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

Ah, it's not just about convincing. What would it be to me if some anonymous guy five thousand kilometers away finally sees the light and accepts my wisdom?


No, it is more about enrichment through taking note of a wide variety of opinions, of seeing them in the context of a full personality. Much richer than an opinion poll. In that sense, nobody has ever written something on the .org that did not change my mind.

Other than that, I enjoy a little debate the same way I enjoy a game of football. Just some guys kicking a ball around, trying their tricks, pretending they are Messi vs Kaka. Plus I enjoy my own writings so much I giggle uncontrollably most of the time I'm at the .org. Also I have this thing for those clicky sounds of my fingers typing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

I have been wrong about so many things I have lost count. I am not afraid to admit as such. I must say that nobody on the .org has managed to change my mind on so many subjects as Louis.

For example, I have made a complete u-turn regarding federalisation and the opression of Wallonia. I now see that I was but a narrowminded fascist. To repent for my sins, I shall write a cheque to the poor and opressed in Charleroi.

---

That's really quite commendable.

It takes a man to admit he was wrong. :bow:

I remember one of my first backroom threads I posted in was a gun control thread and my ignorance was respectfully highlighted and challenged by CR. He convinced me to do a complete 180 on the subject and now I am pretty much a status quo (3 day wait, background check, permit, here is your gun) kind of guy that is happy about the gun bans being ruled unconstitutional.

EDIT: So I will have to say thank you to CR for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I dunno, I changed my opinion on global warming/climate change/climate disruption. :book:

---

guilty of maintaining the same opinion on that one guv'nor. :(

the backroom should remain essentially private.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Ah, it's not just about convincing. What would it be to me if some anonymous guy five thousand kilometers away finally sees the light and accepts my wisdom?


No, it is more about enrichment through taking note of a wide variety of opinions, of seeing them in the context of a full personality. Much richer than an opinion poll. In that sense, nobody has ever written something on the .org that did not change my mind.

Other than that, I enjoy a little debate the same way I enjoy a game of football. Just some guys kicking a ball around, trying their tricks, pretending they are Messi vs Kaka. Plus I enjoy my own writings so much I giggle uncontrollably most of the time I'm at the .org. Also I have this thing for those clicky sounds of my fingers typing.

---

This is why we're BFFFS

Just some more thoughts on top of the very good ones already posted.

The Tavern and all miscellaneous forums are definitely important, in fact when I started posting again in late 2008 up until now, about 80% of my activity is in them. Compare that with 2006 and 2007 where I used to post a ton in the EB forums and also read the R:TW forums a ton, even though I also frequented the Backroom a ton.

But like what happened with the games themselves (R:TW got old eventually, even EB's utility was spent - M2:TW much faster in that regard) even the OT forums get stale after awhile. The topics in the Backroom are generally cyclical, and I feel I got most of the arguing out of my system by now. I still go in there to spar at times, but nothing like before. Like it's all been said before. :shrug: The Gameroom was really amazing in late 2006 and early 2007 and again in late 2008 and much of 2009 and so most of my attention was there, especially in the second time slot. But Mafia gets old too, you play with the same players and do the same things. :shrug: The influx of the CFC players did liven it up for a bit again, but I'm at the point where I play generally only in games that invite once or twice every couple of months or so, whereas I was continuously in games for consecutive months in a row before.

The thing is, this is a TW forum, and the games are what are going to attract people here. That's why it is so important for Shogun 2 to be a hit, excite the old fanbase, and bring in new people. Some of these people will then stay for the mods, then they will discover the OT forums, and this will replenish the desire of some old posters to become more active in them again.

I had been a member of the .org and for a time a staff member, for several years, until I finally decided to give up on TW and move on. I had vowed not to come back here, ever, but those that know me here know that when there's an itch I cannot resist to scratch... this thread had my attention for a while and finally drew me in.

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.

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".

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

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?

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..

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

:2cents:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

I had been a member of the .org and for a time a staff member, for several years, until I finally decided to give up on TW and move on. I had vowed not to come back here, ever, but those that know me here know that when there's an itch I cannot resist to scratch... this thread had my attention for a while and finally drew me in.

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.

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".

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

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?

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..

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

---

A REBELLION.

That's one long post

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

is Kikuchiyo banned? he's showing 0 posts :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Septimus Severus

A REBELLION.

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Septimus Severus

That's one long post

---

Yes, I got carried away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Septimus Severus

is Kikuchiyo banned?

---

Not yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Septimus Severus

he's showing 0 posts :inquisitive:

---

Only post is in the watchtower, joined today, posts in the watchtower don't count towards users' postcount, etc, etc.

Controversial... a masked poster claiming inside knowledge and experience!

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

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? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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 :2cents: 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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? :wink:

---

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.

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

"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" :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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 :wink:) 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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?

New Members can't choose TW avatars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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 :wink:) 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

New Members can't choose TW avatars?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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" :shrug:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

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.

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.

*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*

@Togakure. :bow:

Every word mate, every word.

:balloon2:

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.

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.

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.

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. :hide:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiku

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiku

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!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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 :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

:2cents:

---

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.

:bow:

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

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.

@Togakure: Agreed, though no respect is needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Gars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Hans

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Thnx for sharing your thoughts, Shibumi :bow:

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 :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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 :shrug:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

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.

@ 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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

---

I am not at all trying to defame your character. There was no indication of sarcasm in that final reply of yours (the discussion on swearing). Maybe you meant it to be but it was not at all clear to me. Lets put an end to that discussion...

Quote:

---

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.

---

A little? In my eyes you were one of the more hardball Mods in here, so I can't really look at your current argument without wondering about the agenda. But that could be why you chose to create an alt to post this.

Personally I don't think I have warned a single member in my career. A single unofficial PM has always sufficed.
Most members are "mature" even if they are 13.
You can still moderate the way you suggest without changing "the rules". If you clearly suggest that you would like for the patrons in a forum to behave a certain way, you do so simply and not with a heavy hand.
I believe it has worked in the gameroom, with much help from the established clientele and former excellent Mods.
ACIN in the gameroom is an exemplar of maturity and a respected player. He was indeed worried about elitism in the start but has since joined the rank of players with his valuable contribution. I am mentioning him because he doesn't exactly have a clean record elsewhere.

The gameroom is currently not open to all - something from your points might be looked into again.

The Avatar thing is to me not important at all. All though I was awarded a unique avatar once for my exemplary behaviour. I don't think Tosa is against personal avatars, but I guess he likes them to conform to a certain theme. Both mine and Andres' avatars are custom made. You only have to ask Tosa to load them in to the portfolio.

When I first joined up here 8 years ago, there was a member system based on post count. You couldn't choose the avatar, but it changed with the post count. I remember I liked it and it encouraged me to post more to get to the next level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

When I first joined up here 8 years ago, there was a member system based on post count. You couldn't choose the avatar, but it changed with the post count. I remember I liked it and it encouraged me to post more to get to the next level.

---

Funny, same here. And when I finally reached the sufficient postcount to take the avatar I wanted, it was decided that all avatars should be available for everybody :mean: :laugh4:

I don't think avatars are the main issue here, though.

Getting rid of the junior member system is an important point and shouldn't be too difficult to solve (I assume, what do I know...). Gameroom should be open for all, for those who like forum games, it's an excellent place to be, really. Maybe not a selling point for a TW fansite, but certainly something that convinces members to stay until the next TW game is released. Heck, I think many members joined this place exclusively for the GR. If the BR is openend for all, the GR should be as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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



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

---

Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying. Yep, you're right--behavior cannot be forced, and it's best to lead by example. I agree that forum maintenance is a primary function of a moderator. Behavior modification is best left to licensed psychologists. That being said, sometimes a well-presented suggestion can work wonders. I do think, though, that it falls within the responsibility of the moderation team to assure that the board's rules are followed. Herein lies the art and style--when to, when not to. But that is just my opinion, from the outside looking in.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

I am not at all trying to defame your character.

---

You could have fooled me. So far you have hardly addressed any points in this thread and your first post was in page four in response to me. This indicates to me that you were not interested in this thread or responding to my points but in attacking my character and trying to cast doubt on my credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

There was no indication of sarcasm in that final reply of yours (the discussion on swearing). Maybe you meant it to be but it was not at all clear to me. Lets put an end to that discussion...
A little? In my eyes you were one of the more hardball Mods in here, so I can't really look at your current argument without wondering about the agenda. But that could be why you chose to create an alt to post this.

---

Whether you detected the sarcasm in my reply or not it irrelevant. Suppose I have changed my position? What business is that of yours? Do you see trolls and blackguards around every corner, if so you've been in this game too long. Why do you find it ethical to try to undermine my character and quote me from a private forum, that's what I'm having trouble understanding here?

To say I was a "hardball" mod is nonsense. I never believed in nannying, mollycoddling or playing social worker but I've always believe in fairness. Look for my posts around the time the EB Tavern was nuked and you'll surprisingly see that I was against it. My opinion on the social groups was that they should be moderated just like the rest of the board - moderation involves deleting porn (which was posted in there) and censoring swearing (due to the lack of a filter). That has not changed. I've already said that the .org does not have to turn into a flamefest.

I can only assume that you're deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying in order to portray me as some kind of hypocrite or someone with an agenda. If you have those suspicions, do you really think this is the right place to air them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

The Avatar thing is to me not important at all. All though I was awarded a unique avatar once for my exemplary behaviour. I don't think Tosa is against personal avatars, but I guess he likes them to conform to a certain theme. Both mine and Andres' avatars are custom made. You only have to ask Tosa to load them in to the portfolio.

---

This is a good example. It's "not important" to you. It may be to someone else, but more importantly it affects the perception of this place as seen by outsiders. It makes the .org appear overly restrictive. A prospective member will not be aware of this nor will he want to go through that hassle. Why on earth should a member have to ask an admin for a custom avatar, wait and get it approved. They can simply go to the TWC, upload their avatar and job done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

When I first joined up here 8 years ago, there was a member system based on post count. You couldn't choose the avatar, but it changed with the post count. I remember I liked it and it encouraged me to post more to get to the next level.

---

That's the usual veteran members attitude of "if it was good enough for me..." etc. Back in the day you had to use the basic avatars for IIRC emissaries and diplomats, but as your post count advanced you'd get access to kings and generals, etc. While this might have seemed like something to strive for back then, I don't think it cuts it today and reintroducing it would be a bad move. The "back in my day.." attitude is not going to help here and is one of the main issues that has been discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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?

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'm well aware that I can retain my avatar, in the situation that custom ones are allowed. All I meant by the comment was, that in the case of another poll (like the 2 that I can remember) going up asking the general opinion of if the avatars should remain restricted to TW themed, I would vote yes. The members did both times before. That may very well have changed now.

I identify people by their avatars here. I often read the threads and don't pay attention to the names, but can tell who it is based off the avatar. I like that everyone has a TW themed one. If they want another, the URL avatar system is there, why not use it? Its on by default for new members, so its not as if they can't see it. (or it was under the old board software)

No, I'm not a moderator, and you're wrong, I'm not dying, or even trying, to be one. I can't know, but I can make a judgement off behaviour I've seen, and conversations with moderators. I can't comment on the backroom, I don't understand politics enough, nor do I spend enough time there. As for the awarding of that SM to that member, it raised quite a few eyebrows, but not as much as the open disgust of quite a few members when the honourific was placed upon me. We had people 'vomiting' in the thread it was announced. Didn't make me feel too good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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


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.

---

Text can be read many ways. Who is to know what a person finds offensive? I've been offended by posts that wouldn't offend my grandmother.

Not sure what you're saying with that last sentence. Is it that people are hesitent to snipe because of moderator action, or hesitent to report a snipe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Getting rid of the junior member system is an important point and shouldn't be too difficult to solve (I assume, what do I know...). Gameroom should be open for all, for those who like forum games, it's an excellent place to be, really. Maybe not a selling point for a TW fansite, but certainly something that convinces members to stay until the next TW game is released. Heck, I think many members joined this place exclusively for the GR. If the BR is openend for all, the GR should be as well.

---

Yes and yes. JM should go, not sure why Gameroom is join to post. That should go as well.

Edit: On the junior member note though, the restrictions have been greatly relaxed. Posting is opened up to most areas, more than 1 pm, dont have to wait 300 seconds between posts and 1500 between thread creations. Those are the restrictions I remember being under. It was annoying, I couldn't even replying to two threads in the space of 5 minutes.

It needs to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

I'm well aware that I can retain my avatar, in the situation that custom ones are allowed. All I meant by the comment was, that in the case of another poll (like the 2 that I can remember) going up asking the general opinion of if the avatars should remain restricted to TW themed, I would vote yes. The members did both times before. That may very well have changed now.

---

The thing is, that it's not about what the current "oldtimers" think of the system, but what potential new members would like the most. Would you leave the .Org if the avatar rule would change? Will a new member decide not to post when confronted with restrictions as having to pick from a set number of avatars that are seen as "silly" on the majority of other fora? Those who are here and decided to stay, won't leave for something as trivial as avatars. New people however, might decide not to stay for it.

Think future and further than current situation and membership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

The thing is, that it's not about what the current "oldtimers" think of the system, but what potential new members would like the most. Would you leave the .Org if the avatar rule would change? Will a new member decide not to post when confronted with restrictions as having to pick from a set number of avatars that are seen as "silly" on the majority of other fora? Those who are here and decided to stay, won't leave for something as trivial as avatars. New people however, might decide not to stay for it.

Think future and further than current situation and membership.

---

I probably shouldnt even be involved in this conversation. :laugh4:

I've been through a number of forums, and avatars has never made me leave/stay. Only the people. But thats just me.

Would I leave? Not the right person to ask. I've been on the verge of leaving for good for a few months now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

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.

---

Red:
Are you sure we are on about the same backroom? If anything, everyone disagrees with eachother. No one kisses up to another, if anything, we hit eachother around the head with a baseball bat.

Blue:
So some intellectual discourse is a bad thing, opposed to "socialists are evil, burn them to a stake" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Blue:
So some intellectual discourse is a bad thing, opposed to "socialists are evil, burn them to a stake" ?

---

I think you completely misunderstood that part. I think he meant to say that he was impressed by the high level of the more interesting discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

I think you completely misunderstood that part. I think he meant to say that he was impressed by the high level of the more interesting discussions.

---

yeah, I think he means we should try to keep the blue but do away with the red (analogy to US politics anyone?*).

*N.B. this quip is not suitable for application to the UK :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

I'm well aware that I can retain my avatar, in the situation that custom ones are allowed. All I meant by the comment was, that in the case of another poll (like the 2 that I can remember) going up asking the general opinion of if the avatars should remain restricted to TW themed, I would vote yes. The members did both times before. That may very well have changed now.

---

Polls are unreliable on this site especially - in such polls those that really want to preserve things as they are, are more likely to vote. Vote turn out is very low, so a large percentage don't vote. Also polls are made from the current userbase - not from the new blood and the people that may be put off by the restrictive avatar policy. If we'd always had personal avatars and then had a poll asking people if they wanted to remove this right and restrict themselves to only a gallery of TW images, what do you think the outcome would be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

I identify people by their avatars here. I often read the threads and don't pay attention to the names, but can tell who it is based off the avatar. I like that everyone has a TW themed one. If they want another, the URL avatar system is there, why not use it? Its on by default for new members, so its not as if they can't see it. (or it was under the old board software)

---

Identifying people by their avatars will be easier with personal avatars. I really don't understand the resistance. Effectively you're saying "deny those people these simple things, just to suit me".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

No, I'm not a moderator, and you're wrong, I'm not dying, or even trying, to be one. I can't know, but I can make a judgement off behaviour I've seen, and conversations with moderators. I can't comment on the backroom, I don't understand politics enough, nor do I spend enough time there. As for the awarding of that SM to that member, it raised quite a few eyebrows, but not as much as the open disgust of quite a few members when the honourific was placed upon me. We had people 'vomiting' in the thread it was announced. Didn't make me feel too good.

---

I did not mean to offend, but that's how it comes across sometimes. In many of your posts you do come across as "playing staff". You've been awarded SM so you must have been seen as deserving it in the eyes of the staff at the time. I'll be frank with you in that I cannot see why you are a SM while some more longer term and arguably more deserving members aren't, but that's no reason for you to carry it uneasily nor does it mean that you don't deserve it. A member should be judged on his actions here not by a title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Text can be read many ways. Who is to know what a person finds offensive? I've been offended by posts that wouldn't offend my grandmother.

---

Someone will always be offended - wrapping everyone up in cotton wool to counter this is not the answer. Misunderstandings will happen. The .org cannot possibly cover all bases in trying to avoid offence but trying to do so it jeopardises the basic freedoms that one would expect. Basically the .org will cease to be fun, for many this is already the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Not sure what you're saying with that last sentence. Is it that people are hesitent to snipe because of moderator action, or hesitent to report a snipe?

---

My point is that too much moderation intervention and enforced politeness means that individuals get trolling down to a fine art. Once member x knows that if member y calling his statement idiotic is a reportable offence, he will taken full advantage. You end up with silly reporting games, trolling and playing the moderators, plus a stifling, overly false and oppressive atmosphere. Etiquette can be part of guidelines but not enforced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Yes and yes. JM should go, not sure why Gameroom is join to post. That should go as well.

Edit: On the junior member note though, the restrictions have been greatly relaxed. Posting is opened up to most areas, more than 1 pm, dont have to wait 300 seconds between posts and 1500 between thread creations. Those are the restrictions I remember being under. It was annoying, I couldn't even replying to two threads in the space of 5 minutes.

It needs to go.

---

I have no idea why the gameroom is members only?

I'm familiar with how the restrictions have changed. It's got the stage now where the JM is a member that cannot edit their posts. That is offputting for many new members - and not needed. It treats every new member as a potential troublemaker, bot, spammer or alt account to a banned member. This kind of paranoia is simply not needed and not present elsewhere and it gives a bad impression of the .org. This has been debated endlessly in the staff section and most staff came around to the idea that the JM should just go. Not sure what has happened since then though.

Quote:

---

*N.B. this quip is not suitable for application to the UK

---

I dunno, I could just about learn to live with that! :wink:

Interesting thread BTW.

Quote:

---

I'm familiar with how the restrictions have changed. It's got the stage now where the JM is a member that cannot edit their posts. That is offputting for many new members - and not needed. It treats every new member as a potential troublemaker, bot, spammer or alt account to a banned member. This kind of paranoia is simply not needed and not present elsewhere and it gives a bad impression of the .org. This has been debated endlessly in the staff section and most staff came around to the idea that the JM should just go. Not sure what has happened since then though.

---

Busy, so only repsonding to this.
For at least 4 years, JM's couldnt edit, so its hardly new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Busy, so only repsonding to this.
For at least 4 years, JM's couldnt edit, so its hardly new.

---

Ok you misunderstood me. A JM started off as a member that could not edit his post and could only post in the Entrance Hall. Much of this has changed and now only the restriction on post editing, posting in offtopic and smaller PM inbox size remains. With the EH system gone, JMs have been fully redundant for quite some time. Make sense now?

Later.

Ah yes, it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Personally I don't think I have warned a single member in my career. A single unofficial PM has always sufficed.
Most members are "mature" even if they are 13.
You can still moderate the way you suggest without changing "the rules". If you clearly suggest that you would like for the patrons in a forum to behave a certain way, you do so simply and not with a heavy hand.
I believe it has worked in the gameroom, with much help from the established clientele and former excellent Mods.
ACIN in the gameroom is an exemplar of maturity and a respected player. He was indeed worried about elitism in the start but has since joined the rank of players with his valuable contribution. I am mentioning him because he doesn't exactly have a clean record elsewhere.

---

The reason for my transition from being almost perma banned to a contributing member is because of one and only one particular mod who went out of his way to treat me with respect. From what I remember he wrote a fully explained and detailed PM in a respectful manner that elaborated on why everything me and the rest of the EB Tavern complained about would not have much of an impact. It was nice change from the attitudes of almost every other mod which flat out refused to consider some of our arguments and had a very disdainful attitude from the very beginning.

Back when the social group for the EB Tavern and for the year before that I was posting, I was a young idiot kid in his mid teens. This is the kind of age you would expect from new members just discovering the TW series. Many of these new members also have a high chances of being just like me and might be coming from a place where the dialogue would be a complete 180 from this place. When I joined, I was coming straight from YTMND. The way me and the rest were handled by the mods was in a very authoritarian manner which played right into our hands of being as disruptive as possible. Because we felt that we were targeted by the mods in the first place, we decided to no longer care about the rules at all anymore. This is why we loved making our own social group in the first place, because we specifically went out of our way to get out of your hair but instead we found that the mods had come and deleted the entire thing. Which is a incredible shame, because all you guys had seen was a bunch of spam and swearing, but you know what I got out of that social group:

1. Conversations between me and The Celtic Viking and the beginning of me discovering myself as an atheist.
2. Fun conversations between people like me and Subotan which now continue on a more regular and personal basis, which I am very grateful for.
3. Immense discoveries about the plight of other people next door to me. To this day, I still pledge that if I ever get into politics I will try to help out the troubles of the native Americans after learning about their standard of living from Methuselah.

But to everyone else, those conversations were a parasite on the org, because most of the conversation consisted of kids in their youth posting like kids in their youth. Now I can never re-read those conversation and it deeply saddens me.

If I were to grade the handling of the situation by the mods, I would say it gets a less then above average. I am very happy to see Miotas and Subotan posting in the backroom, but along with the social group being deleted, many of those I talked to got month long bans and simply never returned. Don't get me wrong, some people I agree should have been perma banned and were completely out of control (AP). However, at the end of the whole debacle I never saw posts from The Celtic Viking, A Terribly Harmful Name, AlexanderSextus, Celtic Punk (although he was always away for long periods of time), Che Roriniho, Fixiwee, gamegeek2, Novellus, Thermal Mercury, and Lz3. That's 10 people right there that all could be enhancing the experience of the org through their posts and perspectives.

So yeah, I am a contributing member now. I haven't gotten a warning or an I.P. in a while now, yet if it wasn't for the PM of one particular mod, I would have probably gone back to YTMND. Is that really a good sign of how our community is developed? Idk, maybe I am too extreme a case, but I really doubt that the majority of young kids who have all now been bombarded with 4chan memes since they first logged in will be much better then I was. You gotta take a different approach.

Bottom line, Shogun has to be awesome, or this is just going to become a nostalgia and mafia forum.

The gameroom is the last line of defense. I shall guard the inner keep to the last man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Bottom line, Shogun has to be awesome, or this is just going to become a nostalgia and mafia forum.

The gameroom is the last line of defense. I shall guard the inner keep to the last man.

---

Well, Shogun I Total War got me here but the Tavern made me stay.

Of course it would be a shame if Shogun II is another crappy game. But does it really matter? Do you guys really think that an awesome new TW game is going to increase our (active) member count? Sure, it would attract lots of new members, but would they stay? 80% of our members never posted in the Tavern.

The reason ACIN started this topic is because there is a lack of new people killing the backroom and the entire forum (correct me if I'm wrong). This forum consists of more than just the modding community (that has moved to TWC) and STW guides. New members who never post in the other forums do not solve the problem. I never found the staff too authoritarian. Our moderators can be strict sometimes but they do make sure that the forum does not become like TWC: messy.

I think you have to be a certain kind of person to become part of the community. I think you have to be a certain kind of person to like the backroom. I think the best way to attract those people is the old Org. way. Do we want to attract thousands of new members and become like TWC? I would, and with me lots of other members, leave permanently.

Just my two cents

Thanks for sharing your point of view, Lord of Lent. Nice to see another Shogun 1 devotee here.

I would phrase it: certain kinds of people find the Org to their taste; certain kinds of people enjoy the Back Room. We don't expect people to be of a certain kind here--we encourage particular kinds of behavior which are a bit more, shall we say, thoughtful and considerate. That being said, the Org is pretty flexible from my point of view in that, within the rules, there's a lot of room to twitch and yap. Mostly it's just about remembering to be nice when addressing other members, and honoring the creators of the games that bring us together. One can despise a point of view without despising and berating those who hold it. It all boils down to respect.

Lull and swell happens between game releases. There are other forums out there, so we have to share the attention. The reception of a new release has a big impact on participation everywhere.

We have some control over certain things that can influence those who do come here to check things out: 1) assure that the Org contains useful, interesting content; 2) assure that the content is organized and easy to find; 3) assure that there are knowledgeable, friendly people around to answer questions and help solve problems; 4) assure that the Org interface is intuitive, aesthetically appealing, and as functionally comprehensive and efficient as possible; 5) assure a sense of freedom to express one's self within commonly accepted limits, and to participate without having to endure abuse from others; 6) provide obvious and interesting opportunities for people to get involved, without a lot of unnecessary hurdles, bell-ringing and whistle-blowing.

Finally, we need to kept this all 'alive.' None of this is static; it's never "finished." It needs us to flourish. What will the Org do? Well, I can't speak for the Org, but I've decided to get more involved to help out. What'ch'all gonna do? Chat is all well and good, but in the end, it's going to take more than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. :hide:

---

Many moons and many cycles ago Rhyfelwyr. Was fun for a time.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I argee. I also notice that a lot of old vetreans from MP come back recently to talk about the game, but there are some there have stated to me in private convo or on this fourm itself that they won't come back to S2TW no matter what. In that case, I asked them, and I ask now, not just for MP players who are elitists, but everyone else here;


If you not going to bother to play it, then why even come back to complain about it? Just go run away to your other MP games, BF2, WoW, G,whatever and don't waste our time with your negativie talk. That usually pisses them off, pardon my french, but you know, it's the truth.


I don't like TWC to much, there is a lot more favortism there (you can even become Forum Admin by buying yourself in..... I'm not lying. You got the money? Go take over the server payments from the current Admin. Now you think he became Forum Admin there? I got a lot of friends and know a lot about TWC) but they must be doing something right if they are killing us member and post wise.


I remember here when there was a alot of MP talk, Mod talk, Off-topic Frontroom/Backroom talk (my many days bashing my head in with Tribesmen, though I'm not saying he should come back)., a lot of Interactive Histories, Mafia games and so on. Now it is boring and even I am stuggling to keep myself intersted here.

Everyone here wants something by don't want to work for it, I think we need to change that thought.

Quote:

---

I don't like TWC to much, there is a lot more favortism there (you can even become Forum Admin by buying yourself in..... I'm not lying. You got the money? Go take over the server payments from the current Admin. Now you think he became Forum Admin there? I got a lot of friends and know a lot about TWC) but they must be doing something right if they are killing us member and post wise.

---

There isn't favouritism at all, it's a meritocracy.

BTW, why are there these large ugly avatars?

The really big ones are the URL avatars. You can turn them off in your profile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Bottom line, Shogun has to be awesome, or this is just going to become a nostalgia and mafia forum.

---

This still ignores the fact that TWC is doing fine discussing these supposedly disastrously bad new TW games? You're a TWC member, so you of all people should know this.

Today's stats

Org:
There are currently 167 users online. 21 members and 146 guests

TWC
Currently Active Users: 1003 (212 members and 791 guests)

So the games are crap and that's what's driving away our members? Well it looks like they're being driven to TWC, which is also a forum dedicated to the same games series...

I'll say it again, it is both wrong and counter productive to blame the TW series for the problems here. Doing so won't help the .org and will just accelerate the decline. Members and staff alike can sit around blaming the game or CA for this, or the administration can actually do something about this problem. The first stage of solving the problem is acknowledging there is one. So far I don't see this.

Some important issues have been debated here, but so far only two moderators have become involved. As ever the mods have chosen to debate this in private - and we know what will come of that - instead of involving the members in how this affects their community.

The issue is simply that the lack of new members means that it's mostly only the fans of the older games that remain. The game will probably sell well and will attract lots of new players - I will be particularly interested in the figures for the first quarter after release. If the games sells better than either Shogun, Medieval or Rome (three titles that the .org and TWC based their communities upon) then Shogun 2 should be seen as a success by the staff and members here and other sources of the decline need to be looked for.

My feeling is that, as ever, a proportion of the new players, not a large one, will seek out an online community such as this one. Odds on they will mostly join the largest, most active and which awards the most freedoms. They will not come to the stuffy place that only welcomes the "maturer" member. This in itself shows how dangerous the decline here is in that it's a problem that can only get worse unless something radical and progressive is done.

If people dislike the avatar ideas or the ideas for the removal of JMs, then those people should come up with something else? They should also come up with better reasons as to why they oppose one or both of these ideas, because as far as I can see so far, it all boils down to snobbery and the "it was good enough for me..." type of attitude. Removing JMs or removing the restrictions on avatars won't affect the old members that like it the way it is, but will attract new people and improve perceptions of this place. Some of the long term members need to think like an outside rather than like an insider. Andres made some good points here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

The thing is, that it's not about what the current "oldtimers" think of the system, but what potential new members would like the most.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Will a new member decide not to post when confronted with restrictions as having to pick from a set number of avatars that are seen as "silly" on the majority of other fora?

---

People are fickle, we're all fickle individuals. If we weren't we would spend hours writing in depth critique of a computer game. If we weren't fickle enough, then we wouldn't have people modding the game to suite their tastes? If they weren't bothered about appearances, most would still be playing Shogun or Medieval 1. No one would buy a new graphics card and everyone would run on the lowest detail settings. This is because unfortunately appearances count.

Orgahs may see the ability to choose your own avatar as an unneeded luxury. There are many arguments, such as "it will mees up the layout of the board", "they won't be in keeping with the theme" (I hate to remind everyone, but we have a japanese theme with avatars from about 6 TW games, most of which are not from Shogun), "someone will use an animated avatar and that might annoy me", "they will be two big", etc, etc, etc. All of these complaints cater to what existing members want, and any poll will also cater to existing members. To an outside, being able to choose and upload their own personal avatar (especially on a gaming forum) is a basic right and I am wholly convinced that this along with the JM system is a huge deterrent to new people signing up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of Lent

Well, Shogun I Total War got me here but the Tavern made me stay.

---

A good example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of Lent

Of course it would be a shame if Shogun II is another crappy game. But does it really matter? Do you guys really think that an awesome new TW game is going to increase our (active) member count? Sure, it would attract lots of new members, but would they stay? 80% of our members never posted in the Tavern.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of Lent

I never found the staff too authoritarian. Our moderators can be strict sometimes but they do make sure that the forum does not become like TWC: messy.

---

Many would disagree with you. In the past some of the staff here have gone beyond moderating IMHO to intervene, give warning points and close threads where it has clearly not been warranted. In the backroom especially moderation has gotten overly "scientific" and the frontroom has seemed almost redundant, because it doesn't seem like there's much you can talk about in there anyway. It's my opinion that the offtopic areas should warrant less moderators rather than more. What is considered an offence also needs to be looked at closely. Again, repeating myself, but members should sort out minor differences between themselves and moderators should only step in when it's obvious to all involved that they're needed. Moderators should also not decide what constitutes a thread and avoid locking a thread because they see it as spam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of Lent

I think you have to be a certain kind of person to become part of the community. I think you have to be a certain kind of person to like the backroom. I think the best way to attract those people is the old Org. way. Do we want to attract thousands of new members and become like TWC? I would, and with me lots of other members, leave permanently.

---

I agree with you on many points but not on this. I've seen this fallacy repeated a lot here and it's sad to see it still persists. By attracting more members, the .org will not magically transform into the TWC.

Using statements like "you have to be a certain kind of person", is exactly the sort of elitist attitude I have been referring to. If the .org is only going to be open to a certain type of person it's going to get boring fast, in my opinion it's already reached that point, and passed it, about two years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Togakure

Well, I can't speak for the Org, but I've decided to get more involved to help out.

---

Congratulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

Now it is boring and even I am stuggling to keep myself intersted here.

---

Yet during your ban you were eager to return I believe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

Everyone here wants something by don't want to work for it, I think we need to change that thought.

---

I think the opposite is the case. It is not sufficient for a few members or the staff to tell the majority of members they need to "work" to change this place. People won't post unless something holds their interest, people won't join unless something grabs their interest and lures them in.

Members are the blood that flows through the .org, by being here and posting they are doing what they are supposed to do and all they can do. Content is not the problem here.

People come here for recreational purposes, not to stress over reversing the .org's decline. A lot of quality posting still comes from those that are still here, much more in fact than you'll find on some other sites, so there is not much else a member can do for this site. It's really up to the staff and in particular the administration to turn this place around through new initiatives and some policy changes/relaxing of rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

There isn't favouritism at all, it's a meritocracy.

---

As is fascism, so I'm not sure that's the best word to use.

//edit:- interestingly I can no long choose not to have an avatar...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

//edit:- interestingly I can no long choose not to have an avatar...?

---

Probably has something to do with the new things Tosa did with avatars.

Pevergreen, I thought an idea was idiotic, and I wrote it was idiotic. Sure, I could have written that the idea was "bad", but bear in mind that I could also have written that the originator must be retarded. I do fully understand what you mean, but bear in mind this was one of my first posts, if not the first post. To then have a mod contacting me cause I used the word "idiotic"... I am rather sure it will make a lot of people look around for another forum. Specially since my post all in all was very constructive (offered solutions instead of just complaining).

And seriously, if you make a game and can not take that someone on the internet think some aspect of it is idiotic, well then maybe you dont belong on the internet. I am pretty sure 90% the of internet pop would consider the post I made well mannered. Oh, and I do not try to defend my post here, I just try to offer reasons as to why many people might shy away from this forum.


Andres, Thank YOU good sire :)


Beskar, as Andres pointed out, my reference to the level of debate was meant as a compliment, I think you misread me (or I wasnt clear enough).

As to:

Quote:

---

Are you sure we are on about the same backroom? If anything, everyone disagrees with eachother. No one kisses up to another, if anything, we hit eachother around the head with a baseball bat.

---

You are right, but at the same time utterly wrong.

This thread is a good example of what I mean.

Having debated some of the participants, I know that this thread offers layers of sarcasm and fun. However, that is only evident if someone has some prior knowledge. Try to look at this thread with the eyes of someone who visits the back room for the very first time. What impression will he get?

And yes, that thread is taking these tendencies to the extreme, but then again, I have seen lots more tendencies like it and it was one of the reasons I went back to lurking in the game area.

I do get, that if 9 out of 10 in a discussion has been debating each other for years, they will fall back to inside jokes and camaraderie. It is quite natural even! However, these same 9 should then not be so surprised when new members do not feel welcomed.

I stress to add that I have only been met with the out most friendliness and respect here, but specially in the backroom it is quite easy to feel frozen out.

Mods can of course in no way make rules about this, I just write this for old time members to think about, if they want their community to be a live and active one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

This is a good example. It's "not important" to you. It may be to someone else, but more importantly it affects the perception of this place as seen by outsiders. It makes the .org appear overly restrictive. A prospective member will not be aware of this nor will he want to go through that hassle. Why on earth should a member have to ask an admin for a custom avatar, wait and get it approved. They can simply go to the TWC, upload their avatar and job done.

---

I am not a part of the Avatar generation - that's why it is not important to me. However, I would not begrudge others that are to be able to upload their artistic creations.

With the new Shogun game, and its new multiplayer features, I think we are in a position to grab the new players. We are back at our roots with clans.
Apparently you can play as a clan in a multiplayer campaign with players sharing control of units and clan leaders directing operations on special clan maps.
If we cater now for this system by allowing clans to operate from our site we could get a new influx of both old and new players.
The big question would be how to moderate this in a satisfactory way, agreeable to the majority of members. History has shown us that special little communities within a larger community spells trouble.

New players will be looking for a website that are centered on their new game. A place with the looks and feel of feudal Japan.
We should have all possible advantages in becoming that site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

Pevergreen, I thought an idea was idiotic, and I wrote it was idiotic. Sure, I could have written that the idea was "bad", but bear in mind that I could also have written that the originator must be retarded. I do fully understand what you mean, but bear in mind this was one of my first posts, if not the first post. To then have a mod contacting me cause I used the word "idiotic"... I am rather sure it will make a lot of people look around for another forum. Specially since my post all in all was very constructive (offered solutions instead of just complaining).

---

I was picked up earlier on this thread on my wording, with someone telling me, "you could have said it like this", followed by an example. I bear the poster no ill will whatsoever, but does he realise how this must appear? I've seen mods doing the same on numerous occasions, I've also seen warnings and "friendly PMs" sent to members offering the same advice. I've also sent a warning myself to a member in the past offering much the same kind of advice - the fallout from that was no where near worth the effort. My error there was in not letting the members - both adults - sort out their own issues. No one was swearing, so what the hell was I doing there...? Who wants to be part of a forum where staff try to direct behaviour and discussion, while enforcing politeness? It's not only staff doing this either, but long term members and especially some seniors also. It's daunting for a newcomer to arrive on the scene and witness all of this: "just what do I have to do here to fit in!?".

I've criticised the games in the past, extensively and never gotten a warning for it. I'm sure I've called CA and aspects of their worse than "idiotic", but I've gotten away scot free. It seems wrong when you get landed with a warning for something I got away with. The most likely cause is that you were posting in a different forum under a different moderator to me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

[I stress to add that I have only been met with the out most friendliness and respect here, but specially in the backroom it is quite easy to feel frozen out.

---

It's easy to feel frozen out on the backroom especially if your posts in thread are simply being ignored while the regulars continue their banter and inside jokes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

I am not a part of the Avatar generation - that's why it is not important to me. However, I would not begrudge others that are to be able to upload their artistic creations.

---

That's all it needs. Most forums have a gallery combined with the ability to upload your own image. The .org needs to at least provide what other forums do, rather than simply denying certain features without good reason. Why should people come here and accept these restrictions when they can just as easily go elsewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

With the new Shogun game, and its new multiplayer features, I think we are in a position to grab the new players. We are back at our roots with clans.
Apparently you can play as a clan in a multiplayer campaign with players sharing control of units and clan leaders directing operations on special clan maps.
If we cater now for this system by allowing clans to operate from our site we could get a new influx of both old and new players.
The big question would be how to moderate this in a satisfactory way, agreeable to the majority of members. History has shown us that special little communities within a larger community spells trouble.

---

The MP community has not been here for a long time and it will take a lot to win it back. Having said that it's still possible. Clans would also benefit from things like personal avatars and the abolition of the JM system. MP Clans are free to come here and no special tools are needed for this. You can set up special forums, etc, but if the same old .org system remains they will simply walk on by leaving those forums empty - advertising yet more inactivity. The reason MP clans deserted the .org in the past was due to how they were moderated. If the staff can nail fair and unbiased moderation with an emphasis on the clans mostly sorting out their own affairs, you may get some from the MP community coming back here. What will drive MP clans away though is the perpetuation of the obsessive hyper moderation we see in some parts of this site. I remember talk about the clans situation when I was a mod here, it won't go far if the main thing being discussed is how to moderate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

New players will be looking for a website that are centered on their new game. A place with the looks and feel of feudal Japan.
We should have all possible advantages in becoming that site.

---

Very true, though if TWC were to install a sengoku jidai theme, that small advantage would be lost. What new members expect is somewhere that is active, informative and provides basic liberties/rights. I appreciate your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

pevergreen, I thought an idea was idiotic, and I wrote it was idiotic. Sure, I could have written that the idea was "bad", but bear in mind that I could also have written that the originator must be retarded. I do fully understand what you mean, but bear in mind this was one of my first posts, if not the first post. To then have a mod contacting me cause I used the word "idiotic"... I am rather sure it will make a lot of people look around for another forum. Specially since my post all in all was very constructive (offered solutions instead of just complaining).

And seriously, if you make a game and can not take that someone on the internet think some aspect of it is idiotic, well then maybe you dont belong on the internet. I am pretty sure 90% the of internet pop would consider the post I made well mannered. Oh, and I do not try to defend my post here, I just try to offer reasons as to why many people might shy away from this forum.

---

Unless I'm forgetting something, I've not read the post.

Having a mod contact you about it isn't something i can comment on. I don't know who it was, nor do I really care. Some moderators are stricter, some are looser. Thats what you get when you get volunteers.

As for the clan system, I don't know how it used to work, but the battle.net system of each clan got its own private forum, of which only moderators/admins and members of the clan could see and post in.

If each clan got its own area to talk in (moderated by clan leader and those he designates), with a communal area to organise stuff, it could be what the org needs.

The subforums would be hidden unless you join the clan, so moderation could be less strict. You could designate a 'clan moderator' who would simply remove things against site rules (porn etc) but leave the actual moderation to the clan itself.

Self moderation, free areas to discuss what they want. Not sure if its possible though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Having a mod contact you about it isn't something i can comment on. I don't know who it was, nor do I really care. Some moderators are stricter, some are looser. Thats what you get when you get volunteers.

---

Whichever forum you go to, chances are you're going to be dealing with volunteer staff. While some mods are stricter than others, it's not strictness that's the issue here. I would much rather deal with a strict but consistent individual than e.g. with someone that lets friends off the hook or moderates according to their own political or religious beliefs. Strictness is not the same thing as overly pedantic or "hyper moderating".

I think it's important to ban the idiots that e.g. post pr0n or consistently cause trouble and stop wasting huge amounts of staff time on them, and leave those posting words like "idiotic" or engaging in minor spats alone to sort out their own issues.

The problem with the internet is that it's often very hard to come across in the way you intend especially when dealing with delicate matters. Also two members will read a warning in a different manner. While one may appreciate it as a "tip off" from the mod to check his behaviour before it gets worse, another may feel he's being unfairly singled out, while at the same time others are getting away with it. This is difficult for the mod to deal with also.

Interestingly if my post #124 had been in another forum, it would probably have been edited and/or the thread closed by now. There's nothing wrong with the post, no swearing and no flaming, but if it had been in e.g. the backroom, it would probably have been called "trolling", "baiting" or "getting a bit heated" I have no doubt that it would not have lasted long. For the record I suspect the staff here think my posts in this thread have been simply one big trolling session against them from start to finish. That's the problem with the internet - one person sees one thing in a post, another person or person see another thing altogether. Often people see what they want to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

As for the clan system, I don't know how it used to work, but the battle.net system of each clan got its own private forum, of which only moderators/admins and members of the clan could see and post in.

If each clan got its own area to talk in (moderated by clan leader and those he designates), with a communal area to organise stuff, it could be what the org needs.

The subforums would be hidden unless you join the clan, so moderation could be less strict. You could designate a 'clan moderator' who would simply remove things against site rules (porn etc) but leave the actual moderation to the clan itself.

Self moderation, free areas to discuss what they want. Not sure if its possible though.

---

Good ideas, but I think only for an established MP community. Setting up all of that now, with activity how it is would be unwise in my humble opinion. The .org would just have more empty areas to fill. New blood needs to come in first, then any ideas regarding new forums, etc could be considered. The first stage should be to give the .org a broader appeal. Not "dumbing down" to appeal to "idiots", but just generally brightening up adding uploadable avatars, getting rid of JMs and generally easing off on the moderation to give the place more of a laid back feel. That would be a good start.

I've said all I had to say here, it's up the .org now and it's staff to choose between bringing about real change or continuing as they are.

Over and out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

I've said all I had to say here, it's up the .org now and it's staff to choose between bringing about real change or continuing as they are.

Over and out.

---

I'm glad you've come to say what you've said, mystery man.

:bow:

!...

I am back form a trip to Mexico and i am glad to see this conversation taking place about this important topic.
My five cents is that our main problem has lot of do with access.We need to get rid of the junior member access problems.Backroom access problems and the likes. We are like a coffee shop which is behind a labyrinth, while for example TWC is right next to a crowded street with huge neon lights flashing out. If people have hard time getting settled to here,they dont stay. It is like finally finding your way in and then being refused to order anything before you die of thirst.
It could be said that there are risks of making the place crazy by opening the flood gates, but i think that only a challenge for the moderation team. I say we open the gates and light the beacons that we are here by creating content and if something undesirable comes in the gates we Moderators can send it back where it came from if there is enough of us and if we are committed to this place.

Thats my five cents.:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

I am back form a trip to Mexico and i am glad to see this conversation taking place about this important topic.
My five cents is that our main problem has lot of do with access.We need to get rid of the junior member access problems.Backroom access problems and the likes. We are like a coffee shop which is behind a labyrinth, while for example TWC is right next to a crowded street with huge neon lights flashing out. If people have hard time getting settled to here,they dont stay. It is like finally finding your way in and then being refused to order anything before you die of thirst.
It could be said that there are risks of making the place crazy by opening the flood gates, but i think that only a challenge for the moderation team. I say we open the gates and light the beacons that we are here by creating content and if something undesirable comes in the gates we Moderators can send it back where it came from if there is enough of us and if we are committed to this place.

Thats my five cents.:bow:

---

I would be willing to be an extra mod on hand if the flood gates are opened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I would be willing to be an extra mod on hand if the flood gates are opened.

---

Smiting spambots can be therapeutic. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Unless I'm forgetting something, I've not read the post.

---

FYI: Discussion: Downloadable Content... :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Smiting spambots can be therapeutic. :smash:

---

I give you a year's worth of Cashews and Milk to be Moderator!

:laugh4:

Kikuchiyo certainly brings up important points, and his doing so comes with a certain amount of contradiction. Some of it is warranted and some of it is not, in my view. There most certainly is an issue of direction for the org and 9 months ago there was a less heated, but actually nearly identical discussion here in the wathctower: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-to-this-forum , where among other people i made the very same points about accessibility and opening up the forum in terms of atmosphere and intrinsic direction by staff to the younger breed of TW fans and young forum members.

However, as well meaning Kikuchiyo is, he is also reactionary and a contrarian by nature. The fact is that if the org was not as it is, there is a high chance that Kikuchiyo himself would have never taken root here. He would have run away from "the mindless youths that play the new toy feature ladden TW games that are custom made for such an audience" had the org accepted the new TW community in 2005-2007, the transition period. Forgetting this and burrying it is somewhat unfair to the org and to himself.

Neither its completely true when he says that "we all started saying the same thing (criticising new TW) because others did". For once, Kikuchiyo himself has very harshly criticised twc and its members in many occasions in private and in public over the years, its organisation, internal politics and member atmosphere. He also isn't really interested in the new TW games himself, and he is still quite critical of new TW and CA - critical enough that is, not to bother playing them. If anything, in terms of criticism, Kikuchiyo was among the leaders, not the followers. I understand that opinions and perceptions change and that this is natural and even necessary, but Kikuchiyo, really, wouldn't you be critical of the org since a long time ago if the org had actually become twc? I bet that if so, your contribution in this thread now would be about "the disastrous effects the mass influx of newer fans and new TW had on the org".

In light of this, saying that the direction TW took has nothing to do with what happened to the org and that people who mention this are using it as an excuse isn't really true neither really fair for someone with the positions you have had in the past, and most likely still have in the present. In fact, Kikuchiyo, yourself you are the type of fan that new TW made redundant, and you have wrote extensively about that. How can you close your eyes to this now? Is it because you can see the merrit of the other view as far as the direction of the org is concerned? But then, you knew the risk the org was running of being extinct if alienating itself too much from new TW and only very willingly went along from very early on. How can you deny that now? It isn't very honest, first of all to yourself.

Its certainly ok if you have changed your mind, but i feel its somewhat dishonest to you first and foremost if by doing an 180 degree turn you reject all that you stood for.

Some people are so much sceptical and reactionary that in the end they become sceptical of scepticism and reactionary to reactionism and Kikuchiyo you are such a fellow in my view. That is a gift and a curse; a gift because one can change his mind and be receptive to a healthy critical self-assesment, and a curse because in doing so in a reactionary manner one abandons truths that are part and parcel of who one is.

In any case, and beyond the person of Kikuchiyo, which as he says himself isn't really the issue, there is a situation for the org, and a crossroads is at hand. With the release of Shogun2 comes a new opportunity to embrace new recruits that would know nothing of old TW or of the org history while at the same time retaining all those things and members that make the org what it is for the most part.

I am not a moderator, but the junior membership system and lack of editing feature in junior accounts does hurt new influx. I do not know however how much more work load that will entail for the admin and moderators and so what are their reasoning is for this. Also some parts of the subforums need to be moderated in accordance with the communities that frequent them rather than with a general "org" mentality. Young members that play the latest "kewl" TW title cannot be moderated as veteran members in specialist mod subfora, nor the mp community can be moderated as the gameroom - this happened at the release of empire and it was pretty hurtful for member participation. Some break of uniformity of appearance might also help, and there is already a feature in place to do so, by choosing to see images rather than avatars. Members can choose images from an org pool, but they can also upload their own, so this goes quite a long way to solving the issue.

I think that the org admin and stuff do really care about the place, its a matter of how rather than if. The fact that this is the second quasi-identical topic on the subject of new member influx within the last 9 months certainly means something.

At the end of the day its up to the administration and staff to decide policy action for the org's benefit and future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Also some parts of the subforums need to be moderated in accordance with the communities that frequent them rather than with a general "org" mentality. Young members that play the latest "kewl" TW title cannot be moderated as veteran members in specialist mod subfora, nor the mp community can be moderated as the gameroom - this happened at the release of empire and it was pretty hurtful for member participation.

---

I think this could be something worth looking into. I know that my mind has always tried to but a blanket over it and say that it should all be the same, bar the backroom, but its a strong point.

Stop making me think! :tongue:

A nasty little bug, thinking is.