Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Did you know:

Lai Dai Infinity Systems is a capsuleer partner of the Lai Dai Corporation? Read more here

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16

Author Topic: IC sections  (Read 19650 times)

Mizhara

  • Prophet of New Eden
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2253
  • The Truth will make ye Fret.
Re: IC sections
« Reply #15 on: 22 Apr 2010, 14:50 »

If he wants to, he could give the admin position to someone else. Just admit it, you think it's a damn good idea.
Logged

Zuzanna Alondra

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
Re: IC sections
« Reply #16 on: 22 Apr 2010, 17:32 »

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.
Logged

Ashar Kor-Azor

  • Banned
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
  • Banned
Re: IC sections
« Reply #17 on: 26 Apr 2010, 06:25 »

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.

scagga

  • Everything for Vaari
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 561
Re: IC sections
« Reply #18 on: 26 Apr 2010, 09:38 »

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.

Quote
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?


Quote
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.
Logged

Ashar Kor-Azor

  • Banned
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
  • Banned
Re: IC sections
« Reply #19 on: 26 Apr 2010, 11:55 »

Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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...

Quote
...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.
« Last Edit: 26 Apr 2010, 11:56 by Ashar Kor-Azor »
Logged

scagga

  • Everything for Vaari
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 561
Re: IC sections
« Reply #20 on: 26 Apr 2010, 16:22 »

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
Logged

Ashar Kor-Azor

  • Banned
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
  • Banned
Re: IC sections
« Reply #21 on: 27 Apr 2010, 01:00 »

'Kay.

Kaleigh Doyle

  • Guest
Re: IC sections
« Reply #22 on: 27 Apr 2010, 22:35 »

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>.
Logged

Eva

  • Queen of Roleplay
  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • A Mote in God's Eye
Re: IC sections
« Reply #23 on: 28 Apr 2010, 06:31 »

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.
Logged

Ashar Kor-Azor

  • Banned
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
  • Banned
Re: IC sections
« Reply #24 on: 28 Apr 2010, 09:33 »

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.

Eva

  • Queen of Roleplay
  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • A Mote in God's Eye
Re: IC sections
« Reply #25 on: 28 Apr 2010, 10:36 »

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 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.
Logged

Casiella

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3723
  • Creation is so precious, and greed so destructive.
Re: IC sections
« Reply #26 on: 28 Apr 2010, 10:43 »

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.
* Casiella thinks about this.
Logged

Ashar Kor-Azor

  • Banned
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
  • Banned
Re: IC sections
« Reply #27 on: 28 Apr 2010, 10:47 »

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.

scagga

  • Everything for Vaari
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 561
Re: IC sections
« Reply #28 on: 03 May 2010, 03:21 »

*gathering energy to give a worthy reply to ashar to explain myself, bear with me, it's an energy-intensive post that is required*
Logged

Ashar Kor-Azor

  • Banned
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
  • Banned
Re: IC sections
« Reply #29 on: 03 May 2010, 15:46 »

Awwright. Holding for a good-faith discussion, will not tear you too many new orfices, promise.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16