The politics of games.

[frogbeastegg]

Mob of quotes first:

There were some discussions already about topics such as copyprotection and controversial steps in the industry. Those were in different TW gameforums. I think the Arena had or could have such as well, but ask frogbeastegg about that.

Yes, we have had such discussions before. There was that huge secuROM topic in the citadel when Kingdoms came out, for one. We've had multiple starforce threads in the arena, all sorts.

If that happens, I would greatly ecourage a loosening of the rules on piracy discussion in that forum. Piracy, copyright, and DRM are the major topics that this forum would cover

As I have understood it (as the nutcase behind said tight arena rules) we cannot further open up discussion of matters like piracy, no CD cracks etc without leaving the org itself vulnerable to claims that we support it. That could leave us with no org. In the time I have been here we have had a few instances where an official stick has been shaken at us because of such discussions. We cannot loosen the rules and we cannot give such discussion any sort of official sanction.

I would rather see a thousand posts complaining about the gameplay of a favorite game than one more post of someone getting on their knees and performing sexual favors on StarDock's proverbial male genitalia.

You propose dropping the moderation of this one onto the backroom team? Otherwise it will be the same two victims volunteers reading the posts. We'd just have to do more clicking.



Now some actual amphibian thoughts:

Do I like the DRM etc posts? No. I'm heartily sick of the subject. I became so long ago, and I'm a frog who passes over buying PC games if they contain certain types of DRM.

IMO this proposed forum would end up mostly empty except for a small collection of topics blasting EA, cheering for Stardock, and picking over the odd event like Stardock's gamer's bill of rights. Am I the only one who finds the idea unappealing? A forum made - in essence - for people to complain in.

I also believe it's a phase. Mass Effect, Spore, Red Alert and that bill of rights have brought the topic into the spotlight. It will fade back again in time. I've seen other hot topics come and ago over the years. It's currently a hot topic on the other two gaming forums I look at.

Games Workshop? Nothing to do with the arena, even with a speculative backroom. Child slavery isn't our territory, and that would be the real subject. Games would only be a sideline.

I also don't understand what is so undesirable about putting the topics into the existing backroom.



In the past I have shunted topics over to the existing backroom leaving a redirect in the arena. Because of the slower turnover in the arena that redirect remains on the front page for a week or two, meaning people have plenty of time to see it and follow it. This can still be done. We don't need a seperate forum for it.

The difficulty, the thing keeping my itchy finger away from the move button, is where to draw the line. Which topic stays and which moves? Which posts are removed from topics, which are left untouched?

I can play draconian froggy instigate a lightly updated version of my original rule:
Any topic discussing DRM does not belong in the arena and will move to the backroom.
Any topic on subjects such as the bill of rights does not belong in the arena and will move to the backroom.
Any game's topic containing multiple posts on DRM will get a nudge for being off-topic.
It is fair for any nasty DRM to be mentioned a handful of times so potential buyers are warned.
It is not fair to complain about how bad said DRM is. Conversely, it is not fair to post about how good a certain DRM or lack thereof is. DRM discussion is DRM discussion.

Under that set of rules the spore/amazon topic goes, the bill of rights topic goes, multiple threads get a "DRM is not the topic" mod post, and of course a topic is created informing people of the change in topic ... and is anyone actually happy? Does it improve the arena? Because that's the second thing holding back action. Until now I had no idea I was alone in wishing people would get back to talking about games.

Alternately we take a different view. Maybe the discussions we are seeing now are what people want to see in the arena, and the arena should adapt to house them. That doesn't necessarily require a seperate sub-forum. For example, all DRM related discussion could be required to stay in a seperate thread, so we'd have the bioshock gameplay thread and the bioshock DRM thread.

What do people want to see?



It would be a good idea to set up a link in the arena so people are aware the matter is being discussed. I only found out when someone PMed me a link this evening :makes link:

[Kekvit Irae]

You propose dropping the moderation of this one onto the backroom team?

No, I propose the creation of a new sub-forum inside the Arena for such discussion, as noted in the very first line of my first post.

Games Workshop? Nothing to do with the arena, even with a speculative backroom. Child slavery isn't our territory, and that would be the real subject. Games would only be a sideline.

First, it is my understanding that Games Workshop is Arena material.

The Arena
A place to discuss any games not from the Total War series; also for game reviews, consoles and console games, etc.

Bolded the good parts. Unless the description suddenly changed to PC and console games only, traditional games are allowed.
Second, the child slavery part was a joke, to place emphasis on the "OMG, _____ is an evil overlord!" syndrome currently residing in the Arena now. I would have put in EA instead of GW, but I'm getting tired of all the EA bashing going on lately.

[Martok]

For what it's worth -- and speaking only for myself -- I started those two topics (the Amazon protest and the Gamers Bill of Rights) in the Arena simply because it seemed the most appropriate place. These are issues that affect gamers, after all, so where else to better discuss them? Granted, there's a bit of overlap with the Backroom when they have threads discussing the RIAA and whatnot, but that's more the exception rather than the rule.

Not that I want the Arena to be forever dominated by such discussions, of course -- I agree its primary purpose is still to discuss actual games. That's how it should be. Still, I don't see the harm in actually discussing issues that matter to gamers from time to time. (It's not like the Frontroom is all sunshine and lollipops, just for another example.) Besides which, I concur with froggy that these are simply hot topics at the moment, and will eventually fade in time.

[The_Doctor]

Maybe you should give it a week or two, and then see if the problem is still there and if it is then work something out.

You propose dropping the moderation of this one onto the backroom team? Otherwise it will be the same two victims volunteers reading the posts. We'd just have to do more clicking.

child slavery

[Veho Nex]

Yeah I'd say wait for a while before adding it. From what I've seen the arena only has its politcal moments once in a while. Other than that there are plenty of true arena threads. But adding a prefix to the name might be an easier fix. Like in the backroom or tw sections.

[Ferret]

The Arena isn't exactly one of the most active forums anyway, if you removed all the threads about DRM and other things that would go into the backroom of it, the Arena would become even more desolate. There are little enough threads with new posts being added to keep up with the ones you want to read and ignore the ones you don't want, the titles are apt enough to help you decide whether you want to read it.

So, in short, I agree with Mouza.

[frogbeastegg]

No, I propose the creation of a new sub-forum inside the Arena for such discussion, as noted in the very first line of my first post.

You've also said you are sick of seeing these posts. My point is, either you'll be reading them because they are in the arena, or you won't because they aren't. Creating a backroom does not alter this.

I wrote the arena's description years ago, same as I wrote the welcome topic and rules. The arena is - and always has been - for computer games, or, as they've been called by society and the internet at large for most of my life, games. Hence the way everything talks about demos, platforms, consoles, handhelds, PCs ... Conversely, board games are still called board games, card games are called card games, and war games war games. If I'd meant to refer to them then I'd have done so. On the very rare occasions someone has posted a topic on a traditional game I've tended let it pass because there is no correct forum for those topics. They show up in the front room too, and fit there equally well. If people want to talk about painting warhammer miniatures then it's mostly off-topic. If they want to talk about the evil ethics behind them then it's totally off-topic. EA's ethics still have some relation to games.

Agreed on wanting the patrons' views. It's why I posted the link; it would have been sad if people missed this topic and didn't get chance to have their say. I'm not the only one who doesn't get out and about much. If anything gets changed (or not) as many people as possible should be content with the decision.

Well, from a legal perspective I don't think that's quite right.

From a legal perspective we can discuss whatever we like, provided we're not giving out links to cracks or telling people how to pirate games. From a working perspective, we've had upset messages about certain topics discussing things like secuROM.

Anyone guess why I hold the Arena dear?

Is it because you can play with our friendly lions and build sandcastles on the fighting ground?




How do people feel about a light compromise? Keep the games threads targeted more towards games, and keep the bulk of the DRM and similar discussion in a seperate topic in the same forum? Not a total seperation, just an attempt to reduce the way some games threads end up being more about the copy protection than the playing experience. Not heavy mod action, just a post nudging the discussion back towards the game and highlighting the other thread.

Yes, in the end it comes down to mod discretion. However it's usually easy to see when a thread is running too far off topic, and it's usually very simple to solve with a single post.

I stress that this wouldn't remove all DRM discussion from the game topic. The idea is to divert the flow if and when it threatens to drown.




And for everyone saying the arena is quiet, it wouldn't be if people spent more time talking about games and less time playing them!

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

How do people feel about a light compromise? Keep the games threads targeted more towards games, and keep the bulk of the DRM and similar discussion in a separate topic in the same forum?

No. It's little different from splitting the forum. The games exist with everything related to them. We can't and should not separate issues like DRM, system incompatibilities, breaking bugs etc. from the in-game stuff. It was the whole point of my post. (That aside, self censorship is hardly the right way to go. )
.

[Kekvit Irae]

We could always implement a word filter system. Simply filter every third word in the Arena to 'StarDock'. Everyone loves StarDock, so using this method everyone in the Arena would be happy.

Let's take (with apologies) Mouza's post above as an example:

It's little StarDock from splitting StarDock forum. The StarDock exist with StarDock related to StarDock. We can't StarDock should not StarDock issues like StarDock, system incompatibilities, StarDock bugs etc. StarDock the in-game StarDock. It was StarDock whole point StarDock my post. (StarDock aside, self StarDock is hardly StarDock right way to StarDock.

[Mouzafphaerre]

We could always implement a word filter system. Simply filter every third word in the Arena to 'StarDock'. Everyone loves StarDock, so using this method everyone in the Arena would be happy.

Let's take (with apologies) Mouza's post above as an example:

.
Apologies?! You've just made me laugh out my guts!
.

[Husar]

I take offense by the statement that everybody loves StarDock as I do not have a single game of theirs.
I demand an apology, a foot massage and the replacement of seven "StarDock"s by "Valve" in the offending piece of quote...

On the actual issue, I think mentioning the bad copy protection used in the game in a thread about the game is pretty fine but when the whole thread fills up with "I won't StarDock it because of the Valve used!!!1111 " and then a lengthy repost of the same old "The StarDocks will Valve it anyway because this Valve never works, give them 3 StarDocks and it's Valve by the StarDocks and this is screwing with their StarDock Valve anyway and I'm so angry etc. blaValve" then you end up with the same posts in every second thread which makes me think that one topic to cover all sorts of copy protection makes more sense while the game threads can mention it once or twice for those who may not know the game is protected by copy protection x or y and do not want to read the endless ramblings in the copy protection thread. That way everybody gets the vital info and them freedom-loving capitalists can get their thread to be annoyed about copy protections.

[Martok]

How do people feel about a light compromise? Keep the games threads targeted more towards games, and keep the bulk of the DRM and similar discussion in a seperate topic in the same forum? Not a total seperation, just an attempt to reduce the way some games threads end up being more about the copy protection than the playing experience. Not heavy mod action, just a post nudging the discussion back towards the game and highlighting the other thread.

That would be fine with me, at least in theory. I'm a little concerned, however, that it could adversely affect threads about games inextricably linked to DRM (such as Bioshock, Mass Effect, and the now-infamous Spore) -- if invasive and/or inconvenient copy protection software is a major issue with a PC title, then I don't feel it should be shunted off to a general discussion thread about DRM.

Or are we actually mostly in agreement on this, and I'm just rambling on for no good reason?

And for everyone saying the arena is quiet, it wouldn't be if people spent more time talking about games and less time playing them!

Hey, now! I'll have you know that some of us do our part, thank you very much. I spend way too much time talking about games and not enough time playing them (heck, it's pretty much my MO at this point).

[TinCow]

As I have understood it (as the nutcase behind said tight arena rules) we cannot further open up discussion of matters like piracy, no CD cracks etc without leaving the org itself vulnerable to claims that we support it. That could leave us with no org. In the time I have been here we have had a few instances where an official stick has been shaken at us because of such discussions. We cannot loosen the rules and we cannot give such discussion any sort of official sanction.

Well, from a legal perspective I don't think that's quite right. I am not aware of any US or EU laws which criminalize the discussion of copyright and DRM issues. Certainly if a website contains instructions on how to commit a copyright violation or actually materially aids in doing so, that would be cause for concern. I admit my knowledge of EU IP law is far below my knowledge of US IP law, but I would highly doubt that a simple discussion on the benefits and harms of copyright piracy is criminal in any manner, even in the most severe EU jurisdiction. Under current Org policy, I am barred from posting a paper I wrote on the benefits and detriments of copyright/patent law based on a theoretical technological innovation, yet I wrote this paper in law school.

When it comes down to it, whoever owns the Org (Tosa?) has the final say in something like this because any legal consequences would rest mainly on his shoulders. However, I honestly do not see how simply discussing piracy (without instructions on how to commit it) can be considered a criminal action in any relevant jurisdiction.

On a personal level, the problem with moving these discussions to the Backroom is that they become... er... part of the Backroom. That place scares me, and I only tend to post there when doing so in a neutral manner. I am not likely to post in any game/DRM related threads in there simply because they are going to be swarmed by the vicious hordes of the Backroom.

[Banquo's Ghost]

On a personal level, the problem with moving these discussions to the Backroom is that they become... er... part of the Backroom. That place scares me, and I only tend to post there when doing so in a neutral manner. I am not likely to post in any game/DRM related threads in there simply because they are going to be swarmed by the vicious hordes of the Backroom.

I would like to make the point that the Backroom is not anywhere near as bad as people seem to think. There are no vicious hordes. All members of good character should feel that they are welcome. The discussions are challenging certainly, but we take great pains to ensure that they are also civil.

I can assure you, anyone who looks like they may become a vicious horde is crushed like a bug.

[TinCow]

I would like to make the point that the Backroom is not anywhere near as bad as people seem to think. There are no vicious hordes. All members of good character should feel that they are welcome. The discussions are challenging certainly, but we take great pains to ensure that they are also civil.

I can assure you, anyone who looks like they may become a vicious horde is crushed like a bug.

Part of my issue with the Backroom isn't really the people in it, so much as their style of argument. It seems to me like a more chaotic version of an organized debate where the participants are more concerned with simply winning the argument than with the actual topic itself. That's to be expected given the long history that many of them have with each other, but it is a bit off-putting for potential fresh fish and for the more casual participants like myself. If the more controversial Arena topics were moved to the Backroom, my concern would be that a few of these 'Backroom Pundits' would dominate the threads and scare away some of the more casual participants that often chime in right now.

[Privateerkev]

During the course of my one spectacular failure of an attempt to participate in a backroom conversation, I have found that many in there rather compete in a sort of a endurance contest and attempt to outlast each other with weak arguments, than actually try to hold a healthy debate.

That being said, I don't think the answer is to open up "mini-backrooms" all over the .Org. If there are problems with the backroom being daunting to those of us used to a different debating style, than the answer more seems to be to look into the backroom culture itself and see why it doesn't seem to be working for some people.

[Kekvit Irae]

On a little side note: for those of you (you know who you are) who are wondering why I made this thread instead of suggesting such a course of action to only Tosa and/or Froggy, it's because I want to know the opinions of the public and have an intelligent discussion going on about the future of the Arena. After all, isn't that the purpose of the Watchtower; to discuss Org policy? I respect each and every one of your opinions, even if they are completely opposite of mine, and just posting here shows that you care about the Arena.

/offtopic

[doc_bean]

I strongly disagree.

If the arena had, on average, more than 5 threads going on at the same time, it might be an option worth looking into. But let's face it, as much as I love the Arena, it's virtually dead. Creating a sub forum would only worsen the situation.

Besides, I agree with what Mouza and Nav said. DRM is, unfortunatly, a part of PC gaming. And a pretty damn important one for people like me, who use different systems.