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

[caravel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sigurd]

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

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

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

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

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

[Andres]

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

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

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

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

I offer you my apologies.

As for your first post, yes I read it.

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

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

Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree that moderators should be a last resort.

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

Correct.

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

True.

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

True again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes and no.

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

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



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

[Shibumi]

I have a little input from a new members perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

[pevergreen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

CA don't get to post like that.

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

[Andres]

I have a little input from a new members perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

Thnx for sharing your thoughts, Shibumi

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

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

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

[Beskar]

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" ?

[Andres]

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.

[al Roumi]

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

[caravel]

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

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

I offer you my apologies.

Accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope he does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[caravel]

@Togakure: Agreed, though no respect is needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do I know.

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

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

Yeah, of a MP subforum, IIRC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Togakure]

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

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

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

[caravel]

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

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

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

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

With respect,

*bows*

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

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

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

Regards

[Togakure]

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

[Sigurd]

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...

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.

[Andres]

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

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.

[pevergreen]

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.

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?

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.

[Andres]

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.

[caravel]

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?

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

[caravel]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Sigurd]

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.

[caravel]

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?

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.

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[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.

[Lord of Lent]

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