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.
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.