Why all the Moderating

It's not about votes, though. We can only put suggestions out there for Portalarium to consider. It's their job to vote. Our job is to put ideas out there and to vet those ideas, but the staff at Portalarium are all experienced enough and smart enough to filter out the bad ideas that slip through the vetting process. In other words, Portalarium is well capable of recognizing bad arguments and filtering those out.

Our job is making this a nice place to be. I think you're an awesome part of that experience for lots of people. But we can't forget that people who aren't backers simply aren't backers yet. They should be welcomed into the community and shown why backing the project is a good thing--not banished to their own little corner of the forums, where no one dare tread unless a stranded soul requires rescuing.

 

Lord Trenyc Said;

Introducing backer-restricted forums risks making the official forums look quite empty to people who aren't backers. No bueno.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Our Dev+ dose not look empty and the other forum members, outnumber the amount of Dev+ members.
Is there any other reason to deny our lower members the right to be heard above the people who don't own the game?
Are we really the only us? or do some of "us" have another one of "us" that gets second votes or influence on things around here?
~Time Lord~

 

Something needs to be done. There is close to 120,000 registered users and only rounded up 36,000 backers. 4x the amount of backers. Not all the forums need to be restricted but ideally forums in the general section such as: game features, town hall and community announcements should be pledge only for posting, and readable by non pledgers. To many spam accounts, accounts that come in just to disrespect users and cause a stir.

 

That's because there are a boatload of people who aren't Dev+ who post in the regular forums. Their posts draw the Dev+ people here.

As for the Dev+ forums, I don't have an opinion on that, since it's a totally unrelated discussion. It might seem related, but the impact of excluding all non-backers from game-related forums is far, far greater than the impact of having a special area for a small part of the backer community, especially at a time when pledge revenue is slowing to a crawl and we should be worrying about doing everything we can to attract new backers and support the game.

Also, you have it a bit backwards. I don't mean the backer-only forums would be empty. I mean the forums to which non-backers are relegated would be empty.

 

The secrecy is the Dev+ forum. None of what goes on there can be mentioned anywhere else (otherwise what is the point of it?). It's not a big deal and it is veering off-topic, so I'll leave it there.

 

Lord Trenyc said;

That's because there are a boatload of people who aren't Dev+ but are still backers who post in the regular forums. Their posts draw the Dev+ people here.

As for the Dev+ forums, I don't have an opinion on that, since it's a totally unrelated discussion. It might seem related, but the impact of excluding all non-backers from game-related forums is far, far greater than the impact of having a special area for a small part of the backer community, especially at a time when pledge revenue is slowing to a crawl and we should be worrying about doing everything we can to attract new backers and support the game.

Also, you have it a bit backwards. I don't mean the backer-only forums would be empty. I mean the forums to which non-backers are relegated would be empty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~TL~
You make many assumptions within your opinion and my opinion comes from facts.
We are able to have many of "our ghost posting selves" who can sway public opinion and disguise what one person says as being many.

Currently we do not have a way of holing back the trolls that run amuck on our forums and we as well do not have any way of preventing dual opinion.
"If I were to drink water from a stagnate pond", I would want many filters of which "we all" could be there as well and also any of the multi dual opinioned members posing as one person.

You have no opinion on Dev+ having their segregation, yet you object to our other members having a quality voice to be heard?
This seems odd indeed
Are we only one opinion, or are some of us deserving of false support by our "other selves"?
~Time Lord~

 

docdoom77 Said;

The secrecy is the Dev+ forum. None of what goes on there can be mentioned anywhere else (otherwise what is the point of it?). It's not a big deal and it is veering off-topic, so I'll leave it there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
~TL~
This is clearly on topic because of the increased need of the Moderators to moderate phantom posting members when they are upset and wish to disrupt our community. As well, since there are alternate selves here, then this becomes an even more greater issue because of any forums member to falsely be leading the life of a troll on one posting character and yet leading the life of a saint with their other.
~Time Lord~
X

 

It tends to lead me off-topic because I have a real distaste for the whole dev+ forum. It smacks of elitism and puts forth the idea that someone who has paid more than me, is somehow more important or has better input to offer. It taints the transparency that I love from Portalarium. So when I talk about it, I get bitter... and let's be honest... a little jealous of those who can afford to put $450 into the game.

Now, when it's used to refine an idea, but then it becomes public, before the actual proposal, it's not so bad. For example, if they wanted to put forth an idea about adding a new feature: let's say... even more playable races. They use dev+ for their initial ideas, narrow it down and then open it to the public for yet more ideas, and then put out a mega-thread saying: here's what we are actually gonna do. Then no problem.

When it becomes: Here's a new idea: Let's add in new stretch goals and tiers. They open it to dev+. Then they tell the rest of us what they decided, I feel left out of the loop.

I mostly try not to think about it. It's not going to change and dev+ does serve a valuable function. It just gets under my skin in a way that causes me to get upset when I discuss it.

So, the idea of doing something similar with backers vs. non-backers does not appeal to me at all.

 

I respect that you disagree with me, but your opinion on this matter is no more informed by fact than mine. There is no precedent in this case for doing what is suggested, and the question becomes one more of predicting the effects of the proposed cause. I understand that you're frustrated, and I will not continue this discussion so long as you take it personally. It's not personal. I'm sorry if I've offended you.

I do not want to get into a fight with you of all people, and I have already explained why I feel the way I do in this post, and I explained the difference between supporting Dev+ exclusivity and supporting the kind of exclusivity that is proposed here in the post you quoted. What I really want is for people on this forum to stop stigmatizing "the other" and to make a stronger effort to work together as a sort of team (or at least a group of people with a common interest and goal) to represent the game better for people who haven't yet experienced it or don't well understand it.

 

docdoom77 Said;


It tends to lead me off-topic because I have a real distaste for the whole dev+ forum. It smacks of elitism and puts forth the idea that someone who has paid more than me, is somehow more important or has better input to offer. It taints the transparency that I love from Portalarium. So when I talk about it, I get bitter... and let's be honest... a little jealous of those who can afford to put $450 into the game.

Now, when it's used to refine an idea, but then it becomes public, before the actual proposal, it's not so bad. For example, if they wanted to put forth an idea about adding a new feature: let's say... even more playable races. They use dev+ for their initial ideas, narrow it down and then open it to the public for yet more ideas, and then put out a mega-thread saying: here's what we are actually gonna do. Then no problem.

When it becomes: Here's a new idea: Let's add in new stretch goals and tiers. They open it to dev+. Then they tell the rest of us what they decided, I feel left out of the loop.

I mostly try not to think about it. It's not going to change and dev+ does serve a valuable function. It just gets under my skin in a way that causes me to get upset when I discuss it.

So, the idea of doing something similar with backers vs. non-backers does not appeal to me at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~TL~

Do excuse me for saying so, but;

Neither of the dissenting views that have been stated thus far have addressed the issue of multiple false votes and opinions through alternate posting persona. Nor have either addressed the rights of the lower member to have their views un-diluted by ether the public or the alternate identities of members.

To uphold any elitism of the Dev+, is to deny the paid member of their right too, to be able to be heard as someone higher that that of a non-paid member. Yet you do point to the need for "a filter", but see no reason to provide such a filter to others for their views to be heard as ours is.

Alternate personalities and double voted opinion seem to be the rule that you uphold and not that of a more just stance for all our paid members.

Dose this mean that I need to go and create more "alternate me's" to have my opinions more supported?
"Not to mention to afford myself the ability to disrupt while hiding behind a false me"?
Is this what is normal here and I'm missing out?
I find it very odd that neither of the dissenting opinions spoke of this, as this is what plagues our community and causes much more needed services of our moderators, "which is the subject of this thread".
Should there be many of me..... or you... or us... or them?
~Time Lord~

 

I did respond to that.

 

Oh, no, there is no upset my friends this is what we "debate" as idea of what is, to what may be needed and the causes and weight of fact for it's refinement

It is only through debate and rhetoric that we find any truth if any is to be had and them thus recognized as common fact. Plato and Socrates use to do this for a living the same as I do and we share here.
~Time Lord~

 

Keep in mind, the cake is a lie.

That ginormous number of forum accounts contain a large portion (15-20% last time we "could" check) of bot/spam accounts, just waiting to be used.

If you watch the numbers, there is a steady 10 backers made every 30 minutes, 24/7.

This was confirmed by Tas and Lum in the web feedback forum area, and they even went so far as to ask about alternative verification methods, since the one at the time (has it changed?) had next to zero challenge.

 

You are operating under the assumption that I think public polls hold any value. I do not. I have openly said so on many occasions. At best they might give us food for thought. At worst, they create confusing results with everyone interpreting them differently. I look at what people have to say, not how they vote or how many likes they have.

I'm not saying that there is NO value in the proposal, I just value open communication more than the "security" of a more closed system. Hearing multiple accounts say the same, poorly constructed argument does not sway me. I prefer to filter the nonsense myself and make my own judgements. The same reason I've never used the "ignore" function. I want to hear it all. If it seems like nonsense, I can skip it myself, but at least I'm given the opportunity to make that decision.

Given the choice, I nearly always come down on the side of more variety, more choice, more communication. It has more to do with my personal values than a logically constructed argument. I can tell you why I feel the way I do and I will listen to what you have to say, but you're not likely to sway me, because the subject hits one of my core values.

 

My efforts of forwarding the rhetoric, is in the regard of having to read so many posts to get to where the subject of anything is and then to find the facts mixed with so many posts. I also have observed that there are new people who want to find the facts and cannot find them. This was one of our "enderandrew's" specialties, where he would post FAQ's and such to have ready available information on the current lines of facts about our game.

New comers need to find what's what with filtered reality of what is... and what is not... and what may be... and then add their opinions, as members, or in a non membered area where sticky threads and others of us can post to welcome and encourage.

What's good for the goose (Dev+) is good for the gander (paid members).
Just a view that fits what is now for encouraging pledge. The guests can view the paid member's board, but must post where guests and members meet and greet at a nice clean doorway, for our wonderful members to lead them on to becoming pledge members themselves.
~Time Lord~

 

While I entirely agree with your point to an extent, there is already a huge segregated divide in this particular forum community at the dev+ level as a couple others have already mentioned .

I've been a part of many forum communities, and this forum has mostly consisted of just the most productive, on-topic, and enthusiastic posters I've ever seen. Unfortunately I feel like on-topic discussion can only go so far, and we've come to this point where we can only wait for the next 5 releases to fully grasp the concepts and design being put into the game now.

Part of the problem with the design of this forum is that casual off-topic discussion can only happen in private conversations using a PM, and with up to 6 people at maximum; so casual public discussion about things other than SotA always feels inappropriate on the current boards. I feel like a common ground pledges-only forum board devoted to that kind of space could foster some better outer-topic discussions and improve the overall forum camaraderie. Leave the on-topic boards fully public for people to read and discuss about the game, while the backer-only board could be view-only to non-backers.

 

I myself do not Use foul language in RL, (Least try); otherwise id sound like a Sailor
As far as offending others, in RL I do all the time, im Not PC in any way and nor do I care to be; If I don't like something then ill tell you to your face and try find a solution if i can instead of griping.

Some people take things to seriously nowadays and need to take walks more often to relax.

As long as there's free speech, we should speak our minds but we must watch out when speech comes out as attacks towards others, then that is crossing the line.

 

Exactly why some additional form of moderation is needed. Cause I'm sure besides many of those spam accounts are also people just like mentioned above posting under alternate names to further a cause for whatever reason or just to troll and the occasional random with nothing but disrespectful things to add without any interest in the game.

Kinda curious how many backers there actually are. Cause I'm sure many people have double, triple, etc of additional accounts.

 

Backers is also off for sure. There are people here who have admitted to multiple accounts. I assume that 39k is closer to reality however, versus the 120k forums accounts.

 

Dang, now I want to see the clip that Time Lord posted. lol