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 & 111: 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: AccessRe: 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 massRe: 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: InsularityIt 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 completelyRe: 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 & MetagamingThere 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 hackingRe: 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: ModerationThe 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 itBy 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 hermeticsAs 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 & 11While 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.
