stopping ForumMaster from destroying BattleMaster

[Perth]

Its a bad idea anyways IMO. People don't go, "hmmm yeah remember that thing from last month? That was great." People talk about events somewhat soon after they happen and a week is not that. I could see 2-3 days being fine but I am not a fan of a week being the time. Personally I don't like the idea of trying to apply a strict amount of time because while some things it fine to wait, other things after a certain time the event is no longer worth talking about depending on the event.

Are you kidding me? People hold grudges like no other in this game and frequently bicker about things in the past. See the Glaumring talking about the Terran-Kabrinskia war issue, for example.

I edited my post; I was actually replying to your previous post, claiming that nothing bad ever happened on the locals.

And yes, those things should have been moderated; I actually did moderate 2 of the 3 things, and I wasn't a global moderator when all the Zuma-bashing was going on. My point is, moderators shouldn't have to moderate that crap. Moderators locked the Zuma thread, so a new one popped up. Anti-Zuma comments percolated half the active threads in the Dwilight board. Anti-Aurvandil commends percolated about a quarter of the active threads int he Dwilight board. Players (some, not all) are too passionate, apparently.

And that passion should be in-game. Work on establishing continent-wide gossip guilds. The 'Moot on Dwilight is a great communications channel, even though it only covers about 1/3rd of the island.

All of you who love Dwilight, and I do, consider this. Wasn't the entire point of SMA to keep it all in character? And yet we have all these complaints about not allowing this OOC chatter.

Except that both of those things were OOC complaints about OOC issues. You really want people to take their complaints about how a GM is negatively affecting the game into... the 'Moot? Or people's suspicions and complaints about possible Aurvandil cheating... to in-game guilds? That sounds like a terrible idea. If the 'Moot became filled with OOC messages about "they are cheating!" and "the GM cheats!" I would like literally tell them to shut up and, guess what, take it to the forum... because that's the place for that, not the game.

[Indirik]

Regarding forum mods, we now have three global moderators, as well as three forum admins who can also act as mods. I don't think we really need any more mods, unless we want to have mods spread out in various time zones around the world.

What's more important than having a large number of mods is that people report posts. Reported posts send out email notifications to the mods. If posts are reported, then they will get attention faster, and can be dealt with quickly.

[Chenier]

No, not at all. The point of SMA is to make different continents different, SMA in particular meaning the continent has a Serious Medieval Atmosphere. While OOC chatter IG on Dwilight is bad unless its necessary as it breaks that atmosphere when you exit that character you exit that particular atmosphere and that no longer applies as in there is nothing wrong with OOC chatter, OOG on Dwilight.

Indeed, the harsh attitude against IG OOC messages has no doubt encouraged a number of players to bring it out on the forums instead.

OOC communication will always exist. Trying to control it somewhere, be in IG or on the forums, will only lead it elsewhere. The question to ask is "where do we want it?"

[egamma]

Except that both of those things were OOC complaints about OOC issues. You really want people to take their complaints about how a GM is negatively affecting the game into... the 'Moot? Or people's suspicions and complaints about possible Aurvandil cheating... to in-game guilds? That sounds like a terrible idea. If the 'Moot became filled with OOC messages about "they are cheating!" and "the GM cheats!" I would like literally tell them to shut up and, guess what, take it to the forum... because that's the place for that, not the game.

People should not be talking about cheating without proof, period. It's right in the Social Contract. It shouldn't happen IG, it shouldn't happen on the forums, and it should be dealt with harshly no matter where it occurs.

And people shouldn't have been insulting the Zuma GM, period. They should have talked about the situation more IC. We did talk about it...some. But nowhere near as much as the number of forum posts on the subject. The number of forum posts about the Zuma that were created in a month were greater than a years worth of IC content.

My point is not that people should have IG guilds to talk OOC. My point was that they shouldn't have OOC chat, period; just post IC about how your character feels about the Zuma, or drought, or whatever.

[Perth]

My point was that they shouldn't have OOC chat, period;

In game, essentially yes.

On the forum.... no.

[Revan]

That's why I said "planned, ongoing or less than a week old."

I think this is a good rule of thumb for the locals board. Perhaps it can be qualified even further to just apply to 'sensitive' events (rebellions etc.) But we have to recognise that it will only ever be a rule of thumb. We'll never come up with some water-tight rule that covers everything. There will be grey areas, but if posters and moderators exercise good sense then this will still be far better than anything we've had previously.

[Jaden]

I think a good rule of thumb is also  "dont break other people's secret"
I think it fine to tell in the forum of your own character's plot and stuff as long as it does not involve other people characters.

[Tom]

Players (some, not all) are too passionate, apparently.

I think this is the core of what I was trying to get at the whole time: Try to find rules that allow and force people to step back from their characters for a moment, when posting on the forum. Make rules that pull people to the meta level, where they once again see that it's all just a game.

[Tom]

I have an idea. Currently the forums are easier to communicate on than anything in-game, as forums allow discussions to be organised into topics. So how about allowing forum-like topics to made in-game. Have topics posted at guild houses, then anyone visiting a guild house can read and reply to those topics. Even this wouldn't be as handy as a forum, but it would provide a decent surrogate at least.

If it were easy, don't you think we would've done it years ago?

We don't have the manpower to create a full-blown forum software from scratch. And even as primitive as it is, the message system is one of the most complex parts of the game, coding-wise.

[vonGenf]

Try to find rules that allow and force people to step back from their characters for a moment, when posting on the forum. Make rules that pull people to the meta level, where they once again see that it's all just a game.

I think "Never use the second person when talking about characters or realms" would go a long way towards that.

[Tom]

Obviously a war doesn't count as an "ongoing event"; individual battles, skirmishes, and incidents within the war do. If there's been a revolution, you can't talk about the actual rebellion itself until a week after it's over. If the rebellion succeeds, but there's a counter-revolution is being prepared, then it seems most reasonable to me that those are separate events, one finished, one ongoing.

I'm sure someone will come up with some edge case that is highly ambiguous even with the wording I've given, but I'm confident that with moderators acting in good faith, especially with knowledge of the posters in question, appropriate rulings can be made in any instance that comes up.

You'd think that and it would be reasonable to do so, but the real world doesn't work like that. This specific thing is a good example, because there was a billion-dollar court case in the very recent past that revolved around the definition of the word "event" and whether what happened was one event or two events. Much like your revolution example. Except it was the World Trade Center towers. Was it two seperate planes crashing into two seperate towers at two seperate times and thus two events (as the owners argued) or was it one terror strike perpetrated by one group in one action and thus one event (as the insurance company argued)? That wasn't semantics, it was US$ 3,550,000,000 - the insurance policy had a limit of 3.55 billion per event.


I know that most people will do the right thing and mostly agree on what that is. We don't need rules for them. Rules are for the borderline cases and for when people disagree. And if the rule can't resolve the disagreement, and draw an unambigious line, then it's worthless.


I don't think time is the crucial factor. I think distance from the event is. Basically, any discussion that could be had in-character and in-game should not be on the forum. Smack talk about some realm should be delivered in-game. Saying the generals strategy is stupid, or realm X is going down belongs in-game. Whining about the Zuma belongs in-game.

But talk where you step out of your character and look at the larger picture. When you ask whether the Zuma are good for gameplay, or want to discuss the effect of donut regions on siege strategy, or talk about sea zones for other islands, or the Colonies land reform - that talk should have a forum outside the game, I agree on that.

And yes, I agree that means most of the passionate, and to some people interesting, stuff would be gone. And that is the point. This interesting and passionate stuff belongs in the game, which frankly is a shell of its former self and a part of that is the lack of players and another part is that so much stuff isn't being talked about in-game anymore.

[Tom]

Except that both of those things were OOC complaints about OOC issues. You really want people to take their complaints about how a GM is negatively affecting the game into... the 'Moot? Or people's suspicions and complaints about possible Aurvandil cheating... to in-game guilds? That sounds like a terrible idea. If the 'Moot became filled with OOC messages about "they are cheating!" and "the GM cheats!" I would like literally tell them to shut up and, guess what, take it to the forum... because that's the place for that, not the game.

Looks like we both arrived at the same conclusion there.

The forum should be OOC, the game should be IC. I think that sums it up nicely, and only leaves the cases where Joe Random tells everyone how much enemy realm Keplerstan sucks and is a pit of evil without making explicit if he is talking IC or OOC. That'll have to be judged from context. If he is talking about their in-game actions, he is IC. If he is relating how they treat new players and demand everyone to log in right after the turn, he is OOC.

[Tom]

I think a good rule of thumb is also  "dont break other people's secret"

I agree that should be in the guidelines, too.

[Indirik]

Moderator note: I have removed several of the most recent posts, as well as some posts that quoted them. (Sorry, Atanamir, your post got removed as quoting removed material, not because of its contents.) We are getting too personal, and now just repeating things back and forth. Remember: If you're not adding something new to the discussion, you're not helping.

[Vellos]

Moderator note: If you have something to say to Tom, just say it to him directly. His email address is not hard to find. This thread is about the issues caused by forums, and potential solutions to those problems. If you don't see a problem, and/or you don't have a solution, then there is no need for you to post.

I agree the forum is an in-group. I've said that in Magistrate cases and numerous threads many, many times. You're right: it's an in-group. Which is why I've made numerous attempts to try and find ways to include players elsewhere through advocating for surveys and trying to use data to extract the real story on whats going on in the silent majority of BM players. I've spent a lot of time and effort doing that, and I resent your blatant denigration of any contributions I've made.

Most of us on the forum know it's a socially exclusive group. Tim is right that it's a group with a pretty low barrier (far lower than IRC or the D-List, IMHO, which is why I still mostly boycott IRC, because it's a wretched hive of scum and villainy), but you're also right there is a kind of self-selecting exclusivity. It has a result of exclusivity but not a structural support or intent for it.

But damn it all Tom, don't you realize most players don't want to form a community? Tom, most players aren't looking to sit around and make friends and develop elaborate stories and interesting, complex political narratives. It's a lightweight game. But it only stays fun for "lightweight" players (used non pejoratively, btw) because some of us really put in hard work to invest in making an interesting world. Surprise, interesting plotlines actually don't arise spontaneously. They happen because players create them intentionally, and are motivated to do so for some reason. Internal motivation is swell but, frankly, the social atmosphere of IRC and the forum is a huge incubation chamber for gameplay ideas in what is still a very PvP game.

Tom, if you don't want a BM community, fine. Get rid of OOC talk about the game, limit everything to just nuts-and-bolts conversation, and you'll have your goal.

But some of us like having a BM community quite a bit.