Possible Forum Layout?

Grome wrote:

Assistance does not need to be high in my opinion and why would people post assistance requests in the game discussion forums? Assistance = more like "out of game" assistance, as in technical problems or similar.
That's why Assistance is kind of OT. Or what was on your mind regarding Assistance?

I though that Assistance was assistance with the game? If it is general Assistance, yeah, I agree it need to go at the bottom.

azarhal wrote:

Grome wrote:

Assistance does not need to be high in my opinion and why would people post assistance requests in the game discussion forums? Assistance = more like "out of game" assistance, as in technical problems or similar.
That's why Assistance is kind of OT. Or what was on your mind regarding Assistance?

I though that Assistance was assistance with the game? If it is general Assistance, yeah, I agree it need to go at the bottom.

Do you see a need for a specific ingame assistance forum? A while back we came to the conclusion that would not be entirely needed.

Grome wrote:

Do you see a need for a specific ingame assistance forum? A while back we came to the conclusion that would not be entirely needed.

Non, I just forgot the conclusion. I don't reread this 12+ pages thread every time I comment.

Now that I think about it, if it's just technical assistance and stuff, maybe it should go in the General Discussion forum? Seems like this would be a very small header forum.

I will give you guys a skeleton structure using Grome's suggestions above and we can refine from there. It might be easier to do this once it can be more easily visualized.

Ty-Odi wrote:

Well, I may let you two come along to play with the new forums and its layout once we have the new boards if thats ok? I think we just get that layout looking and feeling right ready for launch?

I think you guys have some neat ideas for it, so I am more than happy to let you guys toy around with it and get it to what you feel is right.

Arzon wrote:

I will give you guys a skeleton structure using Grome's suggestions above and we can refine from there. It might be easier to do this once it can be more easily visualized.

Thank you both!

Arzon, you may find page 8 of this thread to be helpful. What we've been talking about the last couple pages is the top level layout, which would probably be enough to get a better picture. If we could get one sub-forum setup as well, that would also be good. Thanks again for all your help!

Yep, got it, thx

Thanks indeed Arz!
By the way, with Az, you are now our second person with an "Ass" ("Az", "Arz", well okay, it's me who's making these up, but well ) abbreviation. Yours is kinda cuter though haha.


Here again the top layer order, to which I now added CO. This is my "feel good" order, if that makes any sense I'd appreciate feedback.

Welcome
General Game Disc
Server Events
Guilds
Trade
Char Optimization
Assistance
RP/Lore
General Disc
Rigger's

What I've now been thinking about though is whether A&A's presence in the top layer is justified. Maybe it makes more sense to put it in the General Discussion top forum?


Back to how CO works then.

This is what it came down to for me in the last post:
Ald, Tell me a bit more about all the descriptions and guidelines you were thinking about for this forum.

I also agree we need some people, their task would be, in my eyes, the following:

- put the basic, "undisputed" information (some of it maybe arranged in a "tutorial" kind of manner) together in an accessible way; probably written down by the responsible but in the end it will be up to the person how to make it look exactly, we shouldn't try control everything down to the very details.

- moreover, bring to attention ongoing discussions and any other topics that are important or meaningful in some way, if necessary. Stickies etc will be the tools.

- these CO-mods will have access to the Rigger's mod forum, or a part of it dedicated to the CO, to discuss how to best handle things uniformly (communication is good).
Furthermore there'll probably be a need for guidelines for these mods (alright, now I see what you mean I think), which should be located in this CO-subforum of the Rigger's mod forum (which will in this form be available for other moderated parts of the forums as well I'm thinking, like a Trade-subforum in the Rigger's mod forum for the moderators of the Trade forum).


One thing I already mentioned I have in mind for every CO-subforum is a Q&A thread, for "easy" and fast CO questions where you can just shoot a question and get an answer instead of making it an own topic.



And while I'm at it, let's discuss the Rigger's forum. More specifically the Rigger's mod forum.
Like I hinted at before, I'd suggest that we have a moderated sub-forum in it for every more extensively moderated area. Right now I can think of CO and maybe Server Events, possibly others? (that's an issue we'll figure out anyway when we dedicate ourselves a bit more to discussing the specific areas, like we're doing now with CO) So that means there'd be these subforums in the mod area:
- CO moderation
- Server Events moderation
- General moderation (every mod has access to this one, the specified ones are technically only for the specified mods but there'd be no harm to have the other mods have access to them I suppose?)

These would be for moderating guidelines and discussions of how to handle things better internally.

What I'd like to keep in the non-restricted part of the Rigger's forum though is stuff like this thread here, so just everyone can join in. Keep as much as possible of it (ideas, suggestions, etc) in the public part of the Rigger's forum.

My apologies for the delay on answering your other questions. By way of making excuses, I have some real life stuff going on right now that's got me a bit distracted, even dazed and confused.

There are two reasons to keep Theorists and Moderators separate on the CO forum.

1. The primary reason is that even if they have the best intentions in the world and execute their tasks perfectly there will be the appearance of a conflict between their need to cater to weaker theorists and their need to decide on current best practices.
   
2. The secondary reason is that, as many an engineer has demonstrated, often those who are technical experts are (sometimes severely) lacking in social skills. As such, having a Moderator step in and say "Hey, try this wording" can be as helpful as having a Moderator step in and say "No, he's not being elitist. This is his/her honest opinion and if you think otherwise you need to go further to prove it."

As regards Moderators sticking up for the Theorists... I have encountered RPers I respected over-reacting to simple mistakes by those new to RP. Elitism is at least as sensitive a subject. I feel that getting to a point where we have independent overview of the Theorists will tend to give the Theorists more credibility and respect. Having these guidelines for Theorists and Moderators posted publicly will help convey what is expected of the everyday user.

Here's a first pass attempt to convey some of the basic concepts behind each role. No word-smithing done yet.

CO Theorycrafters / Users:
Contribute, ask questions, be respectful

CO Theorists / Experts:
Write and / or sticky guides and current discussions. Stay current, answer questions, provide guides to accepted theory, and lead current discussions. Be respectful, don't put anyone down no matter how IQ challenged they may appear to be. Even the smartest person has a bad day.

CO Moderators:
Be at a minimum capable of following theory crafting posts. Encourage people to accept that even if the Theorist is wrong, it will be ok. Be able to guide Theorists to better language. If necessary, moderate Theorist's posts. Hopefully this will be a non-issue as Theorists should be selected carefully even if they aren't perfect.

P.S. I feel that even if we make a separate Rigger's CO Mod Forum ALL mods should have access to ALL Rigger's Mod forums.

Grome wrote:

...
Here again the top layer order, to which I now added CO. This is my "feel good" order, if that makes any sense I'd appreciate feedback.

Welcome
General Game Disc
Server Events
Guilds
Trade
Char Optimization
Assistance
RP/Lore
General Disc
Rigger's

I'm flinching a little bit inside at having CO that far down, but if its directly linked on the main page that should work as you have it. If I had thrown that together I would probably have put it directly beneath General Game Discussion since its a related topic. But again, I think what you have there will work.

Grome wrote:

What I've now been thinking about though is whether A&A's presence in the top layer is justified. Maybe it makes more sense to put it in the General Discussion top forum?

Actually, I like that idea.

Grome wrote:

Back to how CO works then.

This is what it came down to for me in the last post:
Ald, Tell me a bit more about all the descriptions and guidelines you were thinking about for this forum.

See my previous post.

Grome wrote:

I also agree we need some people, their task would be, in my eyes, the following:

- put the basic, "undisputed" information (some of it maybe arranged in a "tutorial" kind of manner) together in an accessible way; probably written down by the responsible but in the end it will be up to the person how to make it look exactly, we shouldn't try control everything down to the very details.

- moreover, bring to attention ongoing discussions and any other topics that are important or meaningful in some way, if necessary. Stickies etc will be the tools.

- these CO-mods will have access to the Rigger's mod forum, or a part of it dedicated to the CO, to discuss how to best handle things uniformly (communication is good).
Furthermore there'll probably be a need for guidelines for these mods (alright, now I see what you mean I think), which should be located in this CO-subforum of the Rigger's mod forum (which will in this form be available for other moderated parts of the forums as well I'm thinking, like a Trade-subforum in the Rigger's mod forum for the moderators of the Trade forum).

I explained in more detail above, but I largely agree with your interpretation of the role for the Theorists. The Mods will need a little more open support role.

Grome wrote:

One thing I already mentioned I have in mind for every CO-subforum is a Q&A thread, for "easy" and fast CO questions where you can just shoot a question and get an answer instead of making it an own topic.

I'd also like to see some sort of "Consolidated FAQ" to try and cut down on the number of repeated questions.

Grome wrote:

And while I'm at it, let's discuss the Rigger's forum. More specifically the Rigger's mod forum.
Like I hinted at before, I'd suggest that we have a moderated sub-forum in it for every more extensively moderated area. Right now I can think of CO and maybe Server Events, possibly others? (that's an issue we'll figure out anyway when we dedicate ourselves a bit more to discussing the specific areas, like we're doing now with CO) So that means there'd be these subforums in the mod area:
- CO moderation
- Server Events moderation
- General moderation (every mod has access to this one, the specified ones are technically only for the specified mods but there'd be no harm to have the other mods have access to them I suppose?)

These would be for moderating guidelines and discussions of how to handle things better internally.

I find myself hoping there won't be enough discussion here to justify sub-forums. But sure, this works and I think I see the logic behind it.

Grome wrote:

What I'd like to keep in the non-restricted part of the Rigger's forum though is stuff like this thread here, so just everyone can join in. Keep as much as possible of it (ideas, suggestions, etc) in the public part of the Rigger's forum.

I definitely want to see as much of the leadership discussion done in the open as possible. But, through experience, I've learned that leaders do have to hand out controversial decisions without giving the appearance that everyone get's their own way. Give people too much say and they start to feel slighted when things don't happen the way they expect. "You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But you can't please all of the people all of the time." Its a fine line to walk, letting people give input but getting them to accept that they can't have their own way all the time. I certainly don't claim to have mastered it.

Haha, don't worry about answering my questions as fast as possible (but if you don't, you'll die, and painfully at that)

After reading your arguments, I must agree fully. Separation of Mods and CO experts is necessary.

I think it might be a prejudice to say experts may be socially inept, but it is still true that you need to separate these authorities to avoid mix ups and unwanted feelings of "dictatorship", if you will.
It is also true that elitism is a vague measure. People can easily be forced into it through their own fault and through error in judgment by others. It makes sense to have mods looking to resolve issues like those, should they arise.
Credibility is a good point too.

I feel like I could give more reasons and examples but you really made the point already.

It's also a good idea to post the guidelines publicly, as a reminder.

However, it should not be expected from the experts to never be wrong about something. Their role is not to know everything about theorycrafting; It is to know their way around it and to make it more accessible to the average Joe, being respectful and helpful in the process.
The more they know about it, the better of course, but we should not expect them to be doctorate candidates on the matter.

These experts will (or should) still want to discuss the theories etc and their word should not be overvalued just because of their position - which would put a lot of weight on their shoulders.
Rather than labeling them "experts" I'd like to label them something like "very helpful user that knows his way around this stuff a bit more than most". There is just a lot to live up to when you are labeled an "expert", which in this case seems like unnecessary additional burden.

I don't know if you have any ideas for a name but something like "chaperon", "tutor" or "adviser" sounds kinda neat and is less burdened.

Aldemarran wrote:

I'm flinching a little bit inside at having CO that far down, but if its directly linked on the main page that should work as you have it. If I had thrown that together I would probably have put it directly beneath General Game Discussion since its a related topic. But again, I think what you have there will work.

I was unsure about this one too, and that was the other way I would have put it. I think you are right though and it would now look as such, the A&A moved into General Discussion too:

Welcome
General Game Disc
Char Optimization
Server Events
Guilds
Trade
RP/Lore
General Disc
Rigger's

Yes, I think I like it better. (although still feels like something's bugging me but maybe that's just me haha)

Last thing here: changing the positions of Trade and Guilds - what do you think about it? (I'm not sure, just asking)

Aldemarran wrote:

I explained in more detail above, but I largely agree with your interpretation of the role for the Theorists. The Mods will need a little more open support role.

Agreed, I'd like them to both have access to the same mod forum though, in case something needs to be discussed.

Aldemarran wrote:

I'd also like to see some sort of "Consolidated FAQ" to try and cut down on the number of repeated questions.

That's very good actually. That will probably be done by the expert in charge.

Aldemarran wrote:

I find myself hoping there won't be enough discussion here to justify sub-forums. But sure, this works and I think I see the logic behind it.

Maybe I'm just overthinking again (we seem to have that in common, that's really why this thread is flourishing haha ), but I'm thinking we'll have to have at least some segregation as there will be different levels of moderation and maybe not all should get access to every mod forum. Example: CO experts should have a forum in which they can communicate with CO mods, but I don't think that means they should be any more involved in internal decisions concerning the community as a whole or other parts of the forums.

Aldemarran wrote:

I definitely want to see as much of the leadership discussion done in the open as possible. But, through experience, I've learned that leaders do have to hand out controversial decisions without giving the appearance that everyone get's their own way. Give people too much say and they start to feel slighted when things don't happen the way they expect. "You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But you can't please all of the people all of the time." Its a fine line to walk, letting people give input but getting them to accept that they can't have their own way all the time. I certainly don't claim to have mastered it.

That's very true. And you simply need leadership on projects like these. Someone has to make decisions.
Direct democracy is very good because everyone can get their say but it can also cripple the whole system because it creates delay after delay, while sometimes you just need fast decisions.

Prejudiced? Maybe. I think of it more like a statistic. I've known a fair number of engineers, and while most of them are not "socially hostile", few of them are "socially ept" either. (Ept? Apt? What's the difference anyway? ) And I know some of the socially hostile types. But that's another story...

As for the Experts, I agree that how they are viewed is going to be an interesting balancing act. I further agree that a good name for their role is important to influencing how they are viewed. At this time the best I have is "Theory Manager".

As to the acquisition of people for these roles, I think our only approach is to have one CO Moderator on launch day, and promote people as they distinguish themselves or express interest thereafter.

I expect that on average people will be into the trade channel regularly, but only into the guild forum to find a guild or advertise. (Guild recruiters are an exception, but the fact that they are an exception proves my rule...)

Therefore I agree Trade should be above Guild.

Especially with regard to CO Mods I feel that they must have access to all moderator forums. In my opinion they will encounter the trickiest problems and in all cases having access to the broadest range of experience would provide the highest quality of solutions. I'm not clear on why we would want to segregate moderators...?

Perhaps I can work towards defining the dilemma more precisely.

In my view there will be very few over-arching Moderators / Admins. Most will be specifically limited to one or two forums for moderation. This is both to distribute power and to limit demands on given individuals. I can see providing separate sub-forums for organizational purposes. Therefore my questions are:

• Which moderators would you want to limit in their access?
  
• Why would you want to limit any moderator's access?
  
• Would you really want a moderator for one forum if you didn't trust them to participate in moderating another forum? Phrased another way: Even though we might not give them moderator privileges in that forum, shouldn't they be qualified to moderate any forum?

Aldemarran wrote:

I expect that on average people will be into the trade channel regularly, but only into the guild forum to find a guild or advertise. (Guild recruiters are an exception, but the fact that they are an exception proves my rule...)

Therefore I agree Trade should be above Guild.

Haha, okay, I like the way you argue

Aldemarran wrote:

Prejudiced? Maybe. I think of it more like a statistic. I've known a fair number of engineers, and while most of them are not "socially hostile", few of them are "socially ept" either. (Ept? Apt? What's the difference anyway? ) And I know some of the socially hostile types. But that's another story...

Alright, I was looking solely at Theorycrafters when saying it was prejudiced to assume they are not apt (it's actually apt, ept is wrong apparently even though inapt and inept both work ). I agree that statistically experts in life are less inclined to be leaders (which requires most of all social aptness). That is also why there is a distinct difference to make between leaders and managers. And it's also why it is true that career progress only depends on the abilities in your field by (by? or with? or what is it? confused...) as little as 20% while the other 80% is truly human interaction and ability in that domain.

Aldemarran wrote:

As for the Experts, I agree that how they are viewed is going to be an interesting balancing act. I further agree that a good name for their role is important to influencing how they are viewed. At this time the best I have is "Theory Manager".

I still associate "manager" with a lot of responsibility, personally. It is better than expert though, but I'd look further.

Aldemarran wrote:

As to the acquisition of people for these roles, I think our only approach is to have one CO Moderator on launch day, and promote people as they distinguish themselves or express interest thereafter.

I agree, no need to rush things and try to build a shack before having found any trees.

As regards Direct Democracy, I've seen at least one guild rip itself apart because people were involved in ALL the decisions. Every time someone didn't get their way they would feel slightly alienated and slowly the guild developed into irreconcilable cliques and eventually shattered.

Put in a slightly different light, with many disparate people you have to have a unifying vision to hold things together and keep moving them forwards. This is one of the purposes of leadership.

Grome wrote:

Aldemarran wrote:

As for the Experts, I agree that how they are viewed is going to be an interesting balancing act. I further agree that a good name for their role is important to influencing how they are viewed. At this time the best I have is "Theory Manager".

I still associate "manager" with a lot of responsibility, personally. It is better than expert though, but I'd look further.

I see them as being something of an "authority figure" since it falls to them to make a final decision on what is "current best practice", what is "still debatable", and what is a "frequently asked question". True, they shouldn't be swinging this authority around like a bull in a china shop, but still a certain level of respect and trust for them should be evident, IMHO.

What direction are you thinking for them?

Aldemarran wrote:

Especially with regard to CO Mods I feel that they must have access to all moderator forums. In my opinion they will encounter the trickiest problems and in all cases having access to the broadest range of experience would provide the highest quality of solutions. I'm not clear on why we would want to segregate moderators...?

Perhaps I can work towards defining the dilemma more precisely.

In my view there will be very few over-arching Moderators / Admins. Most will be specifically limited to one or two forums for moderation. This is both to distribute power and to limit demands on given individuals. I can see providing separate sub-forums for organizational purposes. Therefore my questions are:

• Which moderators would you want to limit in their access?
  
• Why would you want to limit any moderator's access?
  
• Would you really want a moderator for one forum if you didn't trust them to participate in moderating another forum? Phrased another way: Even though we might not give them moderator privileges in that forum, shouldn't they be qualified to moderate any forum?

The approach to avoid segregation as much as possible is the way to go and generally I wouldn't want to be any mod to be above another and it's certainly an advantage for them to have access to the whole range of input.

Actually, I was talking about the CO experts (or whatever they will be called) before. Those I don't consider "mods" and their tasks are not of moderation either. I consider them users with more responsibility and a few tasks.
They will however benefit from having access to a shared forum with the CO mods to discuss internal matters from time to time. My first thought is that they should not need to have more than that at their disposal. Maybe I'm wrong - do you think the CO experts should have access to the whole mod forum as well? I'm inclined to say no.

Ah-hah! I understand now.

No, I don't think the experts should have access to the full Rigger's Moderator Forums.

Should they have access to the Rigger's CO Moderator Forums? Hmmm, let me sleep on that.

Aldemarran wrote:

I see them as being something of an "authority figure" since it falls to them to make a final decision on what is "current best practice", what is "still debatable", and what is a "frequently asked question". True, they shouldn't be swinging this authority around like a bull in a china shop, but still a certain level of respect and trust for them should be evident, IMHO.

What direction are you thinking for them?

I just think that their word shouldn't be generally felt like the "only, indisputable truth", which managers sometimes stand for.

I'm not quite sure what would be the best way to coin this, as it should emanate authority but still somehow not too much, a kind of authority that is a bit more level with the common user.

"Supervisor" comes to mind, or maybe something more SW related, "Council". I'll give it some thought.

Aldemarran wrote:

Ah-hah! I understand now.

No, I don't think the experts should have access to the full Rigger's Moderator Forums.

Should they have access to the Rigger's CO Moderator Forums? Hmmm, let me sleep on that.

Alright

I'd say it'd be good for all the CO experts and the CO mods to have a restricted forum at their disposition. Yes, let's call it the CO mod forum. This forum will be accessible by all "real" mods and the CO experts. All other mod forums are accessible by all mods and some possibly by another group like in this example the CO experts.

Aldemarran wrote:

As regards Direct Democracy, I've seen at least one guild rip itself apart because people were involved in ALL the decisions. Every time someone didn't get their way they would feel slightly alienated and slowly the guild developed into irreconcilable cliques and eventually shattered.

Put in a slightly different light, with many disparate people you have to have a unifying vision to hold things together and keep moving them forwards. This is one of the purposes of leadership.

Leadership is crucial. In what form it comes is in the end not of utmost importance but there has to be a feeling that there is leadership. For this, having a vision is really important. We are fortunate enough to have started off with one, more or less (respect). It's even more fortunate that this vision of ours goes against conflict and I believe this will help us avoid a lot of it.

Grome wrote:

(respect). It's even more fortunate that this vision of ours goes against conflict and I believe this will help us avoid a lot of it.

So far...


About moderators vs CO experts::
Having sub-forum specific moderators might be the trick here. Basically, moderators that can only moderate a specific sub-forum, elsewhere they are just normal posters.

Beside it's a good idea to have forum specific moderators for all sub-forums (or group of sub-forums), as opposed to have generic moderators that need to check all the forums.