Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mizhara]

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.

[Havohej]

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.

[Jace]

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.

[Mizhara]

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.

[Synthia]

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.

[Jace]

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.

[Mizhara]

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.

[Jace]

Someone remind me what BNI is. I'm terrible at remembering acronyms.

[Mizhara]

Brave Newbies. No idea what they have to do with this as they're just another player entity.

[Jace]

Oh, right. I forgot they existed.

[Synthia]

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.

[Mizhara]

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.

[Silver Night]

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?

[Anyanka Funk]

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).

[Silver Night]

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.