Why all the Moderating

Warning: Grumpy post ahead.

Personally I think it's becoming painfully obvious that what this forum really needs is to be pledged accounts only, with very strict posting rules and maybe one open forum section where anyone can make 1 or 25 accounts.

Then maybe we can get back to the business of discussing the game elements in testing or suggestions or proposals, instead of people and their alts airing all their grievances at every opportunity, pushing agendas, arguments, venting, bashing Port & mods, starting forum alts to say things they don't dare with their main accounts or to "like" their own posts and agree with themselves to make it look like their agenda is more popular, etc, etc, etc., and then people who don't want to have to sift the forum for real game design feedback threads can just avoid the public hornets nest. Holy run-on sentence, yes I know but I'm getting very disgusted with all this and that makes me grumpy.

Sure, it won't stop it altogether but it would cut it down and at least then it would be all legitimate accounts and the mods could do their job without having to kowtow to every person who decides they don't like it or thinks they should be automatons with no opinions. And it would be easier to actually find the feedback/game design/proposals/etc threads

 

Wow! I had no clue this site is accessible to non-pledged. I've just never tried.

I hope the Game Features forums are for pledged only at least. Anyone know if they are?

 

Noctiflora +1 for thoughtfulness!
Sub section for inquisitive people heavily moderated for the good advertisement of our game!
~Time Lord~

 

Give it a week. No one will care. We're about as far from the last release as you can be. With new play time and new features to test, talk will turn back toward the game, then slowly fall off into nonsense as the following release nears. It's a cycle.

 

It will increase by number of people. We do hope others join us here and more pledges mean more people and more people means a larger wave when this "cycle" comes again.
As a Good Boy Scout Once Said, "Be Prepared"
~Time Lord~

 

Captain Jack agrees. This should be the next stretch goal on the list!

 

As far as I know, anyone can post in any of the general forums. That includes the Game Features forum. All it takes is a forum account.

 

OK, Maybe we could place in the online add-on story a stretch goal Moderator Voodoo Doll
It's just humor OK But it is a thought Aye?
~Time Lord~Jester~

 

No wonder it's a mess. Especially the PvP forums.

So Joe Shmo's can just go into the Game Features forums and start running their mouths on a game from RG whome they know NOTHING about his style of games, and possibly encourage WoW or other 'lame-stream' MMO ideas? Zoinks.

 

You see it ALL the time. Some guy comes in and his first post is about some feature that should/should not be included and why. The argument is old and stale, but presented as some amazing new idea.

Still, I like the open nature of the forums. Give prospective backers a chance to dip their feet in the community pool (let's hope the chlorine level is up to snuff!).

 

We do need a stretch goal to modify the forums!
Time Lord Approved!
~Time Lord~

 

Good idea, lets get a stretch goal for that stretch goal!

 

Maybe a separate forums section with sticky threads about what the current thinking is on everything?
What should such a "Re-Formed Forums" look like?
~Time Lord~

 

TLDR: Segregated forums are not a good idea for a crowdfunded project.

* * * * * * * *

The people who are already in love with RG and his development history aren't the people that need to be persuaded to back the project. Some measure of transparency is critically important to the success of a crowdfunding effort because there is no product yet. Nowhere to be found anywhere on the entire internet is there a single official feature list or final product review to help dubious backers make a decision. Because of this, the big marketing challenge for most crowdsourced projects is building community. More specifically, that means building an open community. Non-backers have to have open access with the backer community to an extent so there is space for those non-backers to talk to people who have backed and learn why.

That comes with a tradeoff, which is the impact of ignorance injected into a tightly knit community. Most of us are pretty trusting of Portalarium and their plans for SotA, even if we are often critical of the project. That might seem counter intuitive, but it is evidenced by the fact that we (I think all of us?) have indeed backed the project, most at a level higher or much higher than Adventurer. Whether the courtesy we try to demonstrate when making those criticisms stems from the fact that we are backers or simply from the fact that we are courteous people is impossible to differentiate. One thing is pretty certain, though, which is that all of us (even the non-backers) care about the fate of this game. I'd also hazard the guess that many backers take criticisms of the game a bit personally, mostly because those backers care enough about the game that they choose to put their hard-earned money toward the project.

But the fact that backers get annoyed when non-backers criticize the game doesn't mean there is justification for crying wolf. RG, Long, Spears, and the whole rest of the team know what they're doing, and they don't respect the wacky WoW-esque recommendations that come totally out of left field any more than any of you do. When you see threads like that, tempted as you might be to respond and shut the idea down, there is no harm done if you simply choose not to respond at all. Or, even better, you can welcome that person to the community and explain that SotA will not be that kind of game. Link them to resource that can help them learn what you already know (or explain it yourself if you're feeling verbose), and, if you're feeling especially generous, cap it all off with a little note about how the game will not change so dramatically as the criticism asks but that it's completely ok to not like the game if it isn't a good fit for that player.

Personally I like to recommend an Adventurer pledge to people who don't understand the game or who are upset to the point where they refuse to back. $45 isn't so much to ask for being able to actually see what's new with each release and get Episode 1 when it comes out. Still, at the same time I make that recommendation, I also post links to resources that talk about the plans for aspects of the game that interest that user so that user can make his or her own decision.

The point is that we are all part of Portalarium's marketing strategy, though none of us really asked to be. The more helpful and supportive a community we present here, the more powerful and pleasant a face we put on the development effort. I think instead of limiting the forum to backers only, what really needs to happen is that backers need to start taking a deep breath before each post and asking themselves, "If I were researching a totally different game and saw a post like the one I'm about to make, would it show me that the community is genuinely happy with the direction in which the game is headed?"

In other words, things aren't really so bad here, and we do a disservice condemning Portalarium, the community of backers, or the community of newcomers for things that could be better--especially when we condemn one party for the actions of another. Like I've said before, it takes two to tango, and as backers we hold the obligation to step up and be the better group. After all, if a newcomer arrives here only to find a pile of burning trash in the middle of the town square of a desolate and abandoned metropolis, he or she will probably get scared and run off. And when a newcomer runs off, there might not ever be any reason for him or her to look back.

* * * * * * * *

TLDR: Segregated forums are not a good idea for a crowdfunded project.

 

horrible idea unless your message is:

a. We can't handle ourselves maturely as a community, please come join us!
b. We are awesome, but your opinion is trash unless you pay money to join us!

that is not the community of which I want to be a part, it is a sad message.

 

We currently segregate our Dev+, so I feel that separating our members from non-members is a common and needed right of all our members.
It could be possible for our "Guests" to be able to "view" our members posts, yet not be able to comment, except within the common guest area.
I believe that many of our current members hide behind alternate masks of posting names, and "one posting name per account" could make our forums ideas and quality of polls rise significantly.

Are you one of those that has a second name that hides who you are?
Otherwise, why are their objections other than that?
Dev+ has a special group, why then is it unheard of that the rest of our members do not deserve such treatment on the only other forum?
Are you really the only you?
~Time Lord~

 

I understand the sentiment, but I disagree. I don't really like the idea of dev+ either. If it weren't baked into a tier reward, I'd lobby for it to be made public, but that would be unfair to those who paid to get there. Adding yet another level of secrecy and elitism is not the answer in my mind.

Sometimes the open-ness can cause annoyance, but it does more good than harm in my mind.

 

Agree to a point. There could still be a public forum section for potential new people to post and the rest could be read-only so they can get up to speed if they're truly interested. There are currently no private game-dedicated forums for anyone under dev+ level. As things are now, the dev+ forums are the only place where it actually looks & feels like a game forum for civil feedback, suggestions, discussion of features, etc. The rest quite often just turns into a mess that can't possibly be giving a good impression as a whole. I'm dev+ so I can always retreat to that section when the general becomes periodically intolerable so maybe I shouldn't care, but I do. **shrugs**

@ Time Lord: lol. You posted yours at the same time.

 

Part of what makes public forums work, though, is that lots of backers are forced to participate in them. Introducing backer-restricted forums risks making the official forums look quite empty to people who aren't backers. No bueno.

 

docdoom77 said;

Adding yet another level of secrecy and elitism is not the answer in my mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~TL~ had said;

It could be possible for our "Guests" to be able to "view" our members posts, yet not be able to comment, except within the common guest area.

So Doom, where's the secrecy in that you speak of?
And, I think people are special when they buy the game... and special enough to have their votes counted above any person who has not bought the game....

~Time Lord~
XX