be addressed by a slur either.

There is no probation for the Backroom: anyone can register an account here and ask for Backroom membership. Even ask is a big word here, for people only have to submit a script.

There are also four moderators, from different timezones, in the Backroom to speed up approval of Backroom membership. I dare bet money on it that 99.9% is approved without more than a quick thought.

I got curious now and peek: there are 0 join requests. That can mean that there's no backlog at all.

Advertising is certainly a good point.

[al Roumi]

There is neither probation nor groveling asked/expected to access the Backroom (or anything else for that matter). Some PM I receive start with Lord or something like that, but that's not something I asked for.

There is also no need for groveling by anyone towards any moderator. All that said: no one wants to be addressed by a slur either.

My comment was tongue in cheek, one does have to ask to be admitted to the Backroom though -and I was told (probably not by a mod) it was not open to junior members (or those who hadn't posted enough to be considered human/insulting), as well as not being visible on the forum index until one has access.

And my apologies for the error re: junior member avatars.

[TosaInu]

The forum is visible, but that is that. Reason for that is the number of members who don't want to be confronted with the content in any way (that's more than one member).

Membership is open to anyone who joins. Again, it's not askng for it even.

No need to apologise for the avatars, I just thought it was open.

[Togakure]

*bows*

Kikuchiyo-san, nice to see you again, even if briefly. I've read your post carefully, and agree with much of what you say. Realizing the tone is passion-based, I focused on what was said, not the nature of its delivery, and I have no baggage regarding your identity that will distract me from your message.

A gentle irony: I decided to no longer post in the one forum that has been my "home" here for many years, because I felt that moderation in there had become a bit stifling--not towards me, but generally--reflecting what I perceived to be a growing personal frustration. The only exception I allowed myself was to answer a specific question to which I knew the specific answer, which had not yet been effectively answered. My point isn't to make anyone "feel bad." I agree that a more "laissez-faire" approach would work better throughout the board, particularly now that interest and participation are flagging. But as anyone with experience managing a forum knows, it's a delicate matter: too little and things can quickly spiral out of control.

I also realize that it's not easy to "don the Staff hat" only when needed, and be a neutral participant otherwise. But this is an important skill that I think all moderators and administrators should take seriously, and hone constantly. It has been a personal focus for me lately--how important shrewd, active judgment is when exercising authority--because we base subsequent actions upon it, which can dramatically affect others, and we must abide by any consequences.

On that note, I reiterate that I do not think the rules should change. I think that in some cases the manner in which they are applied could stand some improvement--that moderators could use more practice on when it's necessary to step in, and when it's better to remain quietly watchful.

I also agree that reconsidering aspects of the current system, specifically, the Junior and Senior membership processes, would be a good idea given the state of things. Change can be a good thing. There are risks, but I don't see any to which staff here could not easily adapt. Other forums, with far less sharp and passionate staff, manage just fine (albeit, with radically different styles).

Personally I'd rather stick with senior staff that has consistently demonstrated shrewd judgment, moral stamina, and staunch backbones--accompanied by warm hearts--despite a lack of time currently to devote to the board, than risk a decline in such crucial roles. Managing at higher levels is a difficult thing; I think it's best to think thrice before openly criticizing those who perform such roles. Most often we don't share their big picture, nor do most of us have their experience doing what they do. Credit where credit is--definitely in this case--due. Sometimes, when in the middle, having to juggle issues from above and below, it's easy to lose track of this. Most want to do what's best, in the best way, for the best. But best is like light shining on a diamond--many facets, glittering in many directions, and viewed differently from many angles.

With respect,

*bows*

[InsaneApache]

@Togakure.

Every word mate, every word.

[Hooahguy]

Kikuchiyo, I totally agree with you. I do support the ability to upload your own avatars as long as they stay within the rules. I for one would love a Mass Effect avatar, considering that I no longer play TW games.

[pevergreen]

Maybe its time for another big vote on if other avatars are allowed.

The last two votes kept the current system. If it happened again, I'd vote that way.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I agree with Kik here on most of his points. I been here for 4 years, been ban for almost a full year, was a Assistant Mod (never a full mod) and a regular member like now. I been on 'both' sides if you can put it like that and I have to say that this forum needs to stop know-towing to the elist members and start doing new things.

With that said, I have to say that the members, SP, MP or Modders must stop complaining about the new games and start playing them and helping the new community.

What do I know.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You were an assistant mod Warman?!?!

Anyway, I think we should keep avatars the way they are. The .org is unique in all the internet forums I've seen in the way things are quite ordered. It helps keep the pages easy on the eye.

Plus I find the variety of shapes and sizes of avatars found elsewhere to be intimidating.

[pevergreen]

You were an assistant mod Warman?!?!

Yeah, of a MP subforum, IIRC.

I don't really see anyone 'know-towing' to anyone. Senior Members and old timers still get warnings like everyone else. The only prefential treatment they get is the attitude from other members.

[Sigurd]

I did mention this while I was on the staff here. Swearing is another matter, equating my statements about moderators easing off or relaxing some rules, to simply "allowing swearing" is misleading. This mistake has already been made in this thread by another staffer. It's necessary to think outside the box here and not jump to the same textbook conclusions. My opinions on swearing are irrelevant now, but at the time I argued for a simple swear filter rather than the current intrusive and labour intensive method of editing posts. This idea was immediately shot down. A swear filter IMHO is still the best option, the moderators are not here to nanny or educate people - this is the same opinion I expressed in private discussions with other staff. Spotting and manual edits are also not a catch all - so what's the point? Search the .org for your favourite four letter expletive, I'm sure you'll find something.

I will concede that when I read your post the first time I saw "Relax the rules" with no details and wondered what rules you wanted relaxed. Reading carefully again I now see that you basically want reforms in:
1. Avatar politics
2. Moderation
3. The member caste system.

Regarding swearing, I think the gameroom system is the best. And you did write this in our discussion:

After reading the above posts I concede that filters would indeed be a bad idea. Thank you for helping me to see the light.

Considering the EB Tavern situation, would you under this new reform have acted differently?

[Andres]

It's hilarious... that you attack my credibility instead of the points I'm making. Just how does this relate to the matter at hand?

I made a huge post, "I left and vowed never to come back" was a small part of it. Did you read the rest at all? Or as usual are you just focusing on and dissecting the bits that you can use against me to discredit me?

I think I should apologise. You are right. It doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter what viewpoints you held in the past and I was way out of line judging you and undermining your crediblity without addressing the content of your post..

I'm truly sorry for playing the man and ignoring the ball.

I offer you my apologies.

As for your first post, yes I read it.

ACIN is right in many respects, except with respect to the "failure" of the TW games.

From a "veteran's" perspective the series has declined and could be seen as a "failure" - but blaming the series itself for the decline here is sheer blind stupidity and folly to say the least.

Correct.

While writing this I only have to look at the stats for today (better than the last time I looked a week or two ago in fact) to see what's going on:

There are currently 170 users online. 22 members and 148 guests

I can then head over to TWC and take a look at the same stats for their forums:

Currently Active Users: 1097 (217 members and 880 guests)

So the .org has 22 members logged in, the TWC has 217. There are 880 lurkers/bots viewing the TWC, only 148 viewing the .org.

The members here can criticise TWC all they like. You can laugh at their "juvenile" discussions, extra bling, personal avatars and you can level any criticism you want at them. But to the casual observer, the person thinking of joining this site, this looks bad. Some of the criticism of TWC and some of the preaching and lecturing that goes on here smacks of supreme arrogance, snobbery and elitism. It's not what new members like to see and believe it or not it attracts the "wrong type of member".

Indeed.

Allthough becoming TWC bis is not a desirable course, imho, that doesn't mean it would hurt to look at their forum and try to learn what they're doing right.

I see a lot of talk about "maturity" here. This is a gaming forum, why is maturity a requirement here?

I see where you're coming from and to an extent, one cannot but agree with that statement.

Then again, maturity is one of the things I like about this place. But strict moderating doesn't always guarantee maturity. Maybe we should indeed allow more frivoulous posting, allow people to stray a bit off topic in certain threads, let them have some OT fun, instead of stepping in and asking to stay on topic.

If the TW games are now so very bad, why is it that TWC is thriving while this place is dying a slow painful death?

That's the 1.000.000 $ question, isn't it?

I think it's fairly simple and it's down to the simple fact that this place has consistently failed to move with the times and those moderating and indeed administrating this board are now for the most part no longer interested in the TW series or gaming. New blood will keep this place alive, old men moaning about how shogun and medieval were better certainly won't. I've been there, done it, been the moaner, been on the fence, taken the opposite side of the argument, etc. I can tell you from experience, there are no winners in this situation only losers..

Yes. Moaning and looking down on the newer games is something part of the staff and a substantial part of the membership is guilty of. It's not good. I think many of the new members, who join because they are fans of the new games, are chased away by that negative attitude and all that talk about "the good ol' days".

If somebody loves the new game and finds the AI challenging, then let him. If somebody adores the graphics, then let him, instead of posting a comment à la "Bah! Graphics! Stupid eyecandy! The game is stupid, I don't care about graphics. Bah!"

The answer for the .org is not to emulate the TWC, but to look into relaxing some rules and allow users to upload their own avatars (which should be viewable by logged out users). The imposition of the TW portrait avatars may be a "tradition" here, but it also damages people's perspectives of this place.

Many of the current membership likes it the way it is. Then again, those who like it, can keep their current TW avatar. I guess it's not that difficult to make it possible to let people chose from the TW avatars or to upload their own new avatar (restrictions for size of course). As long as animated avatars are Verboten. Nothing as annoying as that.

The backroom, though not a vital forum, should be open to public scrutiny. There is nothing that is not PG13 in there as no porn is posted nor is there any more swearing in there than in any other part of the forum.

The reason why backroom discussions consists of the same few people debating the same issues, is because any newcomers cannot see the backroom and thus cannot become involved. People become involved in a thread by chancing upon it and just posting randomly on a subject they just happen to know something about. Those people never get the opportunity due to the backroom's closed status.

I agree that making the BR an opt-in forum and invisible for the new members was probably a mistake. Maybe it was justifiable in a time when we had a massive influx of new members; nowadays, it's not and should be open for all.

The moderation is also an issue in there as it consists of the same few people that moderate according to their own political, social and cultural views.

That's inevitable, I guess. Personally, I don't think the current BR staff is doing a bad job. Cases that are not obvious are discussed by the BR staff and I've seen more than one occasion in which a BR mod reversed a warning or reopened a thread, after a discussion with colleagues. All in all, the BR moderation seems pretty healthy to me.

Rotating the backroom moderatorship between all of the existing moderators would be a better idea and would mean that members would be judged impartially instead of having previous offences taken into consideration - or having one individual on their case, waiting for them to slip up.

Don't really agree with you here. Every moderator has his own views and his own style. A truly "impartial" judge doesn't exist.

There are also far too many cases where moderators intervene and jump in on petty issues of politeness, etc. If, e.g. the backroom members are expected to be "mature" they need to be allowed to sort out their own problems - moderators should be a last resort. The backroom should have less moderation and less focus than the rest of the .org, but in fact it has much more. This shows where the staff and administration's priorities seem to lie. Untie the members' hands and stop trying to direct the discussion.

Agree that moderators should be a last resort.

When to step in and when not is always delicate and a difficult exercise in balance.

Yes, a passionate, hot topic, will generate lots of posts; but might result in something really nasty. When to step in? Before things get out of hand or wait until it got out of hand really bad? We can experiment with the latter. Also, people have different opinions about what is "out of hand" and what is not. Moderating is not exact science

A forum like the backroom is the "run off" from the rest of the forum - it's a by product of this place. The rest of the forum is in decline, so the backroom is now feeling it as well. The frontroom has already been in a bad way.

Indeed.

The .org cannot survive as a small community of a few old pals that used to play TW back in 2000 - 2007, now talking about US politics in the backroom or participating forum games in the gameroom. Without the initial draw of TW games, those areas will start to dry up as well. It's also extremely selfish for someone to adopt the "I don't care, I'm just here for the gameroom/backroom" approach.

Correct.

Allthough it's good to have people who focus on GR/BR, because those parts of the forum are the parts that keep members here for longer than the first few months after the release of a game.

While it is true that the OT areas should not be our priority, they do need a lot of attention, since they are important for the site.

There is also the hosting here to consider, while it's never been the best, it's always been (AFAIK) free and ad based. If the ads start registering a lower number of hits, the host realises the server space might be put to better use... well I'm sure you get the picture.

Yes.

I think the staff need to back off and give more liberty and freedom of expression to the members.

Allthough I don't think the rules themselves should be changed, it could be true that another approach in the way they are enforced might be at least worth a try. However, I'm fairly sure that having a more laissez faire, laissez allez attitude, will change the atmosphere of the forums. If that is desirable is another question. Then again, it's probably either change and become different, or don't change and disappear.

But it wouldn't hurt to try out a different approach. Change is needed, since the current state of affairs is clearly leading to our decline and will eventually lead to the end of the .Org.

There could be many causes of our decline, and we should keep all options open. It wouldn't hurt to see if maybe a change in moderation style might work. Then again, old habits don't die easily + moderating is not exact science.

This is something that staff needs to discuss among themselves, I guess.

Staff initiatives won't save this place, for example one moderator writing a blinding article in e.g. the citadel, won't revive interest in M2TW here. A forum is not a place to read articles, people come here to converse and share ideas.

True.

Every post will not be a valid post, sometimes people will joke and stray off topic, if no one gets hurt in the process what's the big deal? This is how discussions form and flow - not by moderator intervention.

True again.

It will be hard if not impossible to convince the staff of this as many are full absorbed into how the .org is run and consider it the "correct" way.

Maybe, maybe not. Our current staff members are a bunch of nice, intelligent and humours people who do care about the .Org. Why wouldn't they be open for another approach in moderating in an attempt at getting this place back on the right track? Maybe your judgement is too harsh.

The .org needs to let it's members start living. New people will see this and they will come. Fancy tools and other bling are not needed here, just the basic "rights" of any forumite - to individuality. Take the staff pressure right off especially in offtopic areas, allow the members to upload their own avatars and most importantly get rid of the Junior Member system, so often perceived as snobby and elitist, that is choking this place like a gastric band.

I believe I once pleaded in favour of the JM system, because of "good memories". Looking back at my first posts here, it seems like I hated it not being able to edit or to post in other fora. So I guess the "good memories" of the EH were from the time when I did a lot of meet-and-greet duty as a member. Being a junior in itself, I didn't like very much. So I agree now that we should get rid of the JM.

"Staff pressure"? Well, maybe I don't perceive it as such, since being civil, respectful and diplomatic comes as a second nature for me. You could be on to something, but I can't really judge about it, because I never experienced it as pressure. Doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't perceived as such by others.

Senior Members should also be abolished. Why have a rank to honour a few members that are selected by the staff and not other members? Where is the credibility in such a system? By all means give a token award (as with the HoF), but a rank that allows for nothing more than a title of seniority and larger PM box is just pointless and alienates the many that are overlooked because they don't post in the same forums as the active mods or the offtopic sections.

I wouldn't mind senior membership being abolished, but maybe others would. If it gets abolished, it should be thoroughly explained to the seniors that the title is not taken away because there efforts from the past are no longer appreciated, but more because of other reasons. Some people like status symbols and ranks and stripping somebody from an earned title is a sensitive thing to do. Good communication is necessary when doing so.

Who knows, if some of these steps were taken, things just might start to move in the right direction. The alternative is to continue doing what has been done - which isn't working.

We won't know if following your suggestions would work; then again, keeping things as they are clearly isn't working, so it wouldn't hurt to try a few things, I guess.

The decisions on any of this do not of course lie with the moderators here, but with one man alone. In my opinion it's up to TosaInu to take the initiative here and bring about change for the better, or to step aside for someone that has the time, ability, energy and interest in the TW series and the .org as a whole, that can.

Yes and no.

The implementation of the changes has to be done by Tosa. Doesn't mean he can't consult the membership and discuss matters with the patrons.

The initiave lies with him? Yes and no. One man doesn't make the site; I think membership and staff working together constructively will have better results. Final decisions and implementation is indeed the admins' job. You don't need to be an admin to take a leading role though. Even a junior member as yourself can take a leading role in changing things.



No time to re-read this; please ignore spelling mistakes; incoherency and bad grammar.

[Shibumi]

I have a little input from a new members perspective.

First of all, the Back Room is just a little bit too hard to access.. Seeking access, first of all no one had an idea how to actually do it. Some well meaning members tried helping me, but they must have missed how the new system works. Upon finding the correct method (not an intuitive one by any means, I might add), it still took days to validate my request. Few people would go through this hazel to get clearance to talk on a game forum.

Secondly, the mods seem to uphold rules that are less than obvious for the general internet user. It seems like this forum tries to build some sort of fort where a few enthusiasts can hang out unhindered by the world at large. I had a mod contacting me just because I had written that one of CAs new ideas were "idiotic", as this, per the mods view, could make the CA employees sad, or something like that.

If you look at the backroom, this seems even more true. I have myself stayed out of warnings, but from what I could tell, warnings are handed out as much because some mod woke up with his panties in a twist as actually warranted warnings. There also seem to be a lot of neputism, some posters gets away with stuff because the mod knows he means well and has a reputable forum history, whereas others gets warned for the exact same offense, as this person meant it with ill will and has a bad history. For an outside observer this seem rather random, and makes one less willing to try ones wings on the forum.

As a last point, the Back Room seems very much to have turned into an old boys club. There are lots of references to different members that of course can not be understood by new members, as well as a general atmosphere of old timers kissing up to each other. From an outsiders perspective, it just looks like the forum has had its days, and now only a few people remain to validate each others worth. Has an aura of desperation around it, if you ask me.

All this sad and done, there once in a while flare up an interresting debate, and the general level of discussion is of a level more often found on a forum for history buffs, not gamers.

[caravel]

@Togakure: Agreed, though no respect is needed.

Kikuchiyo, I totally agree with you. I do support the ability to upload your own avatars as long as they stay within the rules. I for one would love a Mass Effect avatar, considering that I no longer play TW games.

Of course. The issue is that some of the seniors here will prefer to retain the current system at all costs. But for what reason?

Maybe its time for another big vote on if other avatars are allowed.

The last two votes kept the current system. If it happened again, I'd vote that way.

You can retain your current avatar, you won't be forced to upload an asian model or animated dancing goat, so how will it affect you? If people's avatars offend you for some reason, then that rules you out from viewing 99% of all other online messageboards, forums, blogs, etc. Other members here could have their own avatars, whereas you can still use the same one. Why stop everyone else from having something good just because it doesn't appeal to you?

@Rhyfelwyr: Avatars don't need to be all shapes and sizes. The upload limit can be set for dimensions and file size, so that's not an issue. As with pevergreen this won't affect you, because you could still use an avatar from the gallery.

this forum needs to stop know-towing to the elist members and start doing new things.

This is probably the first time I've agreed with you, but yes absolutely. By catering to the previous generation of members and losing the focus on TW (the lifeblood of this site), we have alienated the new people. The CA must realise this as well, they're not stupid.

With that said, I have to say that the members, SP, MP or Modders must stop complaining about the new games and start playing them and helping the new community.

What do I know.

People will always complain, the problem is that the complaining just got out of control for the last few titles and the complaining outweighed any good press the games might have got. This was mainly due to the ratio of old guard to new members. It's funny when you see people here talking about how the last games were a failure, when the sales figures were good very worldwide and TWC is teaming with life. The new games will always be worse if not outright crap to those of us that started with Shogun1, lets face it. Everyone else does not need constant reminding of this - I've been guilty of this myself. The problem is that for the most part the staff agree with these veteran players, so the bashing has been allowed to continue. This is a complex issue as while it's right that CA and their games should be criticised, it's wrong that the staff turn a blind eye to the veterans bashing the games, yet clamp down severely on the misdemeanours of newer, less mature members.

Instead of pointing the finger at it's members, CA and the TW franchise, the .org administration needs to take a long look at it self and work out if a group of ex fans should be running a TW fansite.

Yeah, of a MP subforum, IIRC.

I don't really see anyone 'know-towing' to anyone. Senior Members and old timers still get warnings like everyone else. The only preferential treatment they get is the attitude from other members.

You're not a moderator - though you're obviously dying to be one - so how can you possibly know who gets preferential treatment without inside information? There are certain backroom members that get off lightly time and time again, simply because the mod dealing with it can relate to them both politically and culturally, there are others that are routinely slapped for offences the former would have gotten off with. There was one old backroomer that had committed far more offences than your average member, yet was awarded Senior Membership for reasons unknown. I'm afraid that like anything else, it's simply "who the staff like" that counts.

I will concede that when I read your post the first time I saw "Relax the rules" with no details and wondered what rules you wanted relaxed. Reading carefully again I now see that you basically want reforms in:
1. Avatar politics
2. Moderation
3. The member caste system.

Regarding swearing, I think the gameroom system is the best. And you did write this in our discussion:

After reading the above posts I concede that filters would indeed be a bad idea. Thank you for helping me to see the light.

Considering the EB Tavern situation, would you under this new reform have acted differently?

So you clearly know who I am, yet you pursue this defamation thing? What are you trying to prove here?

You missed the point of that post I think... sarcasm mixed with resignation? Did you think it strange that someone would so abruptly give up their argument? I still think the swear filter is the best option, but on that day I decided not to pursue the argument against the overwhelming opposition mixed with mild outrage. I was simply worn by endlessly debating against people that think they know it all and refuse to accept any kind of change. This is why we still have Junior Members, a HoF amounting to a jumped up popularity contest which hardly anyone cares about or votes in anymore, a farcical Senior Member selection 'system', TW portrait avatars and an administration that simply cannot get anything done in a timely manner.

I didn't moderate the EB Tavern, AFAIK intervened a handful of times over swearing, etc. If you're referring to my views on social groups - that hasn't changed much so unfortunately you can't label me as a hypocrite on that one. I think they add little value and should never have been enabled in the first place. Posts should be in the forums and not scattered around in pointless blogs. The problem with the social groups was simple - and now I'm repeating myself - having one area with no moderation at all, while the backroom is hyper moderated is confusing and unfair to the membership as a whole. If the .org has rules, they should apply universally or not at all.

Unlike others I don't think the staff here have any duty to guide, educate, nanny or reform members. The .org is not a game for the staff to play at being social worker, it's an online gaming community. Is this opinion any different to that which I have posted in private or do you have any more choice quotes you want to pull out of the hat?

Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of quoting private posts from a private forum as you do.... The fact that you find it ethical to quote me from a private staff forum without my permission, in an effort to undermine my character without addressing any of my points is a damning indictment of the attitudes of some of the staff here. I have been, perhaps jokingly, referred to as being "cloak and dagger" in this thread, whereas it's very clear to me and maybe to some others here who this really applies to.

Some of the staff here are clearly so wrapped up in running this place politically, snuffing out any trouble before it starts and covering themselves, that they have lost sight of what this place should be about. This thread is not about me, not about containing me, discrediting me or silencing me, it's about the .org. I can only hope members here make up their own minds based on all arguments presented and not on a clear attempt to undermine one individual.

And yes, perhaps I have loosened up a little, perhaps looking at this place from outside and from a new perspective does change things. It doesn't mean that I've deserted my previous views. Someones it's only those looking in from the outside can see the real problems.

[pevergreen]

Secondly, the mods seem to uphold rules that are less than obvious for the general internet user. It seems like this forum tries to build some sort of fort where a few enthusiasts can hang out unhindered by the world at large. I had a mod contacting me just because I had written that one of CAs new ideas were "idiotic", as this, per the mods view, could make the CA employees sad, or something like that.

I'll leave the backroom stuff for someone else to comment on, but as for the above:

If Creative Assembly staff members get insulted here when they visit and unofficial fan site, what motivation do they have to come back? They have the official forums if they want to talk to fans.

it feels like they put an idiot with no knowledge of history behind the computer with the task of creating japan for DW.

I'm sure the person responsible for Japan appreciates this comment. And if you think that person's "lack of historical knowledge" is way the setup is as it is, then you sir, are the idiot.

Captain Gars, a developer for EU3, responding to a post like yours.

CA don't get to post like that.

Did you need to call it idiotic? Would not simply saying it was a bad idea, and heres why: not good enough?

[Andres]

I have a little input from a new members perspective.

First of all, the Back Room is just a little bit too hard to access.. Seeking access, first of all no one had an idea how to actually do it. Some well meaning members tried helping me, but they must have missed how the new system works. Upon finding the correct method (not an intuitive one by any means, I might add), it still took days to validate my request. Few people would go through this hazel to get clearance to talk on a game forum.

Secondly, the mods seem to uphold rules that are less than obvious for the general internet user. It seems like this forum tries to build some sort of fort where a few enthusiasts can hang out unhindered by the world at large. I had a mod contacting me just because I had written that one of CAs new ideas were "idiotic", as this, per the mods view, could make the CA employees sad, or something like that.

If you look at the backroom, this seems even more true. I have myself stayed out of warnings, but from what I could tell, warnings are handed out as much because some mod woke up with his panties in a twist as actually warranted warnings. There also seem to be a lot of neputism, some posters gets away with stuff because the mod knows he means well and has a reputable forum history, whereas others gets warned for the exact same offense, as this person meant it with ill will and has a bad history. For an outside observer this seem rather random, and makes one less willing to try ones wings on the forum.

As a last point, the Back Room seems very much to have turned into an old boys club. There are lots of references to different members that of course can not be understood by new members, as well as a general atmosphere of old timers kissing up to each other. From an outsiders perspective, it just looks like the forum has had its days, and now only a few people remain to validate each others worth. Has an aura of desperation around it, if you ask me.

All this sad and done, there once in a while flare up an interresting debate, and the general level of discussion is of a level more often found on a forum for history buffs, not gamers.

Thnx for sharing your thoughts, Shibumi

Posts like this are very valuable and a good lesson for all of us.

Attracting and keeping new members is what it's all about, so the opinions of our new members are very important and shouldn't be taken too lightly.

Appreciate that you took time and effort to post in this thread. Again, thank you

[caravel]

I think I should apologise. You are right. It doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter what viewpoints you held in the past and I was way out of line judging you and undermining your crediblity without addressing the content of your post..

I'm truly sorry for playing the man and ignoring the ball.

I offer you my apologies.

Accepted.

Allthough becoming TWC bis is not a desirable course, imho, that doesn't mean it would hurt to look at their forum and try to learn what they're doing right.

The .org does not need to look at TWC, it can look anywhere and at a vast variety of other sites. It doesn't have to dumb down or turn into a site targeted at idiots. One of the forums I have been to recently has some of the most highly respected and technically able posters I've seen anywhere. They have their own personal avatars (most of which are quite silly, but smaller than the .org avatars and almost of which are animated) and occasionally use mild swearwords. This has not made them turn into drooling knuckle dragging morons that use "leet speak" to converse. The moderators there choose to just ignore swearing that is not directed at anyone, but they could just as easily use a filter. I cannot see them chasing around after every poster trying to edit every word. The result would be that some gets edited, some gets missed and those that get edited resent others "getting away with it". There's also the cultural regional differences with arguments on to what is swearing and what isn't. This also puts off a lot of new members that get done for saying "damn" in one forum by one moderator and get away with it in another. Of course they are going to ask questions. It's not nice to be on the receiving end of a warning when as far as you're concerned you've done nothing wrong.

Then again, maturity is one of the things I like about this place. But strict moderating doesn't always guarantee maturity. Maybe we should indeed allow more frivoulous posting, allow people to stray a bit off topic in certain threads, let them have some OT fun, instead of stepping in and asking to stay on topic.

Strict moderating achieves the opposite. Members need to think for themselves rather than being guided or checked everytime it looks like a thread is going to turn bad. If staff keep stepping in, members learn to manipulate this and simply see how far they can push things or get around the rules.

If somebody loves the new game and finds the AI challenging, then let him. If somebody adores the graphics, then let him, instead of posting a comment à la "Bah! Graphics! Stupid eyecandy! The game is stupid, I don't care about graphics. Bah!"

Yes I am as guilty as anyone of this. The problem is that this becomes a culture thing and it's often in people's nature to be "sheeplike". Before you know where you are, we're all repeating the same things. I think the constant berating of the new games went too far.

Many of the current membership likes it the way it is. Then again, those who like it, can keep their current TW avatar. I guess it's not that difficult to make it possible to let people chose from the TW avatars or to upload their own new avatar (restrictions for size of course). As long as animated avatars are Verboten. Nothing as annoying as that.

Exactly, though why not animated avatars within reason? I remember a former staffer that had an animated avatar. It was ok for him, so why not for others? So long as the animation is not annoying and the image size restriction is set low it won't an issue as only a few frames will be possible in the .gif (not those .gif avatars that take ages to load up and are practically a movie clip).

I agree that making the BR an opt-in forum and invisible for the new members was probably a mistake. Maybe it was justifiable in a time when we had a massive influx of new members; nowadays, it's not and should be open for all.

Absolutely right. What worked then may not necessarily work now or maybe there's a better way of doing things. If the backroom were opened up, more lurkers will read it and be interested - some people might join the .org just to post.

That's inevitable, I guess. Personally, I don't think the current BR staff is doing a bad job. Cases that are not obvious are discussed by the BR staff and I've seen more than one occasion in which a BR mod reversed a warning or reopened a thread, after a discussion with colleagues. All in all, the BR moderation seems pretty healthy to me.

Don't really agree with you here. Every moderator has his own views and his own style. A truly "impartial" judge doesn't exist.

It's not the backroom staff's fault, it's simply how the system they are part of works and has always worked. It's extremely hard to be impartial, especially if you're dealing with a member that has given you grief in the past. Sometimes even when you think you're doing your best, from your own point of view, to do the right thing, that member sees it very differently. You get absorbed into that one issue and problem and sometimes you need to step back for a while to see the truth of it. My point about rotation is that it will prevent grudges and fixed opinions from forming and allow members to be judged more fairly by someone that has not been on their case in the past. It will also help to dispel the "old boys club" that has formed over the years where certain members can get away with more than others due to being on friendlier terms with the mods - that's not "corruption" before anyone start shouting, it's just inevitable on a board like this.

Yes, a passionate, hot topic, will generate lots of posts; but might result in something really nasty. When to step in? Before things get out of hand or wait until it got out of hand really bad? We can experiment with the latter. Also, people have different opinions about what is "out of hand" and what is not. Moderating is not exact science

There are a number of options, but two come to mind:

1) Step in, edit, delete posts, issue warnings and ask those involved to carry on but being much nicer to each other than before, etc.

2) Wait until it gets bad enough, lock the thread politely and explain that it's due to it degenerating into a flaming match. Advise that they are free to start again. Once members see that they've overstepped the mark they won't campaign for the thread to be reopened or start bombarding you with PM's. Treat them like adults and they'll start to behave like them.

In my experience option two works better. There is minimal intervention, you're not hitting member x with a warning while letting member y get off scot free. You're not tampering with posts, interfering and annoying people and you're not taking the chainsaw to their thread and basically killing it in the process anyway.

If members have a minor disagreement, let them get on with it. Name calling is to be expected and they should sort this out themselves. A moderator jumping in telling them to be polite to each other is what I call "moderator pressure". It doesn't just affect those two members either but what about the perceptions of those reading? The .org doesn't have to turn into a flamefest, but it doesn't need to be authoritarian either - telling members how to think, speak and behave. The worst that can happen is a few swearwords or an argument? People need to foul up sometimes - let them.

While it is true that the OT areas should not be our priority, they do need a lot of attention, since they are important for the site.

They need no more attention than any other area and are not as important as the TW sections. The OT areas will thrive all by themselves off the back of the successful TW areas and influx of new blood that this would bring about. They don't need to be worked on or focused on - they will "just work" if the TW sections work.

Allthough I don't think the rules themselves should be changed, it could be true that another approach in the way they are enforced might be at least worth a try. However, I'm fairly sure that having a more laissez faire, laissez allez attitude, will change the atmosphere of the forums. If that is desirable is another question. Then again, it's probably either change and become different, or don't change and disappear.

There are no rules to speak of except the basic Vbulletin FAQ - perhaps with some changes (?) so I agree on the first part. The approach definitely need to change though, but above all it needs to be a consistent global approach rather than that which exists at present.

But it wouldn't hurt to try out a different approach. Change is needed, since the current state of affairs is clearly leading to our decline and will eventually lead to the end of the .Org.

Exactly. You knew this long ago, when both you and I were mods, yet despite numerous threads...

There could be many causes of our decline, and we should keep all options open. It wouldn't hurt to see if maybe a change in moderation style might work. Then again, old habits don't die easily + moderating is not exact science.

The cause of decline is simple enough in my eyes: The .org is far too oppressive when compared with other boards and even when compared with TWC. The staff have lost interest in TW and now the main focus is on offtopic sections and in their hyper moderation. The real focus and direction has been lost. The last staff discussions I can remember about the Shogun2, it's forum and moderators were mostly participated in by by myself and a few others. A large proportion of the staff did not take part presumably because they saw it as not concerning them or due to long term inactivity.

Maybe, maybe not. Our current staff members are a bunch of nice, intelligent and humours people who do care about the .Org. Why wouldn't they be open for another approach in moderating in an attempt at getting this place back on the right track? Maybe your judgement is too harsh.

Some may be open to it, but no matter how many threads they start on the subject and no matter how much they argue for change, change will not come and if it does it will come partially and in very small measures, not enough to make any difference, after a long delay and almost grudgingly. We both know this, so there is not much point in pretending otherwise.

I believe I once pleaded in favour of the JM system, because of "good memories". Looking back at my first posts here, it seems like I hated it not being able to edit or to post in other fora. So I guess the "good memories" of the EH were from the time when I did a lot of meet-and-greet duty as a member. Being a junior in itself, I didn't like very much. So I agree now that we should get rid of the JM.

The last time I was on the staff, the main consensus was to get rid of the JM, it's still here, so what happened?

"Staff pressure"? Well, maybe I don't perceive it as such, since being civil, respectful and diplomatic comes as a second nature for me. You could be on to something, but I can't really judge about it, because I never experienced it as pressure. Doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't perceived as such by others.

You cannot force members to be civil and diplomatic and you cannot change their nature to be so. Yes you can in effect encourage some to make the pretence, but I'm sure if you saw many of these same members antics on other forums you'd be surprised if not shocked. Members need to be themselves and not a template of what the .org expects, this is what will attract new people - diversity, not a few veterans repeating the same things and agreeing with each other.

I wouldn't mind senior membership being abolished, but maybe others would. If it gets abolished, it should be thoroughly explained to the seniors that the title is not taken away because there efforts from the past are no longer appreciated, but more because of other reasons. Some people like status symbols and ranks and stripping somebody from an earned title is a sensitive thing to do. Good communication is necessary when doing so.

As I said earlier Senior Membership could be phased out in this way. Those that are Seniors now could instead be awarded with a token award. An award is different as it does not give or imply any rank or privilege. Any new awards (We'll call it the ".org award" for now) could be voted on by the membership as a whole rather than selected by a small group of staff behind closed doors.

The member rank title could then be changed to simply ".orgah" or similar to add a bit of character. Not necessary but surely better than the dull "member". Every person that joined would then be an orgah, unless promoted to staff, from day one.

We won't know if following your suggestions would work; then again, keeping things as they are clearly isn't working, so it wouldn't hurt to try a few things, I guess.

We have no idea. My suggestions could be disastrous, but the alternative is to continue talking, moaning and slowly declining as has been the case for the last few years. You will never know unless you try.

The implementation of the changes has to be done by Tosa. Doesn't mean he can't consult the membership and discuss matters with the patrons.

I hope he does.

The initiave lies with him? Yes and no. One man doesn't make the site; I think membership and staff working together constructively will have better results. Final decisions and implementation is indeed the admins' job. You don't need to be an admin to take a leading role though. Even a junior member as yourself can take a leading role in changing things.

Tosa holds all the keys, if anything needs to be done it lies with him. The mods can talk all they like, but if Tosa doesn't turn up for weeks on end or choose to simply ignore them - nothing is going to happen. This is also something you're well aware of.

@Shibumi: Yes. I really think people need to read and heed what you've posted.

Perceptions are important: People don't have to come here and they don't have to stay here either.

If Creative Assembly staff members get insulted here when they visit and unofficial fan site, what motivation do they have to come back? They have the official forums if they want to talk to fans.

Calling an idea idiotic is mild and is not insulting CA staff.

Did you need to call it idiotic? Would not simply saying it was a bad idea, and heres why: not good enough?

Call a spade a spade. If an idea is idiotic, call it such. One of the problems with this forum is that over the years the staff have strived to create such a cushioned environment that everyone's senses are heightened. Some members know that even a slight snipe could warrant moderator action so they don't think twice about reporting the post or making a big song and dance about a perceived insult until it gets noticed.

[Togakure]

@ Kikuchiyo: Respect is not needed? I must respectfully disagree. Respectful behavior at least, is definitely needed, else one risks being labeled as self-righteous, conceited, combative, and a number of other undesirable labels, and summarily dismissed from consideration by a group. I have learned this the hard way (and still slip sometimes; it's challenging for "strong" personalities). This defeats the purpose of being an agent for positive change.

Identifying problems is not so difficult in situations like this; devising solutions that work for the majority of stakeholders--those being every member and staff here--and selling them effectively, is not so easy. You've shared your opinion on what you think should be and needs to be, poignantly. I agree with some, but not with all, and as the tone of each subsequent post grates, it becomes harder to overlook the delivery and focus on the message.

To be taken seriously, I think mutually respectful behavior is required.

[caravel]

@ Kikuchiyo: Respect is not needed? I must respectfully disagree. Respectful behavior at least, is definitely needed, else one risks being labeled as self-righteous, conceited, combative, and a number of other undesirable labels, and summarily dismissed from consideration by a group. I have learned this the hard way (and still slip sometimes; it's challenging for "strong" personalities). This defeats the purpose of being an agent for positive change.

Identifying problems is not so difficult in situations like this; devising solutions that work for the majority of stakeholders--those being every member and staff here--and selling them effectively, is not so easy. You've shared your opinion on what you think should be and needs to be, poignantly. I agree with some, but not with all, and as the tone of each subsequent post grates, it becomes harder to overlook the delivery and focus on the message.

To be taken seriously, I think mutually respectful behavior is required.

I think you misunderstood me, but I should have expressed myself better (not my strongest point), apologies. I was referring to this:

With respect,

*bows*

And I simply meant "honoured but, no need, thank you anyway - same to you".

On your point though, I do agree with what you say in theory, but we cannot force people to be polite, we can only make a good example and hope that some follow it. The .org should not be "forging and shaping young minds". The mods have a job to do. As I said to other staff members some months ago (not an exact quote): "a moderator's job is to remove offensive material, do the houskeeping and keep the board clean". When it comes to moderating, deleting the the huge porn image that has been posted on someone's profile is priority over issuing a warning to the one that posted it.

I'm glad you said my tone is starting to "grate", I think it's because I've said enough, for now anyway.

Regards