Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Web Development and Site Suggestions => Topic started by: scagga on 21 Apr 2010, 11:58
-
As we mentioned during design phase:
I've really enjoyed 'IC diplomacy' sections on the Electus Matari forums in the past.
I think that individual organisation could create public IC diplomacy threads/subsections within an IC section for voluntary usage of pilots from various organisations, where people with business could come forward.
I also think you could have IC bars and IC follow on stories relevant to ongoings ingame (similar to 'we stop this broadcast' on IGS).
We have to recognise that the amount of crap that many people see on IGS makes them unwilling to even look for the good stuff. 'Bottling' good stuff on a new forum and protecting it from OOC riffraff on IGS is good and may in time send a message to CCP moderators about what roleplayers want.
I for one am not up for another IC chestbeating platform. We can work on the concept, imo.
and
I think that a section can be set aside as a bank of propaganda media (posters, videos that are otherwise lost on the forums), corp histories with their famous operations etc, so that newcomers have a handy place where they can read about the past of roleplaying organisations.
I'd like to gauge interest in these ideas, with a view to helping enrich our inspiracy experiences :p
-
You mean like this (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?board=7.0)?
-
You mean like this (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?board=7.0)?
I think that would cover the 2nd, but not the 1st quote. To enable that part to reach its potential, I suppose some stickied 'this is what this section is for' threads would help, and also forum subsections for the difference factions, for easier readability.
-
Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer that that was intended for the second part. My bad. :)
-
I like the idea of a general IC forum or sections, I'm just a bit at a loss as to what the most effective way to implement it would be. Here on the home page? A separate page with heavy promotion and a very prominent link?
-
I like the idea of a general IC forum or sections, I'm just a bit at a loss as to what the most effective way to implement it would be. Here on the home page? A separate page with heavy promotion and a very prominent link?
Word of mouth, links in people's corp descriptions, etc.
-
What would the IC section cover? Because I really really REALLY wouldn't want to see another IGS.
Please.
-
What would the IC section cover? Because I really really REALLY wouldn't want to see another IGS.
Please.
In what ways do you find the OP inadequate in answering this?
-
I framed my question inadequately, you're right (even though that's not what you said :P ). ;)
I think that individual organisation could create public IC diplomacy threads/subsections within an IC section for voluntary usage of pilots from various organisations, where people with business could come forward.
I also think you could have IC bars and IC follow on stories relevant to ongoings ingame (similar to 'we stop this broadcast' on IGS).
How does this differ from IGS today? That's a genuine question, not a veiled criticism implying that it doesn't. I just feel like I don't quite "get" it, that's all. :)
-
I framed my question inadequately, you're right (even though that's not what you said :P ). ;)
I think that individual organisation could create public IC diplomacy threads/subsections within an IC section for voluntary usage of pilots from various organisations, where people with business could come forward.
I also think you could have IC bars and IC follow on stories relevant to ongoings ingame (similar to 'we stop this broadcast' on IGS).
How does this differ from IGS today? That's a genuine question, not a veiled criticism implying that it doesn't. I just feel like I don't quite "get" it, that's all. :)
That's easily understable, the OP was written in very general terms. I'll put ideas into bullet points to answer your questions.
Question: How does this differ from IGS today?
1- Access to roleplay. You can create specific sections of a forum for formal semi-public diplomatic contact. This is the kind of contact we try to create with public channels ingame, which I believe is inadequate. It eliminates timezone and activity problems - which to many degrees limits the quantity and quality of interactions that end up happening in my opinion.
2- Quality. Mods can filter out OOC riffraff much more easily and according to better standards.
3- Variety. One can create IC venues (even OOG extensions of IG ones), themed to the user's wish (e.g. someone asks for a section to be created where certain IC discussions are held, e.g. Heiian society area). This can act as a vehicle for promoting & publicising new RP interactions and ideas.
4- Recognition of the silent. The problem with IGS is that good threads that progress slowly +/- get bumped away by attention whores . The current face of IGS is a proverbial ugly 'pizza', a mobbish venue where so many unwanted ingredients are shoved right in your face. Drama threads unrelated to your own drown you out, such that if people wanted to know what the current (insert faction name) activites/public threads were, it becomes very laborious and difficult to reference if looking at past trends. People should not be forced to resorting to bumping their own threads to keep them current.
5- Communicating with CCP. Such a development can signal to CCP what the players want in a very powerful way if the place of choice for RP to occur is external to their own website. Let's be frank, many players do not like using IGS as a vehicle for communication for a variety of reasons and it does not seem to have improved. If the quality concentrates external to it, I think CCP may take measures to improve IGS and attract us back. We win in either scenario.
-
Different idea to throw out there - what about a reference thread with links from different groups to their own diplomacy sections so folks can quickly go, "Oh hey - that the addy to contact so and so" so it's a listing of places folks can go for diplomacy.
Not that the original idea was bad, but tossing it out there.
-
Different idea to throw out there - what about a reference thread with links from different groups to their own diplomacy sections so folks can quickly go, "Oh hey - that the addy to contact so and so" so it's a listing of places folks can go for diplomacy.
Not that the original idea was bad, but tossing it out there.
Entirely compatible with the concept we're working with!
-
Hrm, I agree. A forum(s) which will be what IGS should have been, with some subforums for more... specialized stuff. Matari Aligned, Amarr Aligned, Caldari Aligned and Gallente Aligned stuff, even some pirate factions and shit.
There's a reason Inspiracy became a domain and not just the forum.
Backstage-inspiracy can be brothersite to theater-inspiracy, which has fully IC forums. It'd be a huge undertaking this soon after Backstage, but it'd be awesome.
-
Hrm, I agree. A forum(s) which will be what IGS should have been, with some subforums for more... specialized stuff. Matari Aligned, Amarr Aligned, Caldari Aligned and Gallente Aligned stuff, even some pirate factions and shit.
There's a reason Inspiracy became a domain and not just the forum.
Backstage-inspiracy can be brothersite to theater-inspiracy, which has fully IC forums. It'd be a huge undertaking this soon after Backstage, but it'd be awesome.
That is an ambitious sequella that could be considered. In my opinion creating simple sections that can be seen on the backstage page would be fine :)
-
Hrm, I agree. A forum(s) which will be what IGS should have been, with some subforums for more... specialized stuff. Matari Aligned, Amarr Aligned, Caldari Aligned and Gallente Aligned stuff, even some pirate factions and shit.
There's a reason Inspiracy became a domain and not just the forum.
Backstage-inspiracy can be brothersite to theater-inspiracy, which has fully IC forums. It'd be a huge undertaking this soon after Backstage, but it'd be awesome.
You're just conspiring to give Havo more work aren't you? :roll:
-
If he wants to, he could give the admin position to someone else. Just admit it, you think it's a damn good idea.
-
I has to agree w/ Misan - you just want to keep Hav busy so he forgets all about me so you can scoop him up for yourself.
But slightly more on topic - I like the idea for an oddly different reason then racial sub-IC forums and stuff.
There's no IC section for selling stuff on the IGS as stands?
I think people playing mercs should be able to sell their services and Zu should be able to offer up her cool ability to paint ships - and so forth. While it wouldn't have to be it's own board or nothing - stuff like that wouldn't be taken serious on the IGS I feel like it would here.
-
There's too goddamn many forum sections.
There's not enough cohesion and attention on these forums to warrant a serious effort to create and promote a separate roleplay hub yet, ala on a sister-site like theater.inspiracy.net or whatever else.
There's not a lot of very good reasons to create a section devoted to an extension of most ingame venues because of the jarring effect of the altered pacing of good forum roleplay versus good channel roleplay. It'd just feel like a fucked up simulacrum unless it was like, 'the Last Gate's suggestion box and staff hiring board,' which can be done just fine in a thread. Same with a list of administrative stuff purporting to be a mailbox attached to the fluid router regulating the Summit or the Heiian Society's channel or whatever else.
There's not a lot of good reasons to have a cloistered diplomacy area away from people's corporate boards where they can control it better, mostly because, first, there will be a bottleneck in getting more membership overlap and that's wasted energy for someone like me if I have a difficult time getting all my members to participate enough on MY forums as it is, and second, good diplomatic policy restricts the number of people who talk in an official setting to manage the risk of people saying fucked up things.
As such, the base reasons to create and use a forum section are not yet applicable to our situations, or the framing of its function needs work.
-
As such, the base reasons to create and use a forum section are not yet applicable to our situations, or the framing of its function needs work.
Not all decisions should be made with the present in mind. I believe that the action should be taken on the basis of changing population behaviour in a constructive way. 'Patch-it' and 'reactive' changes put true creativity on the backfoot, responding to the world's tosses and turns rather than consciously turning it into something better.
I don't believe we have too many forum sections, but I would agree that they can be repositioned/reorders or amalgamated to make them more easy to navigate/use.
There's not a lot of very good reasons to create a section devoted to an extension of most ingame venues because of the jarring effect of the altered pacing of good forum roleplay versus good channel roleplay.
I've given several good reasons in this thread, care to comment on them?
There's not a lot of good reasons to have a cloistered diplomacy area away from people's corporate boards where they can control it better, mostly because, first, there will be a bottleneck in getting more membership overlap and that's wasted energy for someone like me if I have a difficult time getting all my members to participate enough on MY forums as it is, and second, good diplomatic policy restricts the number of people who talk in an official setting to manage the risk of people saying fucked up things.
I agree that for your specific situation, you might find it difficult. What if you step aside from your own personal situation and try to see it from the perspective of a community-enhancing measure?
Think about the suggestion a little and the logic you are using to argue against it. Here you are saying it's not good because YOUR members aren't participating on YOUR forums, when one of the many objectives is to give diplomats/organisations a good platform for interaction. What difference does it make if grunts aren't active on a diplomacy forum? Let's please verify whether your perceived problems match up with the actuality of the proposal.
-
There's not a lot of very good reasons to create a section devoted to an extension of most ingame venues because of the jarring effect of the altered pacing of good forum roleplay versus good channel roleplay.
I've given several good reasons in this thread, care to comment on them?
I did. I don't want to resort to saying 'read my post again,' but I may have to unless you bring those specific reasons to bear in light of the content of my post. I believe I spoke to them directly.
Not all decisions should be made with the present in mind. I believe that the action should be taken on the basis of changing population behaviour in a constructive way. 'Patch-it' and 'reactive' changes put true creativity on the backfoot, responding to the world's tosses and turns rather than consciously turning it into something better.
That's fine.
We've got enough abortive IC forum community projects as it is, though. Remember ICNet? How'd that go?
There's nothing wrong with thinking on how to create something NEW, though. Just so long as it is actually novel, rather than a venue for the same old shit that clanks along until it ticks down to two actives a month in.
I don't believe we have too many forum sections, but I would agree that they can be repositioned/reorders or amalgamated to make them more easy to navigate/use.
I wouldn't agree to your reshuffling of the nature of my argument. There's too many forum sections; this is borne out by the repetitiveness of certain threads in different forum sections.
I agree that for your specific situation, you might find it difficult. What if you step aside from your own personal situation and try to see it from the perspective of a community-enhancing measure?
Think about the suggestion a little and the logic you are using to argue against it. Here you are saying it's not good because YOUR members aren't participating on YOUR forums, when one of the many objectives is to give diplomats/organisations a good platform for interaction. What difference does it make if grunts aren't active on a diplomacy forum? Let's please verify whether your perceived problems match up with the actuality of the proposal.
I was speaking rhetorically, mainly from the experience of others - especially newer corporations, scagga, groups who possess a core membership that isn't all the way through its shakedown phase.
I've recruited for a number of groups, so I know what I'm talking about here. Incidentally, I never had a real problem getting my own membership to use a usefully created forum, but others have, and that's enough for me to be considerate of their needs in a time of relative drought.
But specifically, when trying to create...
...a community-enhancing measure...
...maybe don't set up a paradigm for the diplomats and officer core because you see some of your grunts, or other people's players that in your eyes are grunts, as not part of the community. And if you see them as part of the community, don't leave them out when it comes to the IC section of a community-wide forum catering to all.
There is NO point in creating a walled-off world-of-its-own forum where three-quarters or more of a given corporation's membership can see in, but must remain silent - like children barred from some adult establishment with their faces pressed up against the glass. It's insulting.
Make something for everybody if you're making something for the community. Diplomacy works FINE without a massively transparent forum that non-diplomats can't use.
-
Ashar, there are a few things in your post that I see as misconceptions to the idea. I'll discuss this when I have time old chap :P
-
'Kay.
-
I agree with Ashar (shocking) about the numerous forums on this board, and I find it rather confusing myself. I honestly find the mechanics and gameplay and marketplace section a bit too much for this site.
What I do find odd is that the focus of these boards is on roleplay, but everyone seems so hesitant to include it on the board. Imagine having a board dedicated to rebuilding old cars and never showing any pictures of any of the products, or trying to describe how fun soccer (football, whatever!) is without ever showing examples. If everyone looks down on the Summit so much, then show us what you can do here, eh? Show people how it can be fun, not just talking funny.
So what's our main concern? It's not going to be any different than the Summit and people will be confused which boards are in-character and which aren't. Make the IC/OOC boundaries clear and actively moderate. Easy stuff. Worried about being just another Summit board without any gusto? Give it a purpose.
Instead of just making 'factional' boards (minmatar go here, amarr stand over there), treat them like public information sharing channels for groups that share ideologies. For instance, create a UNITY board where fellow freedom fighters and tribalists can discuss their hatred for amarrians, slavery, or which clan is best fit to lead the Republic. Make a God channel or something where Amarrians, Ammatars, and Khanid can share their beliefs, or heretics can convert the weak minded flock with their natural charisma and lure.
The idea here is that characters will participate with others with similiar principles, not merely delineated by race. Also, it gives an opportunity for groups to gather together constructively and strengthen the individual communities while encouraging nuance within each group set, rather than <amarr posts about how awesome slavery is> followed by <ten billion matari and a couple gallente tell him what a bastard he is>.
-
Oooh, my first disagreement on here!
I disagree with abandoning the IGS. What we could easily do between us is retake the IGS and make it again into what it should be.
We can do this through two measures.
The first is by posting quality content, for which I'm going to start an advice thread in the Corporation and Alliance Development Section as I fancy I'm rather good at forum warrioring in that context.
The second is simply by spamming that report button - the mods there are quite sympathetic if you pick out which sections of a post are OOC and explain why.
We need to keep roleplay front and centre in CCP's eyeline - it is very obvious from the hugely IC nature of the game (take Aura and the tutorials that give us an in-character user interface to the game) that the original developers were looking to create a roleplaying game they could have fun in. If we show them that is still there and still possible, they will help us (on a 5-year development cycle, bear in mind).
Further, keeping real, good IC content right where the utter newcomer can find it is important to keep roleplayers who just started the game, roleplaying and thus strengthen all of us by giving us a constant stream of new people to roleplay with.
So, I am off to the Corporation Development bit to lay down everything I know about forum warrioring as an art form. I really, really want to see us reclaim the IGS as an area to deepen political intrigues, increase immersion rather than break it and increase the accessibility of roleplay opportunities to everyone.
-
My question there, Eva, is how likely we'd be to successfully tear out the old IGS sticky and throw in a new one.
The forum needs rather better resources than what it has.
-
We'd have no joy at all. I seem to remember Mitnal saying that the stickies were all being transferred to the Evelopedia, so I tried to condense all the old stuff from How Not to Sound Like a Madman into the Roleplay (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Roleplay) article there.
But I don't feel that the sticky would make any difference at all to the problems we have on IGS because the people that make some threads so desperately disappointing wouldn't read it anymore than they read the heading that says "This is an in-character forum."
But what will inevitably happen if over time the mods get overwhelmed with Reports saying "OOC post," "post has no content," "trolling," or "utter gibberish" is that eventually (and I do mean eventually in the CCP timeline, sadly) they will take some action to put a stop to it, such as banning people who don't stay IC or putting a pop-up on it that says "This is an in-character forum. Posting in-character means... blah blah... if you can't do this, fuck off."
Or words to that effect.
But the biggest effect you can have on posting behaviour is peer pressure. If you go in, post good threads, post well in other people's threads and snub or report all the stuff that you personally don't feel contributes to your enjoyment of the forum, then eventually the noise will get drowned out.
-
My problem with the IGS is the utter repetitiveness of it, not to mention (if you'll pardon the bluntness) how it turns into an intellectual circle jerk.
Not unlike other RP forums.
Hmm, maybe I'm wrong -- the problem might not be the forums.
/me thinks about this.
-
But I don't feel that the sticky would make any difference at all to the problems we have on IGS because the people that make some threads so desperately disappointing wouldn't read it anymore than they read the heading that says "This is an in-character forum."
First off.
MODS, SPLIT HERE OR A FEW POASTS ABOVE THIS LINE AND MAKE SOME KIND OF THREAD WITH A PRETENTIOUS NAME LIKE 'REHABILITATING THE IGS' IF SHIT GETS REAL.
--------------------------------- Lien.
Thank you.
Second, Evanda, one of the things people don't seem to think about that much is that up until the very day they shut down the servers and cart it all off to the bankruptcy auction, new roleplayers will be likely to look at IGS at least once, and be likely to at least see the stickies, if not peruse them.
Therefore, we should leverage them to benefit new roleplayers.
Peer pressure and fixing posting habits are wunderbar. Peer utility and fixing accessibility is also pretty wunderbar.
-
*gathering energy to give a worthy reply to ashar to explain myself, bear with me, it's an energy-intensive post that is required*
-
Awwright. Holding for a good-faith discussion, will not tear you too many new orfices, promise.
-
Necroing Ye Olde post since the official forums are now infested with spacebook social network retardation bullshit. We can haz proper IGS thingymajig made by the community instead, perhaps? Look through these pages and let's ressurrect the idea of IC boards made by the community.
-
Okay, let's revisit the subject a little more thoroughly. From a personal point of view, the new official forums are horribad. The IGS section just feels wrong with the facebook like crap and it just seems like it'll devolve into a popularity contest.
I think this is the perfect time to expand on Inspiracy and create an In Character sister site to be what the official IC forums should have been. One 'IGS' section as it were, and some subsections for faction specific posting/posters. One Matari, one Amarr and so on, one pirate/outcast/lawless section (which can be expanded into specific faction sections should there be enough RPers for that) which could let there be IC forum interaction within a whole faction instead of just within all of New Eden.
I think this will seriously strengthen the RP ties within and outside of factions, along with having an IC community that's maintained and moderated by Roleplayers themselves.
-
I rather agree with the comment on the crappiness of the new forums, and therefore would happily endorse this product and/or service.
-
I wasnt much for this idea until I saw the new format of the forums. A part of me died when I saw the "likes!" section of the new IGS forums. Just seems all wrong.
-
/me likes this
-
/me likes this
>.<
:)
-
You are such a terrible troll, Ulf. :lol:
-
You are such a terrible troll, Ulf. :lol:
That's why I'm practicing.
-
I like the idea. Partly because I think it would be fun to see if IGS usage drops if we start using our own IC forum instead.
-
While I agree with most of what have been said, I have to remind you that the RPers present and active on backstage are not the whole RP community. So we will obviously still have to play on both forums even after IC forums have been created here. Or if we don't, it will be like exiling ourselves and playing between us, like a very hermetic community. Can be very dangerous for the health of the general RP on eve.
-
Creating and advertising out more IC communities isn't exactly going to do anything but increase and diversify the RP avenues available. I can't see anything less 'hermit' like than that, considering that this'll create an alternative for all of those who don't want to be on IGS but don't have any other options.
IGS being the only alternative is the real 'hermit' mechanic.
-
No because it is "THE" place gathering all the RPers by default.
I have nothing against other RP forums, mind you. What I am fearing is a split of the community. You can't deny that, it can happen. I am not saying it will, but it can. I have witnessed it on other MMOs. It can also create a barrier between newbies to RP going by default on the IGS (or simply, the people that are not part of our little embittered gang), unless we do a damn good advertising work.
-
The community is already split because many of us simply refuse to deal with IGS for any number of reasons.
While reasonable folks can certainly disagree on the best way to handle the situation, we should recognize the facts for what they are. :)
-
I don't necessarily agree with the reasons (sigs/banners/"Like" options are a non-issue for me), but more opportunities to interact in an rp venue can't hurt. It just means the mods will have more work to do, especially if the community grows.
-
I'm voting for the OP. The slow-paced content cannot be properly presented in or found from IGS and the corporate forums are so scattered that it's tedious to try to find or follow all of them. This platform works quite well, so it's not unnatural to propose that an RP section with more subsections than in IGS could be associated with it.
-
I haven't read IGS for years. I think it would be very nice from an immersion point to have a whole IC forum with separate sections for things like IC market & trade, politics, announcements & news etc. It would probably demand a lot of work moderating but if it works it could enrich the RP a lot I think. The mud slinging on IGS break immersion for me completely. Hmm, actually when thinking about my issues with IGS I got an idea of what would be really cool. A portal page/site for GalNet, a kind of G'EVE'gle from where you can find your way to all alliance and corp sites with IC material. /crazy-ideas-for-others-to-implement :P
-
1. What for?
What are the reasons to have IC sections here? What purpose would they serve?
How would it be different from IGS? A better net to keep ooc trolls out? more images? Is that all?
2. Critical mass
This is not the most visible of websites. How do you attract people here, how do you keep them here, and how do you get enough people to generate enough content to make it worthwhile?
3. access/moderation
What do you suggest here? Sub sections? who can view/post on them? access control? lots of different sub groups? Who controls membership of these subgroups?
Who moderates these sections? How would they be moderated?
Can Imperials see the Blood raider sections? If yes, how is that any different to IGS? If not, who manages the Imperial and blood raider groups? How do people gain/lose access to the different sections?
If 2 people conspire to say that a 3rd person shouldn't have access to X section, should their access be removed? 3? 4? How many? And how is that not cliquey?
Someone posts something highly inappropriate, someone else reports it using the relevant forum function. An admin takes action, and sees that the thread concerned relates to a plot against the admin's group. Conflict of interest there. You're placing admin staff under a lot more stress.
-
I think having just one IC section, maybe two with everyone getting access to both of them, just as a troll free version of the IGS. There are plenty of people who would use something like that.
-
What will be the difference, except the absence of trolls ? I still have difficulties to see what do we gain, but I definitly see what do we lose.
-
What we gain is competent moderation, removal of trolls, images being allowed, and overall, just a better atmosphere.
Its like the difference between the summit and the New Eden Assembly.
-
I quite like The Summit, actually. So I'm less clear than ever about this proposal.
-
That is almost nothing compared to what is at stake. And I am pretty sure a lot of trolls alts are actual members of Backstage anyway, but maybe im a bit misanthropic.
Quoting a discussion I just had on corp chat :
Lyn Farel > this IC channel idea on backstage
Mister Screwball > y?
Kravasher Prime > ^^
Lyn Farel > roleplayers here want to create their own version of the IGS
Mister Screwball > this is bad why?
Lyn Farel > they will just split the community in 2
Esna Pitoojee > It's a knee-jerk reaction to the horrible new forums.
Lyn Farel > yeah
Lyn Farel > if it was IC forums for new stuff i wouldn't say that
Lyn Farel > but no, its just the IGS but on backstage
Lyn Farel > with l33t people you see
Esna Pitoojee > Basically, screwball, there are 3 major issues I can see:
Mister Screwball > the reason people want this is that ccp are kind of shit at moding the IGS
Lyn Farel > knowing that the most violent posters are actually members of backstage
Mister Screwball > ppl in backstage have proved they can do it
Lyn Farel > maybe yeah
Esna Pitoojee > 1, getting the word out to all the players, since not all the people who RP are on backstage. <br>2, dealing with the possibility that people would make OTHER alternate IGSes if they got modded on backstage and were Q.Q about it or something.
Esna Pitoojee > (and how to deal with the split issue 2 would create the community)
Esna Pitoojee > And 3, one of the major people pushing the IC sections on backstage is insistant that there should be some kind of "faction-specific" sections which you'd have to "prove yourself" to be part of that faction to be allowed to post in.
Mister Screwball > that i admit
Lyn Farel > yeah that too -_-
Kravasher Prime > hmm .. prove eh? how I wonder?
Mister Screwball > 2 isnt a problem
Mister Screwball > because no one has done that so far
Esna Pitoojee > Exactly, Krav.
Mister Screwball > and plenty of people have been modded on backstage
Lyn Farel > 2 can be a problem i think
Mister Screwball > 3 and 1 I understand
Lyn Farel > becauee basically what we have on backstage is only OOC stuff
Lyn Farel > when it will come to IC stuff, I won't be so sure to see people staying polite and respectufll
Lyn Farel > and not involved in drama stuff
Lyn Farel > imagine that with IC sections now
Lyn Farel > with the same IC wars, like IGS
Lyn Farel > im not so sure that people will keep the same reactions about moderation
Lyn Farel > moderation is going to be called biased and all
Lyn Farel > moderated factions could create coalitions of OOC opinions and we will have OOC lobbies behind, because the admin staff will get actual power on the IC stuff and what is said.
Lyn Farel > maybe im being pessimistic though
Esna Pitoojee > That's why if there's an IC section, I honestly think the only rule should be "no OOC in here. Evar."
Lyn Farel > there will always have OOC here
Lyn Farel > behind at least
Lyn Farel > moderation will be done on OOC basis
Esna Pitoojee > OOC posts, that is. SHould have said that.
Lyn Farel > if someones breaks the canon or whatever
Lyn Farel > and i see A CRAPLOAD of divergences of opinions regarding the lore in OOC discussions
Lyn Farel > so one will ask for a moderation on something he/she thinks dumb, while the other one will be like "wtf there is nothing wrong in what im doing"
Lyn Farel > if the mods censor it, it will be drama. If they don't, it will still be drama
Lyn Farel > I still remember the OOC post about us letting everyone enter the Keep
Lyn Farel > it was immersion breaking for some people
Lyn Farel > we were ofc able to discuss it on backstage
Lyn Farel > but it was not the end of the world because at the end nobody was able to do anything about that as backstage are just a forum for discussion
Lyn Farel > but if you start to include IC stakes... meh
Lyn Farel > on which the staff will have actual power on them...
Lyn Farel > but anyway if they do it they will have to change the name from backstage to something else :p
-
I feel like a lot of the complaints people had about IC sections are the same complaints that were raised about backstage in the first place. It pulls people off chatsubo, it causes rifts in the community, etc. But in the end, I really don't think IC sections would be a bad thing, it would mean people who want to have forum type RP discussions can do so while avoiding the unmoderated mess that is the IGS.
The problem is that the IGS, at its root, its borked by being effectively unmoderated and is just a breeding ground for trolls, both IC and OOC, and is full of "your rp is wrong" type attacks and just ridiculous nonsense. I want to be able to do forum stuff IC, but I can't because the IGS is broken and anything I say will get trolled into oblivion, so I don't bother.
-
I'd be curious about the if moderation rules before I got that hopeful gleam in my eye. How about creating a rough draft of what rules you'd like to see that you think would be an improvement over the IGS.
-
I don't care about rifts in the community, I care about practicality, and this seems like feature creep to me. This was founded as an explicitly OOC board to dump all the IC/OOC crossover baggage. Adding IC boards seems, to me at least, to jeopardize that wall of separation.
Yes, the IGS blows pretty hard at times. But I suspect that IC sections here would create significantly more work for the mods, because a lot of our characters just aren't going to be polite to each other. Without a straight-up admission, how do you distinguish an OOC 'your RP is wrong' comment that's just made IC from a completely IC comment by a character that seriously thinks yours is mentally unbalanced? You can't tell me it's obvious, because it's very often not, and the moderation discussion board would blow up every time somebody got modded on those grounds.
The only way I see to do it is to be incredibly strict, even more so than we are now in the OOC sections. But then you risk choking off the inter-PC conflict that drives a lot of this game. And what's left then? Corp announcements?
One more minor issue, what about alts? Obviously we want to avoid sock puppetry, but what about people with legitimate alts that they RP with? Are they going to be posting under their main's name and just signing it with their alt's?
-
I want to be able to do forum stuff IC
What stuff?
-
I, for one, would prefer to keep the Backstage community and moderation effort completely separate from all in-character interaction. I can appreciate the need for a general membership IC board with topical subforums, but I don't think Backstage is the place to realize that. As always, I am open to being proven wrong. Functionally, my biggest concern is:
what about alts?
-
My totally unofficial personal thoughts are that EVE-Inspiracy.com might be a cool place to host something, but not Backstage per se.
-
Be it backstage or not, you will not remove these fundamental issues.
-
In the last two weeks or so, myself and some others have started laying the foundations for something that might fill the role (http://cruxagora.proboards.com/index.cgi). It is particularly Gallente-themed, rather than trying to being something extremely broad-reaching and neutral like the NEA, but it is essentially a multi-forum IC board with corresponding in-client VR channel (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=120.msg26965#msg26965). Thoughts?
-
Thoughts?
It's awesome Ken :D
-
Thoughts?
It's awesome Ken :D
^this
-
Agreeing with Mizhara and nice forum Ken, we'll take it :D
-
There's lots of issues.
Insularity.
Backstage: 537 Members.
Eve-Online: 325,000 subscribers.
Big problem of insularity and visibility. If backstage is "the place to be" for ~good forum RP~ then it means a lot of stuff vanishes from being findable by new players.
It also means that this mythic ~good RP~ will eventually vanish from IGS completely, because people will simply not keep up the effort to post the good stuff to IGS.
Critical mass, you're just bouncing things of the same people, over and over.
Someone wants "protected from IC trolls". Well, that's too bad, imo. IC trolls, deal with them. OOC trolls, report them.
People say "your rp is wrong" on IGS? Well, do better next time?
Identity & Metagaming: How does anyone know that Mizhara is Mizhara? Or that Jade is Jade? You want API tests now? API gives away the names of alts. No guarantee either. If someone's API appears on someone else's forum or killboard or whatever, what stops impersonation then?
Do Alts have to post under their own name? That gives away the email and IP. Reveals alts. You know what else that does? Makes backstage a (bigger) target for hacking. Oh Look, it turns out that X and Y have the same IP.
Someone makes up a photoshopped picture, featuring a character (who isn't registered here) depicted being sodomised by an animal and posts it IC. No one reports it, but I moderate it out and issue a ban.
People complain about it being moderated, because it was "IC" and "RP". Think that was acceptable? Yes? No?
If I removed it, then people will complain about oppression and mod bias and whatever.
If I let it stay, then Backstage Immediately And Permanently gets labelled as a cliquey circlejerk of small minded haters, and everything else on the site goes down the pan as well. "Oh don't go to backstage, it's a pit of flames and trolls". Well Done.
In any case:
Why do people "hate IGS" ? Go on. Answer. And say how a "new IGS" would be different.
What is this ~good RP~ that this "new IGS" would have that cannot be done at present?
Give examples. Because no one so far seems to have described anything that can't be done on IGS at the moment.
-
I'd be curious about the if moderation rules before I got that hopeful gleam in my eye. How about creating a rough draft of what rules you'd like to see that you think would be an improvement over the IGS.
I think the moderation rules would be the most important part. I am not sure if the current rules could be applied to IC actions.
EDIT: Re-read Louella Dougans post above and I seem to agree with almost all of it.
-
Hrr
As per my last post in this thread, I shall gather some energy and make an attempt to address some of the just questions being asked.
-
In any case:
Why do people "hate IGS" ? Go on. Answer. And say how a "new IGS" would be different.
What is this ~good RP~ that this "new IGS" would have that cannot be done at present?
Give examples. Because no one so far seems to have described anything that can't be done on IGS at the moment.
Very good post Louella. I agree with everything you wrote above but this bit (I quoted) is something I too consider the core of the issue. I'm also interested in hearing exactly what the problem with IGS is and want the kind of the answers will be.
I don't want to prejudge anything but I have some strong guesses that I'll refrain from speaking about now so as not to influence the replies :)
+
One actual issue which is annoying me about IGS presently. In that its a condemned forum. Unless CCP come out and say either:
1. We're ditching the new forum revamp. (or)
2. We're going to migrate all the threads to the new forum.
Then there is an issue with IGS currently that anything we write there is going to be lost to the limbo of a locked forum at *some time* in the future.
Minor issue I'll grant you but it is a bit irritating to me that current RP threads will suddenly and arbitarily be cut off and shut down and its acting as a disincentive for putting much effort in.
-
Gentlemen and non-gentlemen,
Plenty has been said.
One of the important attributes of the proposed alternative platform is that the operators are accessible and can enact change if there is a cogent argument behind it. We, as a community, can work together to create an environment we can enjoy, as we have done with the inspiracy forums.
This post may be rather long, so this is a guide to navigating it.
1: Quote from page one, answering the question 'how does this differ from IGS today?'
2: Addressed counterargument: Re: Access
3: Addressed counterargument: Re: Critical mass
4: Addressed counterargument: Re: What for?
5: Addressed counterargument: Re: Insularity
6: Addressed counterargument: Re: Whether ~good RP~ will vanish from IGS completely
7: Addressed counterargument: Re: Identity & Metagaming
8: Addressed counterargument: Re: Alts and hacking
9: Addressed counterargument: Re: Moderation
10: Comment on comment: The aim is not to harm IGS, but help it
11: Comment on comment: Regarding rifts and hermetics
12: Comment on comment: Following on from 10 & 11
1: Quote from page one, answering the question 'how does this differ from IGS today?'
Quoting the post from page one of this thread (unchanged)
Question: How does this differ from IGS today?
1- Access to roleplay. You can create specific sections of a forum for formal semi-public diplomatic contact. This is the kind of contact we try to create with public channels ingame, which I believe is inadequate. It eliminates timezone and activity problems - which to many degrees limits the quantity and quality of interactions that end up happening in my opinion.
2- Quality. Mods can filter out OOC riffraff much more easily and according to better standards.
3- Variety. One can create IC venues (even OOG extensions of IG ones), themed to the user's wish (e.g. someone asks for a section to be created where certain IC discussions are held, e.g. Heiian society area). This can act as a vehicle for promoting & publicising new RP interactions and ideas.
4- Recognition of the silent. The problem with IGS is that good threads that progress slowly +/- get bumped away by attention whores . The current face of IGS is a proverbial ugly 'pizza', a mobbish venue where so many unwanted ingredients are shoved right in your face. Drama threads unrelated to your own drown you out, such that if people wanted to know what the current (insert faction name) activites/public threads were, it becomes very laborious and difficult to reference if looking at past trends. People should not be forced to resorting to bumping their own threads to keep them current.
5- Communicating with CCP. Such a development can signal to CCP what the players want in a very powerful way if the place of choice for RP to occur is external to their own website. Let's be frank, many players do not like using IGS as a vehicle for communication for a variety of reasons and it does not seem to have improved. If the quality concentrates external to it, I think CCP may take measures to improve IGS and attract us back. We win in either scenario.
Counterarguments:
By Louella Dougans
1. What for?
What are the reasons to have IC sections here? What purpose would they serve? How would it be different from IGS? A better net to keep ooc trolls out? more images? Is that all?
2. Critical mass
This is not the most visible of websites. How do you attract people here, how do you keep them here, and how do you get enough people to generate enough content to make it worthwhile?
3. access/moderation
What do you suggest here? Sub sections? who can view/post on them? access control? lots of different sub groups? Who controls membership of these subgroups? Who moderates these sections? How would they be moderated?
Can Imperials see the Blood raider sections? If yes, how is that any different to IGS? If not, who manages the Imperial and blood raider groups? How do people gain/lose access to the different sections?
If 2 people conspire to say that a 3rd person shouldn't have access to X section, should their access be removed? 3? 4? How many? And how is that not cliquey?
Someone posts something highly inappropriate, someone else reports it using the relevant forum function. An admin takes action, and sees that the thread concerned relates to a plot against the admin's group. Conflict of interest there. You're placing admin staff under a lot more stress.
2: Addressed counterargument: Re: Access
Re: Access
That is a design feature that can be discussed when there is consensus that the IC section should be formed. In my view there is no reason why the 'base' sections should not be publicly viewable. There could be scope for creating further 'faction-specific' sections with restricted access, but I believe that such a factional-access-sequestering is not viable for several reasons and is best left to specialised ingame channels.
In essence I would advocate that all RP'ers would be able to post in all of the 'base' IC sections, with viewability open to non-subscribers to this forum to help avoid alt compromisation if that is a latent fear. The purpose of the sections would be to help organise and index past and present discourses, for current users and those doing independent information hunting.
3: Addressed counterargument: Re: Critical mass
Re: Critical mass
I present the inspiracy forums as an example. It is important to recognise that the goal of an IC section is not to eclipse or replace IGS, nor aim to advertise itself and try and coalesce all of EvE's RPers in one place. It is to cater to an unmet need.
4: Addressed counterargument: Re: What for?
Re: What for?
See the OP, which I will have included at the top of this post.
I have addressed the moderation matters later in this post.
By Louella Dougans
Insularity.
Backstage: 537 Members.
Eve-Online: 325,000 subscribers.
Big problem of insularity and visibility. If backstage is "the place to be" for ~good forum RP~ then it means a lot of stuff vanishes from being findable by new players. It also means that this mythic ~good RP~ will eventually vanish from IGS completely, because people will simply not keep up the effort to post the good stuff to IGS.
5: Addressed counterargument: Re: Insularity
It is a given that there are far fewer than 325,000 subscribers who read, let alone contribute to IGS. IGS is an endroit where a significant quantity of players who 'can' contribute choose not to for various reasons, some of which have been cited in the OP. These reasons will not change without action, and may change with action.
I would also remind you that a similar argument was made against the formation of the inspiracy forums when chatsubo was the only forum of the kind, and we have seen where what was done went.
6: Addressed counterargument: Re: Whether ~good RP~ will vanish from IGS completely
Re: Whether ~good RP~ will vanish from IGS completely.
I disagree. I believe that an additional venue will promote an increase in publicly/semi-publicly accessible RP content, as it will provide a platform for those who will not engage with IGS to engage by another form. It may, potentially, also make room for new blood to take hold in IGS, which may engender new interactions and potential re-migration back to the IGS when or if the situation improves.
It could signal to CCP, if by whatever means they ever learn of the alternative IC forum, of what RP'ers want and can do, and could in that vein encourage positive change in IGS by example.
"Identity & Metagaming: How does anyone know that Mizhara is Mizhara? Or that Jade is Jade? You want API tests now? API gives away the names of alts. No guarantee either. If someone's API appears on someone else's forum or killboard or whatever, what stops impersonation then? Do Alts have to post under their own name? That gives away the email and IP. Reveals alts. You know what else that does? Makes backstage a (bigger) target for hacking. Oh Look, it turns out that X and Y have the same IP."
7: Addressed counterargument: Re: Identity & Metagaming
There are many possible solutions to this potential problem. One must appreciate that the same problem is presented by having an OOC forum in the first place, but it has not yet become an issue. However, if 'identity security' is a must, it is possible to withold posting access in a hypothetical IC forum section until ingame confirmation is made by a character intending to become active there. I do, however, do not anticipate this being a major problem. It is possible to erase posts made by impersonators on an independent board and for users to exercise common sense in 'retconning' their knowledge if such a situation occurs.
8: Addressed counterargument: Re: Alts and hacking
Re: Alts and hacking
I would imagine that alts would be required to post under their name, but there is no compulsion to be involved on an independent board to expose such risks, is there if one is worried about being identified, is there? If someone has the energy to maintain an alt ingame, they can maintain a forum alt that they use on the IC forum.
Indeed, there are no hacking risks that would be created that do not exist already (we already have a wealth of characters using this forum as it is). Hacking, as you know, is an illegal recourse to obtaining information.
I don't really think that protecting alt spies is a good enough excuse to be counted against creating an alternative IC forum.
"Someone makes up a photoshopped picture, featuring a character (who isn't registered here) depicted being sodomised by an animal and posts it IC. No one reports it, but I moderate it out and issue a ban.
People complain about it being moderated, because it was "IC" and "RP". Think that was acceptable? Yes?
No?
If I removed it, then people will complain about oppression and mod bias and whatever.
If I let it stay, then Backstage Immediately And Permanently gets labelled as a cliquey circlejerk of small minded haters, and everything else on the site goes down the pan as well. "Oh don't go to backstage, it's a pit of flames and trolls". Well Done."
Re: Moderation
9: Addressed counterargument: Re: Moderation
The same problem was presented to the group of people who were involved in designing the backstage forums. As per those discussions, additional moderation guidelines can be drawn up and simply followed when moderating 'IC' content. If there are issues they can be discussed in the moderation discussion section as one does in any other kind of forum, surely? Naturally additional rules can be instituted to minimise any conflict of interest, and users can be advised by the guidelines about where the lines lie.
Why do people "hate IGS" ? Go on. Answer. And say how a "new IGS" would be different.
You could ask yourself why people wanted to create an alternative OOC website to chatsubo, and how backstage would have been different. Insight and hindsight, madam.
What is this ~good RP~ that this "new IGS" would have that cannot be done at present?
I would refer you to the earlier posts in the thread, which I will have attached to the beginning of this post. If the explanations given are insufficient to give an adequate picture, I wouldn't see it as a contraindication to supporting 'giving it a go' if there are sufficient people who would like to see it happen.
Comments on comments
10: Comment on comment: The aim is not to harm IGS, but help it
By Ember Vykos
I like the idea. Partly because I think it would be fun to see if IGS usage drops if we start using our own IC forum instead.
I respect your opinion, but I would emphasise that in my view it is not the objective of an alternative IC forum to compete with IGS in the spirit of reducing the quality or activity of IGS. The main objective is to increase the volume of RP that is produced in the public domain, and to help engender improvement in IGS by indirect means. The ideal endpoint is that IGS improves and those who become active again on the alternative venue begin to migrate back to it by choice.
By Lyn Farel
While I agree with most of what have been said, I have to remind you that the RPers present and active on backstage are not the whole RP community. So we will obviously still have to play on both forums even after IC forums have been created here. Or if we don't, it will be like exiling ourselves and playing between us, like a very hermetic community. Can be very dangerous for the health of the general RP on eve.
11: Comment on comment: Regarding rifts and hermetics
As I have mentioned previously in the comment in response to Ember Vykos, the objective of an alternative venue is not to damage IGS or 'exile' members. It is to encourage an increase in IC interaction via the forum medium. There would be no compulsion to engage, as much as there is no compulsion to involve one's self in IC. I would posit that the creation of the inspiracy forums was instrumental in improving the health of OOC RP interactions and further hypothesise that an alternative IC venue would do the same.
By Lyn Farel
No because it is "THE" place gathering all the RPers by default. I have nothing against other RP forums, mind you. What I am fearing is a split of the community. You can't deny that, it can happen. I am not saying it will, but it can. I have witnessed it on other MMOs. It can also create a barrier between newbies to RP going by default on the IGS (or simply, the people that are not part of our little embittered gang), unless we do a damn good advertising work.
12: Comment on comment: Following on from 10 & 11
While IGS is 'the' place for gathering all the RPers by default as you say, would you agree that it fails with distinction in that regard?
Many groups who support the creation of an alternative venue are those who do not feel any inclination towards using IGS for the purpose it was created. This platform will help re-enfranchise those voices, and possibly have positive effects on attracting new blood. IGS can still serve its purpose for 'major' announcements fine as it stands, but many other forms of less 'major' discourse do not benefit from the IGS environment.
-
Everything Scagga said. See why he was a glorious godsend during the creation of Inspiracy and Backstage? I'll still state flatly that there's never anything wrong with diversity and alternatives to the main course, nor with competition. Even should this mean that one of the two alternatives curls up in a fetal position and dies, that's just natural selection.
See Chatsubo -> Backstage as an example.
-
damn Scagga, thats just impressive.
-
It is not about diversity and alternatives. They are fine. So lets propose something else, and not a clone of the IGS. /o\
-
It is not about diversity and alternatives. They are fine. So lets propose something else, and not a clone of the IGS. /o\
If you'd bothered reading much, you'd see no one's proposing an IGS clone.
-
"Someone makes up a photoshopped picture, featuring a character (who isn't registered here) depicted being sodomised by an animal and posts it IC. No one reports it, but I moderate it out and issue a ban.
People complain about it being moderated, because it was "IC" and "RP". Think that was acceptable? Yes?
No?
If I removed it, then people will complain about oppression and mod bias and whatever.
If I let it stay, then Backstage Immediately And Permanently gets labelled as a cliquey circlejerk of small minded haters, and everything else on the site goes down the pan as well. "Oh don't go to backstage, it's a pit of flames and trolls". Well Done."
Re: Moderation
9: Addressed counterargument: Re: Moderation
The same problem was presented to the group of people who were involved in designing the backstage forums. As per those discussions, additional moderation guidelines can be drawn up and simply followed when moderating 'IC' content. If there are issues they can be discussed in the moderation discussion section as one does in any other kind of forum, surely? Naturally additional rules can be instituted to minimise any conflict of interest, and users can be advised by the guidelines about where the lines lie.
This falls into the same category as saying you'll balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending; it's all well and good as far as it goes, but which programs are you going to cut, or in this case, which rules are you going to implement? A blanket ban on IC attacks like we have in the OOC sections? The mod team is often criticized for being trigger-happy in their prosecution of those rules. Do we want to add conflict over them stifling RP to that charge? I don't, and so still oppose the addition of an IC area to this forum. Perhaps elsewhere on the eve-inspiracy domain like Casiella suggested, with its own dedicated mod team, but not here.
-
Perhaps elsewhere on the eve-inspiracy domain like Casiella suggested, with its own dedicated mod team, but not here.
So, playing off the "backstage" name, perhaps Limelight IC Forums @EVE-Inspiracy.com?
-
9: Addressed counterargument: Re: Moderation
The same problem was presented to the group of people who were involved in designing the backstage forums. As per those discussions, additional moderation guidelines can be drawn up and simply followed when moderating 'IC' content. If there are issues they can be discussed in the moderation discussion section as one does in any other kind of forum, surely? Naturally additional rules can be instituted to minimise any conflict of interest, and users can be advised by the guidelines about where the lines lie.
This falls into the same category as saying you'll balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending; it's all well and good as far as it goes, but which programs are you going to cut, or in this case, which rules are you going to implement? A blanket ban on IC attacks like we have in the OOC sections? The mod team is often criticized for being trigger-happy in their prosecution of those rules. Do we want to add conflict over them stifling RP to that charge? I don't, and so still oppose the addition of an IC area to this forum. Perhaps elsewhere on the eve-inspiracy domain like Casiella suggested, with its own dedicated mod team, but not here.
With all due respect, I think you may be jumping to conclusions.
As it is plain to see from my post, I haven't proposed any specific moderation rules for a hypothetical IC forum section. That is a task that should be handed to another thread for broader input once the consensus is reached for the creation of the aforementioned hypothetical IC forum section.
During the design process for the backstage forums, there were many different views aired as to what form of moderation should be adopted. At the end of the day a set of rules deemed appropriate and acceptable to all was collaboratively drafted. The result, in my view, was very satisfactory and works well.
In a similar fashion, it is possible to have an open discussion on what rules would be appropriate to create for a hypothetical IC forum section. To jump the gun and start debating them here would be counter-productive. If you have ideas of how it can work, please draft and start a thread with them.
Addendum: I forgot to address the point you made about a separate domain within the backstage area with its dedicated moderation team. Of course that could be proposed during the design phase and from the way you've worded it here it seems quite reasonable.
-
Why not just create the alternative .... set an example... and maybe link it afterward through backstage? Wasn't this attempted before?
-
Someone was worried about rifts in the community but to me it seems like this happened already, as there are tens of faction and corporate specific forums? IGS has its own share of problems, as discussed by others in this thread and in its current form it does not seem to be very effective in enabling discussions between the more reserved members of these fairly separated groups.
As far as the moderation goes, maybe the one who starts a new forum interaction, could for instance add a spoiler at the end of the first post to specify who can join the discussion or to set some other rules? And there could be a degree that if someone is reported to violate these rules with like five or ten posts, they could be banned for some time? This would perhaps require less attention from the mods than judging the IC appropriateness of every statement made.
Maybe it also would be good that those particular rules that can lead to a ban were limited to a restricted set of alternatives so that there wouldn't be ambiguity in any of them? I agree that angry IC ad hominem attacks should be allowed but there are cases when it would be more appropriate to keep the overenthusiastic characters, PF reminders and other commentary in separate threads.
-
Everything Scagga said. See why he was a glorious godsend during the creation of Inspiracy and Backstage? I'll still state flatly that there's never anything wrong with diversity and alternatives to the main course, nor with competition. Even should this mean that one of the two alternatives curls up in a fetal position and dies, that's just natural selection. See Chatsubo -> Backstage as an example.
I'm not sure chatsubo vs backstage is a very good example. I think IC roleplaying interaction can't be moderated as sternly as ooc roleplay discussion and still have much room for creativity and flourish.
I think its quite important to remind ourselves that our characters are going to be saying quite unpleasant things about other characters and any attempt to moderate that on grounds of standards or favouritism will likely cause explosions. And if the point is not to moderate from an elitist viewpoint what is the point?
That said I do think its fair enough to have an ic section if people want it but you'd probably do well to avoid seeing backstage vs igs as the same as backstage vs chatsubo. Two entirely different situations really.
-
People have consistently implied an opinion that the IGS is hurting and is in need of fixing, and that by creating a separate sub-community, this will improve its condition. My question is as direct as possible: What is wrong with the Intergalactic Summit that requires repair?
Now, some of you have actually answered this with It's not moderated well enough. My experience with the IGS, and I've been following it for years now, has been that general OOC asshattery gets moderated pretty quickly, and misposts take a couple days to a week or so to get redirected elsewhere. If that's the crux of what's wrong with the IGS, might I suggest an injection of liquid concrete to HTFU with your Not in my backyard mentality.
The general experience level of players introducing themselves on the IGS vary from green rookies to seasoned vets, and I do see the occasional posts that generally get destroyed for being poorly thought out or the individual just isn't as educated on the background. They post something that generally makes no sense, whereby it is then replied to by about 8-20 experienced players all telling them they need to lay off the drugs or they are just stupid (ie. R DOING IT RONG icly), and MAYBE someone points them in the right direction.
So while on the surface this project idea seems honest in it's intentions, the people defending it are giving a completely different impression, and an elitist one at that. Individuals imagining a perfect forum where everyone is thoroughly knowledgeable about the universe and never contradicts prime fiction, and all discussions are thoughtful, interesting, and engaging, is a fairytale pipe dream. The fact that people use the rhetoric that this perfect world will take in newbies and educate the masses about RP isn't all that much better either. Nothing quite like having a committee of roleplayers to dictate whether your RP is deserving to stand in the presence of Gods on hallowed ground (aka IGS).
Still others have implied that there are too many trolls, flamers, and asshats that lurk on the IGS, just to harass people for the sake of it. And there might be, but wandering into the IGS and posting threads NOT expecting to get some stupid replies isn't much different than meandering into a lowsec chokepoint with a slow, ungainly ship, and getting surprised when it explodes very quickly. Learn how to adapt to the environment, or don't take the risk. There's not much else to say about that.
If the intent is to provide another venue for character interaction, count me in. If this is going to just be an elitist haunt to avoid the newbie taint, you can keep it.
-
I see no reason to create a slightly larger circlejerk for people that are used to having their RP unchallenged in their own clique.
Masturbation in any shape or form should be done away from the public.
Sorry about the phrasing.
-
I definitly do agree with Kaleigh. Especially this :
So while on the surface this project idea seems honest in it's intentions, the people defending it are giving a completely different impression, and an elitist one at that. Individuals imagining a perfect forum where everyone is thoroughly knowledgeable about the universe and never contradicts prime fiction, and all discussions are thoughtful, interesting, and engaging, is a fairytale pipe dream. The fact that people use the rhetoric that this perfect world will take in newbies and educate the masses about RP isn't all that much better either. Nothing quite like having a committee of roleplayers to dictate whether your RP is deserving to stand in the presence of Gods on hallowed ground (aka IGS).
Instead of that, it would always be better to point noobs to OOC backstage, and not stopping to interact with them in another obvious "you are doing it wrong" way.
It is not about diversity and alternatives. They are fine. So lets propose something else, and not a clone of the IGS. /o\
If you'd bothered reading much, you'd see no one's proposing an IGS clone.
And this is to my opinion what you still are trying to enforce. If this is any different, it can only be different by :
- The moderation standards with added rules concerning the respect and behavior of characters themselves, and you stated in the other thread that you do not want to see that because you couldn't play a blunt and offensive character anymore (on which I have no clear opinion, depends if we take an IC moderated channel approach by imaginary NPC/standard rules, like I don't know, the UN venues IRL where you can't say anything unrespectful, or if we don't).
- The subject and themes of the new IC boards, like the sulfurous idea of restricted IC sections by factions, or whatever else, but it will just become like any IG channel (a bar, etc), but on a forum where we can write and develop more.
In any case, this does not remove the main issues brought in by Louella and myself.
On another linked matter now, having had a word about the IGS with many various people now I can fairly state that all of them, 100%, everyone of them who do not come on the IGS is mainly because it gets on their nerves or gives them the hives. Why ? Not because of the alts IC trolls, you are doing it wrong stuff on noobs, or whatever else is pointed out here. But because the IGS is what we could sometimes call a cesspool, where everyone always get at each other throats in an obvious attempt to "win", and not even debate. Of course we have some debates, we have some nice threads. We have everything, good stuff or insulting/biased stuff. I have nothing against that, realism dictates it. But a lot of people do not like that or can't bear it. I can understand it as it often starts to become sometimes very personnal (which is not supposed to be, but we are human).
So unless you are willing to create an IC regulated IC section with the same purpose than the IGS, but with enforced IC rules of civilities, OR create something totally different in its purpose like I explained above, you are going to get another IGS, with all its IC hatred, anger, etc. All you will "maybe" fix is what has been pointed out above : "you are doing it wrong", IC alt trolls, etc. With all the worries Louella and me pointed out above and still have had almost no answers.
-
So the objective of the new IC forum will be to remove OOC trolls? This in itself is a highly subjective term. Objective moderation will be a nightmare.
Are there not private corp and alliance forums where people can RP if they dont want non-consensual RP in their thread? This seems like an extention of this idea ... I dont like IGS because there are people that might disagree with me, continuously, but I want to interact on a wider level beyond private forums without people disagreeing with me, so I want a "public" forum with anti troll rules where people have to be civil.
IC enemies are often NOT civil.
An IGS alternative cannot be regarded as a public forum, due to lack of access. When I started Eve it took me more than a year to find Chatsubu, despite activly looking for RP corps. My only scource of info for RP corps up till then was the evewiki. No matter how well advertised, people wh look for RP and RP info might not find it if not on IGS.
On another note, what would the policy of double posting on both IGS and "newforum" be?
-
An IGS alternative cannot be regarded as a public forum, due to lack of access.
There is also the little-published PF fact that the IGS has a wide viewer base among the baseliners of New Eden. So, it has a function other than serving as a default place for IC forum interactions.
~~~
In general, I'm surprised at how strongly some of you seem to feel about this topic. It's almost as if the mere suggestion that an alternative IC forum to the IGS is desirable strikes some as not only conceptually flawed but also socially ridiculous. Clearly, there are players who are dissatisfied with the IGS experience for any number of individual reasons. What is it about that dissatisfaction and the motivation to find a broadly-acceptable way to relieve it and perhaps enhance RP enjoyment for participants that is elitist? Other groups have established forums separate from the official EVE-O boards to serve their needs in the past. Scrapheap Challenge, chatsubo, and this very forum come immediately to mind. Each certainly had questions to be answered as to how it would be set up and administered. Each has had its own measure of success and the world didn't come to an end when that happened.
How is outlining a similar project for IC discussions somehow so much more objectionable? "Shady elitist circle jerk" is not how I see this at all.
Why not just create the alternative .... set an example... and maybe link it afterward through backstage? Wasn't this attempted before?
I honestly don't know if it was, but I say we ought to give it a shot. scagga has suggested we begin a conversation on the issue of rules and moderation. Let's have that discussion (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2117.0).
-
... huh, I'd forgotten this even existed. I suppose these days this topic is rather moot with the lower activity levels involved, but on the other hand I wonder how many would welcome something like this given the way the IGS seems to be repelling a lot of characters. Any new thoughts on this subject, ladies and gents?
-
... I wonder how many would welcome something like this given the way the IGS seems to be repelling a lot of characters.
It sounds like would likely be a trade-off where we gain those who have abandoned IGS by banning those who 'encouraged' them to leave. Obviously not a moderator candidate here (or one well-versed in the long and acrimonious histories between players and/or charaters), but that does feel a little dirty to me. Outmoded morality, perhaps, I don't know.
Now what does sound interesting to me is an in-game corporation which owns/manages a pay-to-play GalNet forum (where players can post IC from anywhere outside the client), one which could be restricted in accordance with the proprietors' whims. I just don't know if that sort of thing is alright by the EULA. Plus, it would clearly be a lot more difficult to set up than just adding a sub-forum here.
Anyway, my unqualified opinion.
-
...given the way the IGS seems to be repelling a lot of characters.
I had no idea this was the case! How come?
Personally I have no problems with IGS; since making my first post on it a year ago, I've been contacted by other RPers who showed an interest in what I was doing. I've also made booster sales to non-RP players who noticed my posts there and got in touch.
It's not perfect and now and again you get some lazy, poorly thought-out posting or OOC nonsense, but I do my own modding with the Hide Posts feature.
My £0.02 worth.
-
Well, it comes down to a few factors.
One, some individual posters. It's hardly uncommon to load up the IGS to find a giant wall of one or two names turning every thread into a debate about themselves or their actions. Secondly, you'll have floods of faction stuff across a multitude of threads not suited for that purpose. I'm guilty of it myself, and it tends to kill the original topic.
The solution is board separation. One for each faction for particular empire related stuff, one melting pot board for cross-faction stuff and since the RP community is hardly gargantuan each faction forum (and the independent one) could have subforums dedicated to and moderated by a particular entity. The Republic one can easily contain Gradient and U'K as subs and there's not exactly a sea of entities in the other factions. This would provide notable RP entities a public portal for their stuff without requiring the RP community to hunt down different websites and forums. This would also be useful for newcomers to the RP community as they can explore the current landscape in one site, directly connected to the main OOC site.
Secondly, different rulesets can be a fine thing to curb disruption, especially with active moderation. Say a Gallente entity makes a thread about some Federation thingy and tags it [Friendlies] (or whatever else that fits), and this would mean any And This Is Why The Federation Must Be Destroyed posts are nuked from orbit. If it's tagged [Open] anything goes within the usual standards of good behaviour. Hell, you could tag it with faction names, inviting [Republic] and [State] participation but no [Empire] tag means the discussion is meant to be between Republic and State loyalists.
Thirdly, this would not be a barrier for anyone to use the IGS if that's what they prefer. It's really not much different from when this place was created. There's significant flaws with the current option, so let's see if an alternative with a different way of doing things will do better. If it does, great, everyone benefits. If it doesn't, no one's lost much but some elbow grease and time.
The smoke filled room gave birth to one of the best things the RP community in Eve have ever made, improving on and replacing something that served its purpose but wasn't deemed good enough. I think the IGS could use an alternative to either grow and become better, or be replaced by something better. Hell, this may very well be a coin that can stand on its edge allowing everyone involved a place to use.
-
...given the way the IGS seems to be repelling a lot of characters.
I had no idea this was the case! How come?
[...]
It's not perfect and now and again you get some lazy, poorly thought-out posting or OOC nonsense, but I do my own modding with the Hide Posts feature.
Miz' response already more or less sums up the reasons for this, however part of it bears repeating and expounding upon:
The IGS is a place where useless shitposting is allowed and in some ways protected. That a few people can continually streak their asses across threads like the forum is their personal roll of toilet paper without any kind of repercussion? This behavior kills otherwise good or interesting threads, and yet, not a thing will be done about it on the IGS when it would actually cause action to be taken in other subforums, or many other forums beyond the scope of EVE. Sickening, really.
Blocking posts does not actually solve the problem, despite what some people may think. It just foists it off onto someone else, and then god forbid that someone actually responds directly to someone you blocked. What're you going to do, block them? What about anyone who responds to them? Or people who respond to that person, and so on? No, of course you won't, because then you won't have any posts to read. It would be more effective just to tell the whole forum to go to hell and stop reading it in the first place, and some people are starting to do that.
CCP only has an IC forum as a token gesture best summed up as "hey look, we have a place for roleplayers to do their... thing... yeah, that's it. Oh my god, look at them go, isn't it adorable how utterly retarded they are, ahahaha." It is not a place taken seriously by CCP, ISD or CCL, and they have demonstrated zero interest over the years in maintaining it as a usable venue for roleplay. They won't step in or take any action necessary to stop this kind of behavior, instead suggesting we use the 'block' feature. Which, as above, does not work unless literally everyone using the forum all blocks the problematic people who were mentioned but not named above. There's something similar to that, usually reserved for people exhibiting that kind of behavior, that requires no effort on our part. Do you know what it's called? A forum ban (or gag).
Of all the rules there are for the forums, only a few are actually ever enforced on the IGS in my experience:
- No OOC posts.
- Content limits. (ie, keeping stuff SFW)
- EVE-related content only.
What isn't? To name a few off of the forum's rules page:
- Be respectful to other posters (rule #2)
- No ranting (rule #3)
- No personal attacks (rule #4)
- No trolling (rule #5)
- Post constructively (rule #23)
- No off-topic posting with intent to derail threads (rule #27)
Further, the game's terms of service (TOS) explicitly state that roleplay is not an acceptable excuse for violating the rules. Rules that won't be enforced even when stuff is reported. Okay...
So, posting on the IGS is an increasingly pointless exercise for those of us who wish to generate content of any sort that doesn't eventually amount to shitposting. Because all it takes is one of the usual suspects to post their usual rancid piles of dung in a thread, and it all goes to hell because there's nothing you can do about it, and nothing that CCP will do about it despite their own rules saying they're supposed to. Honestly, if CCP would get off their ass and fucking enforce their own goddamn rules a lot of these problems with the IGS would probably just go away.
I don't think that a new board is the ideal solution, but for the same reason that Miz appears to think it might be - a lack of critical mass within the RP community as a whole. I don't think we have enough people to support multiple faction-specific subforums, many of which, iirc, are already 'covered' by some public areas of the bigger RP entities like Gradient, PIE, etc. - the most we could semi-reasonably hope for is an independent IGS where shitposting is treated like the obnoxious and detrimental behavior that it is, and acted upon appropriately. If anything happens, it would be best to start small, and then expand if it's successful. Maybe we could add a subdomain for it here or something, and enable an API addon for the forums? I dunno. We still run into privacy issues and the like (as came up elsewhere recently), because pretty much all forum software enables IP display for admins and moderators. I see it as less of an issue when we're talking about an OOC forum for players to post in, but when we're talking about an IC forum for our characters? That's some potentially seriously messy shit right there, yo.
Also, tagging threads like that is just... begging for trouble, imo. Even though I would be tempted to abuse it by just stamping every thread with [State, Non-Provist] and harvesting the ragetears that resulted, that's the kind of thing we'd have to worry about. (Not to mention, with all the complaints about echo chambers? Yeah, that's exactly what it'll produce.)
-
In my opinion, the IP thing would be the final killer for many people. Myself included. There are plenty of alts that I just do not want overly associated with Jace. So just Jace and the alts that I have mentioned several times are mine would show up to such forums.
Edit: it is also just begging for people to go screaming over the OOC/IC border more than they already do.
-
In my opinion, the IP thing would be the final killer for many people. Myself included. There are plenty of alts that I just do not want overly associated with Jace. So just Jace and the alts that I have mentioned several times are mine would show up to such forums.
Edit: it is also just begging for people to go screaming over the OOC/IC border more than they already do.
This is why I mentioned it. While most of my alts are public knowledge, and deliberately so on my part, I do have a few that I have not disclosed specifically because I want to be left alone when I use them whether to RP or post on the forums or just play the stupid game, and not have to deal with other things carried over from my others. (As an aside: It's worth noting that even if we ignore IP addresses, you'd still be associating the API keys with forum accounts that would separately be tracked by the system in most cases anyway. So unless you want to make five zillion accounts each with unique email addresses...)
The best thing we can do that works for the most people, is to convince CCP to start moderating their own forum according to their own rules.
-
In my opinion, the IP thing would be the final killer for many people. Myself included. There are plenty of alts that I just do not want overly associated with Jace. So just Jace and the alts that I have mentioned several times are mine would show up to such forums.
Edit: it is also just begging for people to go screaming over the OOC/IC border more than they already do.
This is why I mentioned it. While most of my alts are public knowledge, and deliberately so on my part, I do have a few that I have not disclosed specifically because I want to be left alone when I use them whether to RP or post on the forums or just play the stupid game, and not have to deal with other things carried over from my others. (As an aside: It's worth noting that even if we ignore IP addresses, you'd still be associating the API keys with forum accounts that would separately be tracked by the system in most cases anyway. So unless you want to make five zillion accounts each with unique email addresses...)
The best thing we can do that works for the most people, is to convince CCP to start moderating their own forum according to their own rules.
The other option is to have a forum that allows connection via proxy servers. I have a separate email address for each character - so as long as a site didn't protect against the use of Tor, I could participate.
-
I don't really see it as a problem to be honest. It'd be an alternative forum and you wouldn't have to use alts on it if you didn't want to reveal the main. If the alternatives are a) Try to get CCP to unfuck the IGS which is never going to happen or b) Make an alternative to the IGS for those willing to use that, I don't see there being a contest.
Obviously it might fail, but Backstage took the same risk when that was started. You don't have to use API checks either. We don't use them here, after all.
-
API stuff is not for 'checks' for access permissions, it is to allow people to post as several characters without needing unique accounts for each. Which is still a moot point, with IP addresses.
No matter who the moderation/admin staff ends up being, as long as the team is large enough to be capable of doing their job, there's going to be someone on the team that people will object to having that kind of knowledge.
"Well, don't post with that alt then" is really not an acceptable stance to take. I should not have to use a proxy or w/e every time I want to post as one of the alts I don't want attached to myself. They're separate because I don't want to be bugged with Morwen-stuff when I use them, because I want to be left alone and treated as a separate individual without all the baggage. The rest of my alts (Naoko, Mirelle, Keta, Suzelle, etc.) are public knowledge because I want them to be, and don't mind people knowing about the connection or poking me about stuff when I use them.
-
Well, people do have to decide whether they want to put in the effort to create it, moderate it, etc. That makes it less of an obvious choice, Miz. People will not want to build it if they won't come.
-
most of the stuff I said before still applies, I think
Also:
with the "The Summit" and "Intergalactic Summit" ingame chat channels incident, then it would seem clear that some people have CCPs proverbial ear. That whole thing was because "The Summit" banned people from the channel, and that "restricted access" to event actors.
So I don't think a new IC section would have any interaction from event actors. And there is the possibility, that someone bends CCPs ear enough that backstage.eve-inspiracy.com gets added to the forum auto-filter, just like kugutsumen did. Which would be detrimental to all of backstage, and the people that use it. Linking something in backstage ingame ? someone with a grudge might even report that, and you end up getting banned from EVE.
It's a slim risk, imo, but one that cannot be entirely dismissed, given the environment that seems to exist in EVE atm.
Also:
Pro: IC sections allow people not subscribed to EVE to contribute to EVE rp
Con: IC sections allow people not subscribed to EVE to contribute to EVE rp
-
In my opinion, the IP thing would be the final killer for many people. Myself included. There are plenty of alts that I just do not want overly associated with Jace. So just Jace and the alts that I have mentioned several times are mine would show up to such forums.
Edit: it is also just begging for people to go screaming over the OOC/IC border more than they already do.
Heh, I understand the point, but it could also be a mean of protection for people against alt harassment and abuse. And that, I have seen at least equally to people being harassed on their main due to actions on their alts.
-
Well, the IGS today finally lost the last spec of worth it ever had to me, so if I'd had the resources and technical know how to make it unique enough, I'd have set up an alternative myself. I suppose it's kind of an Eve way of going about things, killing off any conceivable enjoyment others might have and sit victorious in the ruins, but it's just not worth it anymore.
We'll never get CCP to unfuck the IGS and I suspect we'll never set up an alternative either, mostly because :effort:, which basically means the Diana Kim Show gets to be the only channel on the airwaves. Hrr.
-
Seems to me there is no reason one of you interested in the idea of an IC forum could not just get off your ass and make one. If no one uses it oh well, what exactly will you lose. If it had a recruitment section I would use it. Also if you used one of the "split by empires/ideology" ideas from earlier in the thread I could see using it for some ideas I'm kicking around.
If you lack the ability to make it yourself but you have some isk there are a bunch of people who will do web design for it. Just look through the EVEo sell forum.
-
Pro: IC sections allow people not subscribed to EVE to contribute to EVE rp
Con: IC sections allow people not subscribed to EVE to contribute to EVE rp
I didn't even think of this. Absolutely a Con for me. This by itself means I would not participate in such an arena with any character whatsoever.
-
There's bit more to it than that, though. A good tie-in with the Inspiracy domain would be very beneficial for a whole bunch of reasons and something for/from the RP community should be made and administrated by the RP community. There's also the planning (smoke-filled room if anyone remembers those days) stage, dividing up responsibilities and setting up good rulesets beforehand, etc etc.
Something like this is way beyond a one-man operation. Backstage is living proof of it, and of the viability for that matter.
@Jace: Easy solution, character must be subscribed to post. Rulesets can be worked out with relative ease.
-
We'll never get CCP to unfuck the IGS and I suspect we'll never set up an alternative either, mostly because :effort:, which basically means the Diana Kim Show gets to be the only channel on the airwaves. Hrr.
I'm still hoping she takes another break. The IGS was useable when she went on her haitus/altus.
Edit: Also, not that it is any justification whatsoever, but to those that think she is actually trolling. Sadly, no. I had a very long OOC discussion with her late last year I think it was and she absolutely thinks she is providing content, opportunities, and dynamics to EVE RP and that others are simply not putting in the effort to participate with her. It was after that when I blocked her (I realize this is not an option for many, but it simply makes scrolling through an IGS thread faster). I can almost handle trolls and shitposters, despite their malicious intent - if someone genuinely thinks they are contributing they will not stop.
-
There's bit more to it than that, though. A good tie-in with the Inspiracy domain would be very beneficial for a whole bunch of reasons and something for/from the RP community should be made and administrated by the RP community. There's also the planning (smoke-filled room if anyone remembers those days) stage, dividing up responsibilities and setting up good rulesets beforehand, etc etc.
Something like this is way beyond a one-man operation. Backstage is living proof of it, and of the viability for that matter.
Well, that's what I was getting at earlier, Miz. We could add another subdomain to eve-inspiracy (maybe we could call it "The Summit" as an ironic/retaliatory "fuck you" to CCP?). We've got the forum software already set up, it's not impossible to extend it to use an API system for people to be able to link characters (and portraits and corp/alliance names and tickers, etc.) to an account.
Odds are, the existing moderation team would carry over for starters since it is effectively our site (I say 'our' a little loosely, since Silver's the one slapping money down for the site atm), and then we would probably add a few (which we're already contemplating here). Rule-sets would need to be something extensively discussed before any forum could be created, however. Backstage's ruleset didn't just pop into being overnight in the SFR - I was actively participating there - and I would hope, neither would any ruleset for a proposed IC forum.
That said, as I stated earlier, my opinion is that the biggest problem with the IGS is that the existing rules as laid out by CCP are not being enforced (I actually just put in a petition complaining about that about an hour ago, fwiw). Those rules, if they were enforced, are actually sufficient to keep the forum a healthy and productive source of RP. And, in addition, they're also incredibly similar to Backstage's ruleset, with the sole exception that we have a thing explicitly discouraging twatwafflry flavored like YDIW. Well, and that we actually make a half-assed attempt of enforcing them. ;)
-
Well, I'm all for everything Morwen said, basically. For starters, anyway. The sheer potential inherent in a decent player-run IC forum when it comes to faction portals and so on holds some attraction for me. Also for shits and giggles (and tradition) we'd need to have Havo and Scagga in on the planning stage. It just feels wrong not to.
-
The single biggest issue of a separate IC board is that it is bad for the longterm health of the game's RP community. By putting RP in a private location you generate a marginal increase in quality at the expense of visibility. In the short term the benefits are positive, in the longterm it leads to a smaller and smaller infusion of new blood, as people who might otherwise get encouraged to participate from seeing activity in public areas never learn about its existence. I'd say the same thing about Backstage itself but at least Backstage only functions as an OOC meeting ground and IC stuff is still kept to the official forums. This at least stimulates RPers to get involved in IC activities, and once they have that foot in the door it is easier to get them into the wider OOC aspects of the community. IGS serves a very important function as the public promotion area for the RP community, and it is the place where most people will get their first experience with RP in EVE, or even RP in general.
So, while I personally do like the idea of faction specific forums (but definitely not the tags or too much moderation, I hate strangling IC interactions with OOC moderation), I'd only be in support of it if it were on the official forums. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely CCP would do that at this stage.
I've seen many RP communities slowly suicide themselves by cloistering in independent private forums, and so definitely won't support that here.
-
I would agree, if the official boards weren't repelling activity as it is. What exactly is a newcomer to the official boards going to see? The Diana Kim Show and some faction rambling? It's not exactly a good recruitment tool as it stands. Now, what newcomers will almost certainly find is the OOC/Summit channels where this sort of place would be heavily advertised (I assume) just like Backstage. We see far more new blood come here to Backstage than we ever see join in on the IGS.
The IGS isn't going to go away either, as we certainly don't have the power to close it nor would we if we had it. The place will continue on exactly as it is now, I suspect as it is right now the home for exactly the kind of posting and behaviour that a Backstage-like IC board would be less suitable for.
If the IGS is currently the public promotion area for the RP community, the RP community is hosed. It's like using 4chan as the public promotion area for a Women's Rights association.
-
It's like using 4chan as the public promotion area for a Women's Rights association.
Wai you hate 4chan. Deserves FUnicorn (http://i.imgur.com/khtFn3A.jpg).
-
I love 4chan, for its purpose. Some other purposes it would be... less than optimal for.
-
I was trying to make a funny. Way to respond with like, an actual response. Le sigh.
-
Oh, fuck. Sorry. I mean.. err... FUNICORN RAMPAGE!
(https://i.imgur.com/y3PRp.jpg)
Or maybe... err... women's rights on 4chan something I DON'T EVEN KNOW?!
(https://i.imgur.com/gdHUPRH.gif)
-
I would agree, if the official boards weren't repelling activity as it is. What exactly is a newcomer to the official boards going to see? The Diana Kim Show and some faction rambling? It's not exactly a good recruitment tool as it stands. Now, what newcomers will almost certainly find is the OOC/Summit channels where this sort of place would be heavily advertised (I assume) just like Backstage. We see far more new blood come here to Backstage than we ever see join in on the IGS.
The IGS isn't going to go away either, as we certainly don't have the power to close it nor would we if we had it. The place will continue on exactly as it is now, I suspect as it is right now the home for exactly the kind of posting and behaviour that a Backstage-like IC board would be less suitable for.
If the IGS is currently the public promotion area for the RP community, the RP community is hosed. It's like using 4chan as the public promotion area for a Women's Rights association.
How do pre-RPers (as in, non-RPers with potential to enjoy RP once experiencing it) find the Summit and OOC channels if they don't already RP and aren't trying to find the RP community?
By new blood I'm referring to the really new type. The kind that aren't already RPers, aren't playing EVE for the RP, and who won't otherwise seek it out. Those people can only be attracted through publically visible areas, like the IGS.
It's important even for current RPers, as activity level of the RP community will often be judged by the activity level of the publically visible areas. I was certainly watching IGS for several days, watching how many posts it was getting per day, before deciding if I should start playing EVE or not. Ironically, DK's posts were some of the ones that made me acknowledge that things were active and that I wouldn't be wasting my time if I started playing. Though the derailing annoys me terribly now, when I was new the key thing I was looking for was an indicator of activity.
-
Those people can only be attracted through publically visible areas, like the IGS.
Maybe some find it through the IGS, but most new folks I have known that started RP did so by meeting RPers in non-RP situations. A situation like this happened just yesterday, actually. They are in a corp or other group with someone that happens to be an RPer and get interested. Also, there is no way to calculate the amount of people that find the IGS and don't join EVE RP because of how the IGS looks. If that had been my first introduction to RP in EVE, I certainly never would have jumped in.
-
Those people can only be attracted through publically visible areas, like the IGS.
Maybe some find it through the IGS, but most new folks I have known that started RP did so by meeting RPers in non-RP situations. A situation like this happened just yesterday, actually. They are in a corp or other group with someone that happens to be an RPer and get interested. Also, there is no way to calculate the amount of people that find the IGS and don't join EVE RP because of how the IGS looks. If that had been my first introduction to RP in EVE, I certainly never would have jumped in.
Maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't expect the best quality RP from any kind of public RP in general, so it doesn't bother me much.
-
Those people can only be attracted through publically visible areas, like the IGS.
Maybe some find it through the IGS, but most new folks I have known that started RP did so by meeting RPers in non-RP situations. A situation like this happened just yesterday, actually. They are in a corp or other group with someone that happens to be an RPer and get interested. Also, there is no way to calculate the amount of people that find the IGS and don't join EVE RP because of how the IGS looks. If that had been my first introduction to RP in EVE, I certainly never would have jumped in.
Maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't expect the best quality RP from any kind of public RP in general, so it doesn't bother me much.
That kind of filter is for those that have plenty of RP experience in past games and thus are likely to more actively seek out RP in EVE, whether it is the IGS or looking for channels. For those that are new to RP as a whole, which we were describing, they will not have that experience filter.
-
I suspect many of the 'new blood' also find their way over from the live events forum, since certain specific channels are listed by name in a post by Falcon as places people should go for RP.
-
Two things.
1. Twatwaffelry.
2. I have never actually reported or petitioned anything. How does one go about doing this?
-
Hrr, browser ate my post. Quick attempt at reconstruction (and answering the five consecutive posts after) to follow:
@Sam, I doubt the IGS will change much if this new forum comes along. If it does, it deserves to. I am also fairly certain the IGS is really not where we see new RPers come in, in any significant numbers. Live Events forums/interaction, interaction in the game, active searching for the RP community (when I consider a new MMO, the first thing I do is look for the RP community's OOC portals like Backstage as the amount/activity there is usually indicative of the quality and size of the community far more than any official portal) and so on.
@ Utshi, 1. Twatwafflery wut? 2. Rub a piece of ham on the monitor and HDD, then bury it at a crossroads and wait on top of a mountain at midnight. It'll have exactly the same effect as hitting the report flag on the forum post. (If we're talking IGS)
-
Two things.
1. Twatwaffelry.
2. I have never actually reported or petitioned anything. How does one go about doing this?
1) I thought it was a good word for the concept I wanted to convey.
2) On the EVE forums, there's a little flag icon on every post. You can click on that and submit a report for a post that way. I usually do it to mark OOC posts in the IGS, since afaik nearly nothing else actually gets acted upon. As far as actual petitions go? That's through the same system as always, though they call them "Support Tickets" now. Ingame, press F12 and then "create new support ticket".
-
And mine just got eaten too because EVE servers crashed again.
But yeah. Didn't Backstage have a stickied thread on the IGS once upon a time? Or Chatsubo? I remember there being one which is how I personally knew about it when I started. But activity on the IC areas are just as, if not more important than, activity in OOC areas. As people often say, you don't want to just be talking about RP while not actually doing it.
But yeah, same for me, when I join an MMO the first thing I do is look for the RP community and whatever third party resources it might have. RP is the only thing I really care for in MMOs. But I do acknowledge that there's a lot of people who are playing the game just to play the game, and that the public visibility of the RP community is very important and getting some of them to consider trying out RP.
I suppose EVE does have it better in that the RP community does have direct involvement in in-game activities, due to the game being a full-time RP environment. That definitely helps with promotion. My own experience is from MMOs where RP is a separate thing from the game, and so when the RP community isolates itself into its own private RP thing the people who play the game to play the game never experience nor see it. The fact that EVE only has one server is another good thing, as it consolidates people and prevents competition (a huge issue and what makes me wary about third party forums is that in my previous RP community on WoW, my own server, Defias Brotherhood, basically died out due to leaving the official forum to OOCers and isolating itself on a private forum. All new RPers flocked to Argent Dawn because Argent Dawn used the official forums, thus making itself the thing most new RPers would see when they went looking).
-
I suppose EVE does have it better in that the RP community does have direct involvement in in-game activities, due to the game being a full-time RP environment. That definitely helps with promotion. My own experience is from MMOs where RP is a separate thing from the game, and so when the RP community isolates itself into its own private RP thing the people who play the game to play the game never experience nor see it. The fact that EVE only has one server is another good thing, as it consolidates people and prevents competition.
These have been the most effective aspects in my own personal experience of bringing new people into RP. Since activities are actually out and about, non-RPers can actually run into RPers and get interested. And whatever they are interested in is practically reachable because it is all one spot. While not all that many people I have shown to Backstage and EVE RP have stuck with it in the long term, at least they were able to meet someone who could point them in various directions and let them know what is out there. Corp names, channel names, etc.
-
Sam: I had the opposite experience when looking at Defias Brotherhood and Argent Dawn. The reason I got interested (but never got around to migrating to) in AD was their private forums. I actually can't recall what server I stayed on though, but I stayed because it was the only decent PvP RPserver out there.
-
Sam: I had the opposite experience when looking at Defias Brotherhood and Argent Dawn. The reason I got interested (but never got around to migrating to) in AD was their private forums. I actually can't recall what server I stayed on though, but I stayed because it was the only decent PvP RPserver out there.
As Defias Brotherhood was the only RP-PvP server that really stayed active for a long stretch, being the second most active RP server as a whole for EU side, I'd imagine you were there? Do you remember who your character was? I was Drustai on DB.
-
Naw, I wasn't on Defias. Pretty sure of that. Damnit now I need to look it up.
Fake edit: The Venture Co. It was fairly active. This was way back in the day though. I started out on Burning Blade, a PvP server before they made RP-PvP servers, then migrated to TVC, then at some point quit playing.
-
Ah. Yeah, sadly Venture Co got pretty quiet in the last few years. I think they were the only other RP-PvP server that had RP still going though. Nowadays all the RP-PvP servers are merged with DB though (or "connected" rather, though that's just merging without making it look like it's a merge).
Anyway, sorry for brief off-topicing. Back to EVE.
-
1. I actually was just pointing out an awesome new word.
2. You know I have literally never seen that flag before lol. Good to know. While I'm sure there is sime :CCP: going on there its certainly possible they have just never recieved enough complaints to act on certain kinds of posts. You of all people Morwen should be aware of the concept of people complaining but not actually flagging things for moderator attention.
-
I am fully aware of it. But I've also almost never seen them moderate anything for the stuff from the list I made, which made me a little skeptical that any reports would actually do anything. (Not to mention, it is pretty fucking self-evident there is a common theme in the problems with that forum to anyone who bothers reading it.) Which, yeah, I guess, is a bit :psyccp: of me. However, I did have another concern that was the real reason behind me not reporting posts left and right: the number of posts that would be reported might get me in trouble.
IN ANY CASE. I did send in a petition complaining about/highlighting the issue earlier today, explaining that the sheer volume of posts that break the rules is so large that I was concerned that people reporting them would lose the ability to use the reporting tool out of some sort of "omg they're abusing the system" reaction. So we'll see where that goes.
-
Might get you ?
dat euphemism.
-
ikr.
Hence the petition going "hey, you guys aren't moderating your shit according to your own rules. If I point this shit out for you with the tools you've made available to me, I'm expecting to get in trouble for it so can you like, do your fucking job or at least give me immunity for the massive amount of work you're going to have piled on when you accept that you're not doing your job?" :bash:
-
Well, in my experience, getting post modded on the IGS for off-topic works most of the time, if I reported them. I did this mostly in my own threads, however, so it may help if the OP reports them.
-
Welp, DK's hiatus was short, but damn if the IGS didn't improve a bit for it. Those all too short days were pretty much a proof of concept as far as I'm concerned, showing what an IC forum with a bit of quality control could be. So, I'm basically asking Silver, Morwen, Havohej, Misan etc a quite simple question I'd love to hear the answer to from each of them:
What would you need to take on a project like adding an IC forum to the inspiracy domain? More mod/admin help? Hosting moneyz? ISK? Set your terms, please.
-
I too, want an IGS, without Diana Kim, Nauplius, noobs, or people who I don't like, and without the possibility of randoms interfering in my exquisitely crafted pre-planned RP. Those sorts of things are just too common on CCP's forums, and offend the sensibilities of any normal person.
Excellent idea. +1.
-
I too like to put words and motivations into other people's posts, that are neither accurate nor even hinted at.
-
I too like to put words and motivations into other people's posts, that are neither accurate nor even hinted at.
Well, it kind of looks from these posts:
this would mean any And This Is Why The Federation Must Be Destroyed posts are nuked from orbit.
We'll never get CCP to unfuck the IGS and I suspect we'll never set up an alternative either, mostly because :effort:, which basically means the Diana Kim Show gets to be the only channel on the airwaves. Hrr.
I'm still hoping she takes another break. The IGS was useable when she went on her haitus/altus.
The Diana Kim Show and some faction rambling?
Welp, DK's hiatus was short, but damn if the IGS didn't improve a bit for it. Those all too short days were pretty much a proof of concept as far as I'm concerned, showing what an IC forum with a bit of quality control could be.
That an IGS without Diana Kim is what some people want.
-
the possibility of randoms interfering in my exquisitely crafted pre-planned RP.
This and the noobs bit is what I take issue with. I honestly don't know of anyone among the RPers that has this mindset.
-
I too would like an IC sector here on backstage since I have been permabanned from and revoked petitions to ever use eve forums for illegitimate reports against Anyanka for so called "harassment". In which case Anyanka will still remain a mute and/or inevitably be given the same treatment as Diana.
-
the possibility of randoms interfering in my exquisitely crafted pre-planned RP.
This and the noobs bit is what I take issue with. I honestly don't know of anyone among the RPers that has this mindset.
Phrases such as "Quality Control" are inherently anti-new players. New players don't know all the back story, don't know that some things in say the Eve novels are generally disregarded, and so on.
the "randoms interfering", refers to this post:
Secondly, different rulesets can be a fine thing to curb disruption, especially with active moderation. Say a Gallente entity makes a thread about some Federation thingy and tags it [Friendlies] (or whatever else that fits), and this would mean any And This Is Why The Federation Must Be Destroyed posts are nuked from orbit. If it's tagged [Open] anything goes within the usual standards of good behaviour. Hell, you could tag it with faction names, inviting [Republic] and [State] participation but no [Empire] tag means the discussion is meant to be between Republic and State loyalists.
Tag a thread with whatever, to prevent interference from people you don't want commenting, with the ultimate sanction then available - moderator action to ban that person from the whole forum. Think about what that means. Think about what pressure that places the forum moderators under. To ban someone from the forum, means to excommunicate them from RP interaction. It means there'd be a hesitation to use a permaban. People would get warnings again and again, but no permanent action. This only fuels accusations of cliquery, because people would see some get warned time and time again, with no change in behaviour, while others get permabanned on a first offence. Drama everywhere.
And an off-eve-online RP forum, says that the RP community is too fragile to cope with the prospect of any form of intrusion by say, goonswarm, brave newbies, or whatever. That RP cannot survive in "the wild" of the eve-online forum, and needs to be put in zoos, confined to reservations, away from the general population.
It says to CCP that they don't need to maintain the IGS, it can be interpreted that CCP doesn't need to provide any world news at all. Why should they ? people aren't rping on the eve-online forums. Why does any of the storyline need to make sense ? when AWESOME can be used to sell the latest feature ?
-
Quality control is inherently newbie friendly as it provides a higher quality playground for them to enjoy, play and grow in. They'll receive correction when need be and be nurtured and guided. You seem to run straight to the extremes, implying bans or blocks as the defaults for some odd reason. People aren't banned or thrown off Backstage unless they deliberately throw all their toys out of the pram. Catacombs are there for a reason, you know.
CCP doesn't and never will maintain the IGS. That's the whole problem here, and what the hell does Goons and BNI have to do with anything? Can we please stay on one topic? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to get at.
-
At the moment, I question whether there're enough players interested in creating content on the IGS that are, for whatever reason, just not doing so. There aren't enough new threads per week on the IGS to suggest that there would be a use for an auxiliary IC forum. Which leads to my agreement with the concern that the existence of such, should it be successful, would draw traffic away from the IGS itself sufficiently to imply to CCP that interest in the storyline of the game universe had fallen off so far as to make the expense of story arc devs and all that comes from them unjustifiable - which, of course, would mean even less new PF than we're getting now.
-
Not to mention that a split would likely inhibit some of the few people currently interested in content from continuing it if they know that the only people who would see it is a tiny peanut gallery.
-
I think I disagree there. I know I can't be arsed making any IGS content when I know it's just going to be Diana Kim'd or herpaderped into "NO U" and I suspect it's the same for quite a few others. I also doubt there's any harm that can come from the attempt, as it's no different from the change-over from Chatsubo to Backstage. If it's better, it'll thrive. If it's worse, it'll die.
And seriously, if anyone thinks the blithering idiocy on display on the IGS does anything to drive CCP towards doing anything worthwhile, I have to question just what you think of them. We know they don't bother moderating it, enforce rules or anything else of the sort.
-
what the hell does Goons and BNI have to do with anything?
They exist within the Eve universe, with an ability to become involved within any rp happening in space. They exist on the eve forums, with an ability to become involved in any forum thread.
creating a walled off area, to keep them out, says "RP is weak and unable to survive in the wider EVE game". Might as well paint a kick me sign on whatever forum is created, it's an invitation to get it invaded, to make some kind of a point.
-
I think I disagree there. I know I can't be arsed making any IGS content when I know it's just going to be Diana Kim'd or herpaderped into "NO U" and I suspect it's the same for quite a few others. I also doubt there's any harm that can come from the attempt, as it's no different from the change-over from Chatsubo to Backstage. If it's better, it'll thrive. If it's worse, it'll die.
And seriously, if anyone thinks the blithering idiocy on display on the IGS does anything to drive CCP towards doing anything worthwhile, I have to question just what you think of them. We know they don't bother moderating it, enforce rules or anything else of the sort.
I'm certainly not defending the current state of the IGS. Just saying that it is where the only real 'hope' is. But as you say, people can try a different IC forum if they want.
-
Synthia, what the hell makes you think something like this is made to "keep BNI out"? You're setting up some weird problems and theoretical solutions that have nothing to do with this initiative. No one frankly gives a shit whether they come and contribute or not, as long as the contributions are worthwhile. You're reading so many weird things into this that have no grounds in reality.
-
Someone remind me what BNI is. I'm terrible at remembering acronyms.
-
Brave Newbies. No idea what they have to do with this as they're just another player entity.
-
Oh, right. I forgot they existed.
-
CAOD was a terrible forum. People went to places such as SHC and others, to discuss alliance politics instead. CCP put some rules in place, to limit altposting, but it wasn't enough.
CAOD then did what people considered impossible, and became worse. So bad, that CCP made it invisible to everyone except paying subscribers.
The IGS currently occupies a high up position on the forum list. That is open to change. It is visible to guests. That is open to change.
Having some off site RP forum, be it IC sections on backstage, or whatever, means that people who care about RP, will not post on IGS, they might read it occasionally, but they sure won't spend the time to report the terrible posts.
This will inevitably lead to the decline of the IGS, and CCP would probably move it further down the forum, and similar to CAOD, remove it from public display.
That can only ever be detrimental to EVE rp, and attracting newer players.
-
If it's so shit that an off-site forum kills it, it's not worth keeping. Secondly, the IGS is not a place to attract new roleplayers. A pile of crap might have flies buzzing around it, but that doesn't its popularity is worth anything to the rest. You attract RPers by interacting with them in the game, or when they search for Eve RP in whatever engine they prefer. The evelopedia article on it has a backstage link already and the Summit and OOC channels are prominently featured almost anywhere Eve RP is mentioned.
Attracting new players through the IGS is (as I've already mentioned) like trying to use 4chan as a feminist recruitment center.
-
To address the original questions:
I don't think hosting would be an issue, I don't have to pay more unless we wanted to register a totally different domain or something.
Admin/actually making the forum might be an issue - I don't really handle the technical side, so I'd turn to Misan/Havo for that bit.
Moderation would be somewhat challenging. Tricky as it can sometimes be for us to suss out a good course when moderating here, it is probably relatively simple compared to trying to moderate in IC forum. The rules would, I think, necessarily need to be looser (I don't think anyone wants a rule about YDIW when it comes to IC discussions, for example. They should get somewhat heated.) My initial thoughts would be that moderation on any such forum would tend heavily toward modding off-topic and derails (that seems to be a major complaint with IGS as it currently stands). In terms of things like insults and personal attacks, that's something we would need to calibrate during the initial phases of building it. On the one hand, they can add a certain amount of flavor. On the other too much can obscure the actual discussion - and I wouldn't want the IC section to become an avenue for people to air OOC grievances in a way they can't air them on the OOC part of the forum.
Also:
[mod]While I appreciate you addressing problems preemptively, Synthia, I don't see anyone suggesting any of the things you have been suggesting as problems. Please stop or you will be modded.[/mod]
On that note, it would obviously be the same as Backstage was - no bans based on behavior elsewhere. People would be able to post until their actual behavior on the new forum determined the couldn't be trusted with the post button. Whether that would include people currently permabanned from Backstage would have to be an item for discussion, however, as I would be concerned about vandalism.
Edit: In terms of how it would work in forum terms, my inclination would be to add an additional group of sections to the existing forum (rather than having a separate URL). I feel like with a separate URL it would tend to end up possibly isolated or underutilized, and it would increase admin overhead. We probably are only going to need a handful of sections in any case if we did it. One item for discussion mvoing forward: What should those sections be?
-
We probably are only going to need a handful of sections in any case if we did it. One item for discussion moving forward: What should those sections be?
I propose a Theology Debate subsection moderated by a neutral party (Sisters of Eve loyalist?). There can be really level headed debates but just in case people start asshatting, it would be nice to have a neutral party come in then say, Havo, or somebody else that would be ICly against Amarrians (or any other religious entity).
-
That would be another question - ICness of moderation. My inclination would probably be semi-IC. Mod posts would maintain (broadly) ICness, but since we would have to address problems of an OOC nature as well, it couldn't be entirely IC.
-
Hmm, for forum sections (especially if we're doing it on the same url), we should keep it lightweight at least to start with. I'm thinking a simple IGS clone, maybe with specific faction sub-forums. (Min, Cal, Fed, Emp). Actually, that's a bit too heavy-weight for a forum subsection already.
Let's just say a section named Intergalactic Summit Mk2 the Pre-sequel the Reveangencening with the Politics, Current Events and Socializing forums in it?
If we're doing it on the very same url, how are we going to separate characters and Backstage posters though? I would have thought we'd need a separate forum for this kind of thing.
Moderation: Entirely OOC. Every mod comment would simply be a faceless functionary handing out a warning and doing the moderation work. Entirely faction unaffiliated/neutral, no name or face to place on it. No need to give the excuse for IC claims of bias because the moderator is known to be a loyalist of some sort.
-
Well, either we would have to have everyone sign up all the characters the want to use on a new forum, or we would have people just sign up new characters for existing alts on Backstage in addition to the ones they already have (which is allowed already, for people who want to be able to participate OOC and discuss things they have done on different characters but want to keep private whose alt they are. We can see IP addresses for moderation, so we would be able to tell if people we trying to astroturf in the rest of the forum by talking to themselves.)
Edit: I personally wouldn't even mind if people wanted to have a totally unaffiliated identity for OOC use (there are a couple people who do this, currently) plus their character names registered. Again, I don't think it would be very different than the situation with a separate URL, except everything would be in one place.
-
Bit of a pain to keep logging in and out for different forum sections, though. I understand what you're getting at with the possible under-utilization but I'm not sure it's the best idea. Might clutter backstage up a bit more than it already is and a separate site (on the same domain) would be a bit easier to deal with from a user pov. Would also make for a better overall experience, since that could be expanded (in time) to be a full on In Character galnet portal hosting news services (Jandice's stuff for instance, and Gutter Press) and other nifty IC things in time.
For now, just an IGS clone with actual moderation... in time, an aggregate of the best the RP Community can deliver in character. Imagine.
-
You would have to log in and out anyway?
The moderation model you suggest sounds like a good idea to me.
-
When using multiple characters sure, but I think many would be like me and primarily post on one character mostly, which'd mean just staying logged in on that character on that forum and occasionally logging in an alt account for an off-hand post and go back to the main. If it's a subsection of this forum, it'd mean relogging every time you go from IC to OOC and back again. I know I'd get real tired of logging in and out all the time, and chances are I'd mess it up and post IC on the OOC account and vice versa.
Anyway, that's a minor gripe and not necessarily too important.
-
I can see your point, and the other issue I could foresee, from a forum mechanics side is that there isn't really a way (as far as I know) for reports to be available to any mods who were only mods in that section (rather than the whole forum). I don't know that we would have enough volume of modding where it would be a real logistical issue unless it was like, a run away success or something.
I'm not sure those outweigh the negatives, in my mind, associated with setting up a whole separate forum.
-
Well, either we would have to have everyone sign up all the characters the want to use on a new forum, or we would have people just sign up new characters for existing alts on Backstage in addition to the ones they already have (which is allowed already, for people who want to be able to participate OOC and discuss things they have done on different characters but want to keep private whose alt they are. We can see IP addresses for moderation, so we would be able to tell if people we trying to astroturf in the rest of the forum by talking to themselves.)
Edit: I personally wouldn't even mind if people wanted to have a totally unaffiliated identity for OOC use (there are a couple people who do this, currently) plus their character names registered. Again, I don't think it would be very different than the situation with a separate URL, except everything would be in one place.
It would be far simpler to just set up one of the API plugins and have people have one account that they hook characters into.
I think that use of usergroups can also handle IC/OOC posting - you can just put all API-linked characters on an account into a "characters" usergroup, and the non-character (ie, main account name) into a "players" usergroup. Only allow members of the "characters" usergroup to post in the IC sections, and... boom? It should work, in theory. Might need some testing to get it to work, though.
Also, another subdomain wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea even if it is some work. I don't think we really want to slap this directly into Backstage as an extra set of subforums - it seems like things would be too crowded, and though this would be more or less invisible to most users, speaking as a moderator I know I'd rather have the reports from an IC section that follows a different set of rules from the main portion of the forum going to a separate area from where the reports from OOC sections of the forums go.
-
Subdomain creation is negligible in terms of :effort: required.
API, however... I've never worked with it, would need someone versed in that to do the work unless you know of a currently functional API mod for SimpleMachinesForum software.
-
If people are liking the subdomain idea, I'd be open to it - and it seems like that's the feeling so far. Assuming our technical folks are cool with it.
-
Can I just say you're all being far too reasonable right now? It's weird. Also, do let me know if there's something I can do to help. You know, other than the fact that I know fuck all about websiting the intertubes.
-
Can I just say you're all being far too reasonable right now? It's weird. Also, do let me know if there's something I can do to help. You know, other than the fact that I know fuck all about websiting the intertubes.
I resent that. I am never reasonable. Also, I detect a you people attitude there even though you never said it. I take offense.
-
does the api tell forum mods what other characters would be on that API ?
-
Even if it does. You can use a seperate API for each character if you need to be sneaky.
-
does the api tell forum mods what other characters would be on that API ?
You can tailor APIs to show only one character/a limited set of information, etc. For verification, all you'd really need would be an API with an access mask of 0 linking to the character.
Of course this won't stop the tinfoil hat-esque people who won't register APIs anywhere for fear of IP address harvesting to prevent spy alts on alliance forums and such.
I might be able to put something together re: an SMF API plugin when I can find the free time. Bit more versed with PHPBB plugins and structure than SMF, so would probably take a while to do.
-
does the api tell forum mods what other characters would be on that API ?
Your IP address does this already.
-
Not necessarily. You don't know what other characters I have on Miz's account. Even if I registered an api, I could limit that information. I think Lou was asking if you could see characters on the account that weren't registered as their own alt forum account, which would be no if the api was set right.
-
After today's latest barrage I can't recommend pulling the rip cord of IGS and having a private forums enough.
-
I can't stress enough that this should be a blank slate. No pre-emptive bans etc, preferably. I don't know if it might be a good idea to carry over permabans from Backstage, haven't really weighed the pros and cons there enough, but it should be an open place. If people are bad fits, they'll be sorted out by moderation soon enough, or maybe even change their tune if there's actual moderation in place.
-
No, Miz, that was my point. IP addresses are attached to individual posts and the owning account making the post. If you attached a character to an account through the API and subsequently post with that character, then your IP address is associated with that post, that character, and the account associated with them. There's really no way to work around that. (As an aside, regarding alts and the "secrecy" thereof: if someone is incapable of separating them sufficiently that people can't figure it out on their own without things like that or don't care to, they shouldn't get to complain when people figure it out and it becomes a known thing - especially when it's as obvious as a hammer hitting you in the face, as is the unfortunate case with a number of people and their alts.)
As far as "bad fits" goes... it's far more likely they'll just hem and haw and scream and rant and rage and cry ingame about it because it's impossible that they could just be wrong. About anything. Which is what already happens. :roll:
-
I think you misunderstand. If I attached Miz's api to the account and posted, and attached another account's character to an alt account and posted, you'd see the connection with the IP, but you wouldn't be able to see any alt characters on those accounts if they didn't post/have forum accounts.
Unless of course I gave that sort of access in the apis I set up.
In short, you wouldn't be able to see what other characters I have on Miz's account unless I posted with them/gave you that API access.
-
Well, yes. But why bother adding them if you're not going to post with them? I don't think you'd need to be giving account-wide APIs. vOv
-
I agree. It's just what Lou was asking, if I understood her correctly.
-
Then the answer is that in theory, no, we wouldn't see it unless you posted.
But in practice, you wouldn't do that unless you intended to post with it, which makes it a bit of a silly question.
-
I think you still misunderstand. You attach an API to a forum account on one character. The question was whether this allowed admin to see other characters on the same account. This is indeed something you can do with the api if it's configured to show all characters on the account.
-
I turn the argument on it's head.
People say that the "poor quality" of the IGS, means people are dissuaded from posting "good rp" on it, and that this IC forum would mean that more "good rp" occurs.
I turn that upside down.
If people are dissuaded from posting RP things onto the IGS, then maybe, the RP things weren't actually that good anyway.
Also: If someone writes articles about their private planet or solar system, on the IGS, then the wider community of EVE players is able to involve themselves, for good or bad.
I'm thinking here of someone saying that e.g. planet III (temperate) of system X is the capital of a civilisation they've set up. Someone organises a fleet of bombers to lob bombs at that planet, and posts screenshots of so doing. That is something that could happen when such things are posted on the IGS. So Be It.
If instead, the articles about Planet III (temperate) of system X are posted on some IC forum that the vast majority of EVE players do not have access to, then, all it is, is a shield against the big meanies. Says that you don't want your private worldbuilding to be interfered with in any way.
I.e. this:
I see no reason to create a slightly larger circlejerk for people that are used to having their RP unchallenged in their own clique.
Masturbation in any shape or form should be done away from the public.
Sorry about the phrasing.
vOv
do whatever.
-
Moderation: Entirely OOC. Every mod comment would simply be a faceless functionary handing out a warning and doing the moderation work. Entirely faction unaffiliated/neutral, no name or face to place on it. No need to give the excuse for IC claims of bias because the moderator is known to be a loyalist of some sort.
i don't understand this bit ?
an ingame character, to post with ? or a different forum account that only exists to post ?
but they'd be operated by people who are known to be players of other characters ?
I don't understand.
-
The practicalities of it I'm not going to get into. Might be done on separate moderator accounts or something, but making the moderation team from an IC point of view be just faceless functionaries with no ties to any faction or anything will let the forums be moderated without there being an IC excuse to say "Well you're just modding my rawrmatar post because you're an Empire sympathizer!" etc.
Besides, having an IC moderation team would sort of require some of them to act biased because that's what they are, in character. Basically, making the moderation team entirely neutral from an IC pov just avoids a whole bunch of pitfalls.
-
Okay, this seems to have gotten enough traction that it should be discussed in a more organized fashion. We had the Smoke Filled Room last time around, so how about we make a little back room here on Backstage (new forum section, temporary if need be) where we can set up a few threads for discussing particulars like moderation, rulesets, exactly how it's to be built, etc?
-
I turn the argument on it's head.
People say that the "poor quality" of the IGS, means people are dissuaded from posting "good rp" on it, and that this IC forum would mean that more "good rp" occurs.
I turn that upside down.
If people are dissuaded from posting RP things onto the IGS, then maybe, the RP things weren't actually that good anyway.
Also: If someone writes articles about their private planet or solar system, on the IGS, then the wider community of EVE players is able to involve themselves, for good or bad.
I'm thinking here of someone saying that e.g. planet III (temperate) of system X is the capital of a civilisation they've set up. Someone organises a fleet of bombers to lob bombs at that planet, and posts screenshots of so doing. That is something that could happen when such things are posted on the IGS. So Be It.
If instead, the articles about Planet III (temperate) of system X are posted on some IC forum that the vast majority of EVE players do not have access to, then, all it is, is a shield against the big meanies. Says that you don't want your private worldbuilding to be interfered with in any way.
I.e. this:
I see no reason to create a slightly larger circlejerk for people that are used to having their RP unchallenged in their own clique.
Masturbation in any shape or form should be done away from the public.
Sorry about the phrasing.
vOv
do whatever.
Synthia, this can be a good thing. The Summit channel imo is only more popular than Intergalactic Summit because it's easier to find and spell correctly. The IGS though is integrated into eve forums for ease. People will not stop using it as a launch site for new rp toons. It will still be more populated than Theatre (or whatever you guys end up calling it).
At first Theatre will be a circle jerk. Awesome! That will mean less public self-gratification on IGS!
But for Anyanka, Theatre will not be a circle jerk. It will be a diaspora for the exiled and hopefully a new beginning. :)
-
I would like to reiterate that the whole alt concern can be easily fixed by allowing the forums to be accessed via proxy server. You could then have attached API but no genuine IP.
-
I turn the argument on it's head.
People say that the "poor quality" of the IGS, means people are dissuaded from posting "good rp" on it, and that this IC forum would mean that more "good rp" occurs.
I turn that upside down.
If people are dissuaded from posting RP things onto the IGS, then maybe, the RP things weren't actually that good anyway.
Also: If someone writes articles about their private planet or solar system, on the IGS, then the wider community of EVE players is able to involve themselves, for good or bad.
I'm thinking here of someone saying that e.g. planet III (temperate) of system X is the capital of a civilisation they've set up. Someone organises a fleet of bombers to lob bombs at that planet, and posts screenshots of so doing. That is something that could happen when such things are posted on the IGS. So Be It.
If instead, the articles about Planet III (temperate) of system X are posted on some IC forum that the vast majority of EVE players do not have access to, then, all it is, is a shield against the big meanies. Says that you don't want your private worldbuilding to be interfered with in any way.
I.e. this:
I see no reason to create a slightly larger circlejerk for people that are used to having their RP unchallenged in their own clique.
Masturbation in any shape or form should be done away from the public.
Sorry about the phrasing.
vOv
do whatever.
Of the minority of Eve players who actually use the official forums, I expect and even smaller minority of them ever access the IGS. Also, assuming that a new forum will be so popular that it will displace the official forums is rather putting the cart before the horse - and I expect we would see quite a lot of cross-posting. If you are running an event or something, you want as wide a net as possible. You put your announcement both places, and if you are so inclined maybe put a link on the IGS post saying 'Discussion here' if you prefer to link people over to our forum rather than the official one. For many other people, posting on the new forum might be a way to reach an audience within the RP community who has given up on reading the IGS (I'm sure there are a few here and there. I'm largely one of them, for example.)
Also, you still seems to be assuming there will be some kind of automatic exclusion for people or organizations and I don't know where you are getting that (aside from, as mentioned, possible carry-over bans for people already permabanned on Backstage. That will have to be discussed though - but would involve a very small number of individuals. Like, less than 5 IIRC.) Unless you yourself are proposing such an idea, or someone else does, kindly leave it out of the discussion as it seems to simply be a strawman for you to stridently object to.
-
Also, you still seems to be assuming there will be some kind of automatic exclusion for people or organizations and I don't know where you are getting that
Unless you yourself are proposing such an idea, or someone else does, kindly leave it out of the discussion as it seems to simply be a strawman for you to stridently object to.
People are excluded from posting by default. If there are any forum sub-sections that are visible only to members of certain groups (group membership requiring approval), then people are excluded from both reading and posting by default.
If that wasn't obvious, then, I don't see why it wasn't.
-
That's true of any forum anywhere. There is always a banlist.
-
If you're trying to refer to my comments about possibly making use of usergroups to separate IC and OOC 'names' for use on specific forums, you would do well to review the entire context of said comments instead of making up crises where there are none:
If we're doing it on the very same url, how are we going to separate characters and Backstage posters though? I would have thought we'd need a separate forum for this kind of thing.
Well, either we would have to have everyone sign up all the characters the want to use on a new forum, or we would have people just sign up new characters for existing alts on Backstage in addition to the ones they already have (which is allowed already, for people who want to be able to participate OOC and discuss things they have done on different characters but want to keep private whose alt they are. We can see IP addresses for moderation, so we would be able to tell if people we trying to astroturf in the rest of the forum by talking to themselves.)
Edit: I personally wouldn't even mind if people wanted to have a totally unaffiliated identity for OOC use (there are a couple people who do this, currently) plus their character names registered. Again, I don't think it would be very different than the situation with a separate URL, except everything would be in one place.
Bit of a pain to keep logging in and out for different forum sections, though. I understand what you're getting at with the possible under-utilization but I'm not sure it's the best idea. Might clutter backstage up a bit more than it already is and a separate site (on the same domain) would be a bit easier to deal with from a user pov. Would also make for a better overall experience, since that could be expanded (in time) to be a full on In Character galnet portal hosting news services (Jandice's stuff for instance, and Gutter Press) and other nifty IC things in time.
You would have to log in and out anyway?
When using multiple characters sure, but I think many would be like me and primarily post on one character mostly, which'd mean just staying logged in on that character on that forum and occasionally logging in an alt account for an off-hand post and go back to the main. If it's a subsection of this forum, it'd mean relogging every time you go from IC to OOC and back again. I know I'd get real tired of logging in and out all the time, and chances are I'd mess it up and post IC on the OOC account and vice versa.
Anyway, that's a minor gripe and not necessarily too important.
I think that use of usergroups can also handle IC/OOC posting - you can just put all API-linked characters on an account into a "characters" usergroup, and the non-character (ie, main account name) into a "players" usergroup. Only allow members of the "characters" usergroup to post in the IC sections, and... boom? It should work, in theory. Might need some testing to get it to work, though.
Usergroups only make sense when the titular "IC Sections" are subforums on Backstage and not on a separate subdomain (currently jokingly referred to as "Centerstage" in the mods' discussion area). If we have an entirely IC forum there is no need for usergroups because we would almost certainly ask that people make OOC posting accounts here on Backstage and refrain from OOC discussion on the IC forum. On top of that, they were suggested as a convenience tool to prevent people from accidentally posting with their OOC identity in the IC sections of the forum. Not to mention that the usergroups would be open to join by the users themselves without any need for the moderators or admins to do it for you. (What's that leave the barrier to entry at, again? Oh, that's right, the ability to read and follow instructions.)
Furthermore, the discussion about providing an SSO solution via API plugins is entirely hypothetical and assumes that we could even find and install one that fit our needs - specifically in our case, the ability to attach multiple characters to the account through the API, but not use them as a "display name" for the account so that users could post in a similar fashion to how the official EVE forums work. The odds of this are fairly low to begin with, given the lack of options out there. (Milo has made an offhand comment or two about possibly modifying or writing one, for what it's worth, but since he also said he wasn't very familiar with SMF then there may be issues there.)
As a result, even with a separate forum, the most likely solution will be "create an account for each character you wish to post with, with the option of providing an extremely limited API that would allow the forum to automatically display your character's portrait, corp and alliance."
As for concerns about IP address visibility, I'm aware some of you have higher levels of paranoia than others and find the inability to log into Backstage through a proxy incredibly vexing. For what this forum is, I see absolutely zero need for it: we're dealing with each other as players, after all, not our characters. If you, the player, a single human being, are causing problems and doing so with multiple accounts, it is our responsibility as staff to deal with you as a single person regardless of however many accounts you have. Having multiple accounts is a privilege, not a right, and abuse of that privilege is not something we have ever taken lightly.
As far as any new forum goes, logging in via proxies may be up for discussion (it has not come up internally yet) but I have my doubts that there will be a change. (I don't even know if/how it can be changed on SMF, at any rate - that would be a question for Misan regardless of whether there's a desire to do it or not.)
-
That wasn't what I was referring to at all.
So your snarkiness is wholly uncalled for. And against forum rules. Which doesn't help the reputation of any prospective IC forum.
-
It would probably help if you told us what you were referring to then, as it seems no one's quite gotten it yet.
-
I'm not understanding the frustration here, Synthia. What exactly is the criticism?
-
I thought it was perfectly understandable. Or, I hope I understood it properly...
Player screening basically.
As long as you start to enforce serious rules, the pros have already been exposed, but the cons are that those rules are by definition completely subjective, also created by a small group of people, for a small group of people.
They are also enforced by players that also have characters and motivations ingame, as well as ideals and various ethics OOCly that will colour their judgement.
-
That doesn't seem to be the criticism. Otherwise, it is covered under my comment that any forum has to deal with that balance.
-
I was the only person who brought up usergroups before you did.
People are excluded from posting by default. If there are any forum sub-sections that are visible only to members of certain groups (group membership requiring approval), then people are excluded from both reading and posting by default.
If that wasn't obvious, then, I don't see why it wasn't.
This, in no uncertain terms, is a ridiculous argument and you should be ashamed of making it.
"People are excluded from posting by default" - Like on pretty much every other forum, the official EVE forums included, where you need an account to post?
"If there are any forum sub-sections that are visible only to members of certain groups (group membership requiring approval), then people are excluded from both reading and posting by default" - A wild leap from a statement of the obvious to the assumption of the ludicrous. Why would we EVER hide sections of the forum that weren't specifically for the admins and moderators? I also direct you, again, to my previous post. What the hell makes you think we would want to micromanage usergroup membership when we could just set up groups with open membership and say "go add this usergroup to your account/character to post in the IC sections" and let people handle it themselves? Again, usergroups are not needed but were offered as a solution to help people avoid making OOC posts in the IC sections. They are not intended to wall anyone off from anything and if you are making such an assumption you are forcing words into my mouth and you need to knock it off.
You are either making up crises where none exist, failing to post in such a manner that it is clear that you are not doing that, or failing utterly at being clear about what your point actually is.
-
I'm hoping it is just unclear communication, otherwise this is borderline absurdity in the hopes of pre-victimizing oneself for martyrdom.
-
It is always funny to see that people that hold different opinions or arguments are more and more called for "making crises where there is none" and "failing to be clear" where there is a clear miscommunication or just clear refusal of one side to ever trying to understand or consider it in the first place. Hope it's the former though.
That doesn't seem to be the criticism. Otherwise, it is covered under my comment that any forum has to deal with that balance.
Yes indeed, although the official forum is a separate case in itself. Subject to similar issues, but still official with no tangible ties with players entitled to exert authority.
-
It is always funny to see that people that hold different opinions or arguments are more and more called for "making crises where there is none" and failing to be clear where there is a clear miscommunication or just clear refusal of one side to ever trying to understand or consider it in the first place. Hope it's the former though.
That doesn't seem to be the criticism. Otherwise, it is covered under my comment that any forum has to deal with that balance.
Yes indeed, although the official forum is a separate case in itself. Subject to similar issues, but still official with no tangible ties with players entitled to exert authority.
Since clarity seems to be an issue in this thread, let me ask: are you claiming that CCP moderators do not have ties to players or player organizations?
-
:leans back with popcorn, waits with wild, feverish grin:
You know, if "people" are "concerned" about "super sekret hidden IC forums they'd already be excluded from" they could, oh, you know, "go pay for a domain", "set up forums" ..
.. wait, this disussion has happened before, hasn't it?
/me looks for her copy of the Little Red Hen.
I am sensing a story with moral shortly to follow.
-
I would strongly support an alternative to IGS. Every time I read that forum I get heartburn. It is nearly as toxic as CAOD.
I don't think creating an alternative forum will kill off IGS, as there are probably players like me who would not be taking much activity from the official forums. Likewise, there will be people who are interested in maintaining an active forum presence on IGS and won't be interested in "unofficial" forums. Galnet is a big place, it would be nice to have some options to reflect that. I for one would enjoy something that is a bit more of a forum and not as much of a shouting match.
I don't think any bans should carry over, and any whining about the poor victims of mod abuse should wait until there has actually been someone banned or moderated.
-
the moderation is going to be the problem.
doesn't matter what forum profile is used, there's going to be only a handful of actual people behind the controls.
so, there's always going to be the suspicion that A is held to a different standard than B, because A is in the same corp as one of the forum staff, and B is not. We've already seen that discussion enough times here, about how some posters (some of which deleted their account), regularly posted stuff that ended up catacombed, and never seemed to face any consequences, in some cases seeming to receive praise from forum staff, while other posters do something once, and seemingly get banned, or at least publicly warned they could be banned.
So, that situation does not lend itself to a tight rules regime for the forum.
But if you have a loose rules regime, where only the most uncontroversially unacceptable posting gets moderated (pornography as an example), then... that rules regime isn't really any different from the IGS.
so what happens ?
-
For the record, based on comments here by team members and comments downstairs, no ban list would carry over. OOC bans of people on this OOC forum are for OOC behaviours on this OOC forum. Any new IC forum would be an absolute clean slate.
For any concerns of bias amongst the moderation team that we have (which would almost certainly carry over to a new IC forum - with the potential for new moderators as well) more or less targeting individual users of a new IC forum, I would like to point out that none of the people involved with the issues that led to this forum's creation were "autobanned" or "targeted" for unfairly strict scrutiny by this moderation team - despite one or two of those users actively attempting to provoke this team in the early stages of this forum.
I would also like to point out that in the only instance of a member of the moderation team being clearly seen to have unfairly targeted an individual user based on personal vendetta, that moderator was removed from the team.
-
You're taking things to extremes. First off, there'll never be perfect moderation solutions, but moderation is still better than no moderation. This means an alternative to the IGS will by default be superior simply by dint of having any moderation at all. Secondly, no one has yet mentioned a single time that there'd be some sort of draconian ruleset. So far, the discussion has leaned towards simply using the IGS ruleset that isn't currently enforced.
There are middle roads between zero moderation and draconian moderation and I'm reasonably sure you can recognize that the Backstage moderation is not on either extreme, even though it has occasionally been uneven.
It seems to me like some of the hostility towards an alternative to the IGS is founded on "My shit's not going to get tolerated there, gotta oppose this". I am pretty sure we can safely say that if Backstage is any indication, there'll be plenty of room to amend one's own attitudes and bullshit before any irreparable damage is done.
-
I personally don't think moderation would be the problem as the IGS does not moderate for many of their rules as Morwen noted earlier.
-
It seems to me like some of the hostility towards an alternative to the IGS is founded on "My shit's not going to get tolerated there, gotta oppose this". I am pretty sure we can safely say that if Backstage is any indication, there'll be plenty of room to amend one's own attitudes and bullshit before any irreparable damage is done.
lol no. Where do you get that ?
-
It seems to me like some of the hostility towards an alternative to the IGS is founded on "My shit's not going to get tolerated there, gotta oppose this". I am pretty sure we can safely say that if Backstage is any indication, there'll be plenty of room to amend one's own attitudes and bullshit before any irreparable damage is done.
lol no. Where do you get that ?
[admin]As you are not the only user posting in opposition of this prospect, it should not be assumed that the quoted comment is specifically directed toward you. Even if it is, let's not derail the topic with it.[/admin]
-
While we can all wish for a perfect, ideal moderator uninvolved and unlinked to any other human beings it is a truth in any community-based forum that the admins and moderators are likely to be members of that community (and as such have links of varying type to the members of that community). So, as with Backstage, we will just have to do the best we can. While your concerns represent a 'problem' of sorts, it is a problem that every single other forum always has to deal with and I think the fact that any number of forums for different communities exist and many are quite useful even given the universality of said 'problem' would seem to indicate that it isn't an insurmountable stumbling block. Indeed, it is a very natural part of virtually every single forum - and as with many other problems if it isn't handled correctly people will vote with their feet.
-
well, it's better to get the inevitable forum moderation argument sorted, before everyone pours in a pile of man-hours on doing ~stuff~, rather than after, which would cause a lot of burnouts and such.
-
It is always funny to see that people that hold different opinions or arguments are more and more called for "making crises where there is none" and failing to be clear where there is a clear miscommunication or just clear refusal of one side to ever trying to understand or consider it in the first place. Hope it's the former though.
That doesn't seem to be the criticism. Otherwise, it is covered under my comment that any forum has to deal with that balance.
Yes indeed, although the official forum is a separate case in itself. Subject to similar issues, but still official with no tangible ties with players entitled to exert authority.
Since clarity seems to be an issue in this thread, let me ask: are you claiming that CCP moderators do not have ties to players or player organizations?
Heh, good point. Granted.
-
For the creators and mods, please consider this proposal. A subsection for supporting characters which are not yet capsuleers. This would be impossible on IGS and in game but would make a whole hell of a lot of sense for people wanting to rp their supporting characters, crew, or new capsuleers pre-death. I would be willing to make a few more accounts on this site with full disclosure that it is I if there would be any problems. This could also give people new to rp someplace to start before they decide to make that toon or pay a subscription. Fleshing out their story a bit before jumping in head first.
-
For the creators and mods, please consider this proposal. A subsection for supporting characters which are not yet capsuleers. This would be impossible on IGS and in game but would make a whole hell of a lot of sense for people wanting to rp their supporting characters, crew, or new capsuleers pre-death. I would be willing to make a few more accounts on this site with full disclosure that it is I if there would be any problems. This could also give people new to rp someplace to start before they decide to make that toon or pay a subscription. Fleshing out their story a bit before jumping in head first.
Maybe call it something like "Baseliner Bar"? Baseliner only establishment.
-
I could see some use for a section like that. We will see how much interest there is.
-
It seems to me that it would just turn into another 'post your Fiction' section due to lack of use. I can't imagine any situation where any of my characters would want to interact with other people's baseliners. But to each their own, if it got use it would be nifty for folks that had interest in it.
-
It seems to me that it would just turn into another 'post your Fiction' section due to lack of use. I can't imagine any situation where any of my characters would want to interact with other people's baseliners. But to each their own, if it got use it would be nifty for folks that had interest in it.
I think to make it useful it would have to exclude capsuleers. But we will see.
New IC forum will allow for more inventive roleplay regardless by not being chained to in game mechanics.
-
It seems to me that it would just turn into another 'post your Fiction' section due to lack of use. I can't imagine any situation where any of my characters would want to interact with other people's baseliners. But to each their own, if it got use it would be nifty for folks that had interest in it.
I think to make it useful it would have to exclude capsuleers. But we will see.
New IC forum will allow for more inventive roleplay regardless by not being chained to in game mechanics.
In which case I wonder how many people would be interested in it. But I don't have any objection to it, just wondering how much use it would get.
-
An idea I forgot to mention earlier in regards to "sections":
Capsuleer social media. Sort of a Twitter IN SPACE kind of thing. Doesn't even need its own section, but could just be a thread where you self-limit your post size to a few sentences (Twitter's 140 characters, except with no character counter, just an approximate). Basically, the idea would be that capsuleers... well, tweet. IC.
If not part of the IC section, it could make for an interesting thread just like the rumors one up in the Content Creation thingy.
-
Love the idea of twitter in space. How hard would it be to just implement status updates like eve gate does but with tags. Maybe just updates as tags could get out of control. Ex:
/me tweets "Hot new trans people coming out all over New Eden." #TRANSNEWEDEN #SEXINESS #JACE #BLAMEMORWEN
-
Or you could just use Twitter and make an IC Tweet List.
-
I'd rather not be bouncing between my real twitter and the IC one.
-
#RAWRMatar #DemDronesDoe #Pilgrief #Proviblob
EDIT: Oops, forgot - #JustThukkerThings
-
I'm guessing those kind of upgrades would require a newer forum software, but I'm not sure. A different forum community I'm on just upgraded to a new thingy and it has status, blogs, likes, a whole bunch of those kind of features.
-
Or you could just use Twitter and make an IC Tweet List.
Or you could use the tweet-like mechanic built into EVE Gate...
-
No one ever uses EVEFacebook ;)
-
Should also add a like button for consistency.
-
Or you could just use Twitter and make an IC Tweet List.
Or you could use the tweet-like mechanic built into EVE Gate...
The difficulty is getting people to use it ICly. Most of the time when I see it used it is OOC, so if I actually started paying attention to it I wouldn't want to deal with guessing whether someone is IC or OOC.
-
No one ever uses EVEFacebook ;)
That might've been the joke, Ari. :P
Jace: When I used it, I used it IC generally. I already have a Twitter account for OOC stuff.
-
No one ever uses EVEFacebook ;)
That might've been the joke, Ari. :P
Jace: When I used it, I used it IC generally. I already have a Twitter account for OOC stuff.
Ah, okay. The few times I used it on old characters it was OOC banter with people sort of like a fun trolling message board of immaturity by everyone involved.
-
Anyway, I'll just make the thread when/if the IC forum goes up.
-
No one ever uses EVEFacebook ;)
Actually, I have to admit I've come to be rather fond of the mail function. Good for checking on stuff when I can't be actually ingame.
-
I'm guessing those kind of upgrades would require a newer forum software, but I'm not sure. A different forum community I'm on just upgraded to a new thingy and it has status, blogs, likes, a whole bunch of those kind of features.
Yeah, it'd just be slow to do with SMF. Setting up something like P2 (http://"http://p2theme.com/") could do the trick though. Haven't personally used it but it's designed with instant updates in mind, while still being forum-esque. The Wordpress team uses it for most of their internal communications, so it's clearly good for that sort of thing.
-
My favorite new function on another forum I'm on is that private mail functions just like a private thread only the participating people can see. Makes it very easy to quote, keep track of what is going on, have long conversations, etc.
-
What backend does that forum use? Or is it all made in house?
-
I think For The State (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=6181.0) shows how some IC sections of a new IC forum could work. I personally love the stories people make about their characters and I think this new IC forum would be a great place to make these stories interactive.
-
What backend does that forum use? Or is it all made in house?
I'll ask the owner. Poke me if I forget.
-
Another suggestion if it can be done. Either have an anonymous usergroup but call it something IC like "CAMERA DRONE" that people can post with as an option. Or change the "Guest" usergroup title to "CAMERA DRONE" or "ROGUE DRONE" and let people post as guests. I assume spam is a problem so I don't know how viable the latter option would be. Maybe require "Guest" usergroup pass a captcha to post.
-
I think the anonymity afforded by alt posting is quite enough. To not have any accountability behind a post at all (after all, a posting alt may at some point become a 'real' character, to it does have at least some accountability attached) would only invite and encourage shitposting.
Oh, the things I would say if nobody could ever link it to me...
-
Anonymous posting would also go well with the obligatory ERP subsections. ;)
-
I think the anonymity afforded by alt posting is quite enough. To not have any accountability behind a post at all (after all, a posting alt may at some point become a 'real' character, to it does have at least some accountability attached) would only invite and encourage shitposting.
Oh, the things I would say if nobody could ever link it to me...
Given what you say when people can link it to you... I don't want to know.
-
So Silver mentioned a subforum for planning this out. Where are we on this?
-
Update would be neat.. I'm to the point where I can't read some of the drivel on IGS, there is little else to go for forum RP.
-
The update is that Silver's RL is a dick.
It hasn't been forgotten about. Just not had an opportunity for us to sit down and decide exactly what we're going to do about it.
Will try to have something by the new year, hopefully.
-
I don't think I have posted yet in the thread (or at all lately, RL things) but I'd like to say that I've been for this thread from the beginning, mostly because as a RPer new to EVE, I haven't been around long enough to see this or that forum go all to hell, nor do I know any of you or have any experiences that make me go, whatever, this won't work, why should we try?
Generally speaking I don't think that's a great attitude about anything, because it assumes we're all stupid and incompetent and can't even attempt to learn from our mistakes. That might be true, /shrug, but to not try seems sad. Especially by bittervetting, for us noobs that haven't gotten the chance to be bittervetted into oblivion yet. It's a special journey, don't take it from us! :p
Sometimes it's a good feeling to dust off hands and say, okay, let's try this again. So, I'm in support of this, at least from that perspective. I have no idea what's gone on in the past, so I really can't comment on any of that - I want this for me. : j It's encouraging.
I don't think the IGS can be supplanted, nor is it going to divide attentions. I haven't posted much on the IGS because, sure, the quality isn't great, and that isn't great, and people rattle around in there quite a lot, but more, it's just so overwhelming a place to post anything. It's too big. A smaller forum perhaps lends itself to 'circle-jerking' with a set number of people who end up there finally, but I sort of think that's inevitable to some degree, can be mitigated to some degree, and also still preferable to the IGS'... Everythingness. A bit of focus can be a great thing, even if it's not a forever thing.
The idea that this new forum might not last forever isn't a reason not to do it, to me. I'm behind it, as a new RPer that just can't be bothered with trying to parse the IGS, not even really offended by it. (it's just time consuming to find the tastier meaty RPers, and that's the disappointing aspect). I think it'll be fine - I found this site initially because I was looking (googlesearching) for an alternative to the IGS, because I legitimately believed that this had to be the case. Surely at least some other noobs that care enough and are even slightly offput by the IGS will do the same?
Just some thoughts about the thread so far. Seems like it's going ahead, but I just wanted to speak up since I haven't participated at all yet. I don't know what I could do to help, but I'm willing to put in some hours if extra hands are needed.
When it comes to groups of RPers, there really is a sort of swell and lull, over years. I think that's absolutely inevitable. So long as the subject
-
Update would be neat.. I'm to the point where I can't read some of the drivel on IGS, there is little else to go for forum RP.
So much that....I dont even really RP anymore but I still like to keep up with stuff and it is pretty bad sometimes most times.
-
The update is that Silver's RL is a dick.
It hasn't been forgotten about. Just not had an opportunity for us to sit down and decide exactly what we're going to do about it.
Will try to have something by the new year, hopefully.
what is the current status, if any ?
-
Status update? Last thing that was done was me readjusting a prospective list of rules based on internal feedback.
I seem to be the only one trying to be proactive about it, though Silver at least has the excuse of RL sucking up all his time. (Edit - he should be back by the 16th or 17th but that doesn't mean we'll be posting anything then.)
Edit - I suppose I should clarify what I mean by the prospective list of rules. I took all of the rules from the official EVE forums, then put them into three bins - keep, toss, unsure - with reasons for each. The idea being that while most of the rules for the official forums would still be applicable on an IC-only forum, a fair number would also be useless or require tweaking/focusing to be relevant (ones specific to individual EVE-O subforums, for example) and so it probably isn't worth fussing over them.