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

[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.