Gameroom

[TosaInu]

Hello,

The Gameroom has become an opt-in forum like the Backroom.

Anyone can see the forum, its topic and read the content. But to participate Gameroom membership is required.

All members who could post in the Gameroom have Gameroom membership already, you can go to the UserCP and throw it away. Then you have to request it again in the UserCP.

The Gameroom moderators decide about granting access.

Care has been taken to set this up and to give access to those who already had it, I could have made mistakes though. Please PM me or the Gameroom moderators if you experience trouble.

Have fun.

[Caius]

UserCP

Fixed the link for Tosa.

[TosaInu]

Thank you Caius.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Rather than further complicating the scenario relating to limited access, might I suggest that we could just drop Junior Memberism all together? I do feel that it may save everybody, especially the less technologically adept Junior Member, a lot of unnecessary work and pain.

While we are on the topic of ideas, might I also suggest improved community consultation of all proposed major and certain minor ideas and additions to the forum feature set. This could be based around polls, suggestion threads, brief trials e.c.t.

The key issue with some components/add-ons is that they are currently unused/neglected by members (the Wiki and the CMS are key examples). An improved system should allow the upper management levels to understand if the feature will be used and, further more, if it is actually wanted by the community. Of course if it wont be used or isn't considered necessary by the people of the .Org, there is no reason to implement it.

Sorry for being so critical

[Andres]

While we are on the topic of ideas, might I also suggest improved community consultation of all proposed major and certain minor ideas and additions to the forum feature set. This could be based around polls, suggestion threads, brief trials e.c.t.

You mean, democracy?



The horror!

[pevergreen]

I think this works better.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I think this works better.

Well, not really. The wiki is unused, the CMS is untouched by anybody but Tosa himself e.c.t. Don't get me wrong, some features have worked out well (such as the the userpages), but others are simply untouched making them a little useless.

The democracy which I am suggesting is essentially not anything too dramatic - I am not suggesting that every single .Org action needs to be approved by members. I'm suggesting more the serious things which need member contributions to be deployed effectively and propositions which could be considered controversial. This could be extended to other items, but this is not required.

An example of where democracy was used was when there was a discussion over the creation of a M:TW Guides forum. This thread can be found here. That was more the implementation I was thinking of.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I disagree with this assessment. The Wiki is definitely used, maybe only by a niche of forumgoers, but that niche is still there. From a personal standpoint, it's nice to have an easy summary of characters/events in KotR in an easily-accessable place. It hasn't been edited in a while, but we're clamping down and gearing up for the end of the PBM, and I expect touching-up/completion to resume once it's done.

As for the CMS, it does serve some practical purpose: during an extended period when the .Org was down a month or so ago, we were redirected to the CMS and Tosa provided us with minor updates until the rest of the site came back up.

Really, I don't see a problem with the current system. Every feature serves one purpose or another, and none of them are detrimental to the .Org, even if they're little-used.