Possible Forum Layout?

I guess here's what's going through my head on the Guild Forum Form thing.

What info I might require:

• Thread Title Form
  
• Public Contact info (which could be none if they aren't accepting applications)
  
• Guild Master Name
  
• Accept Multi-guild players, yes/no? (I suspect that this could be an entire thread on its own.)
  
• Should I require a re-cap of any of the data in the thread title? What would be the point of so doing?

What info I would NOT require:

• I wouldn't require a website. Some more introverted guilds might choose to only allow people to know the website after being accepted into the guild.
  
• I wouldn't require Vent info, they might not have it and it might be restricted.
  
• I wouldn't require any greater description. If they don't want to write it up, they just won't "be competitive" in recruiting.
  
• I wouldn't force guilds to recruit on our forums, maybe they just want to be listed as supporting the RiG, and not recruiting from us. (Closed guilds such as friends and family guilds would be one example from this type.)
  
• I wouldn't require a description of the application process, they may wish to handle it all internally or even keep parts of it secret like we are discussing for the Trade Forum.

And one final (ok, make that penultimate) question, could forcing certain information to the top of the first post screw up any chosen presentation? Some people write this in the old "Do you like X? Do you like Y? Do you like Z? If you answered yes to any of those questions visit us at..." format. And that's just an example I can think of off the top of my head.

Overall my reaction thus far has been kind of "sink or swim on your own merits". I've certainly provided some helpful hints for anyone trying to write such a post.

And the (actual) final question is; What do we do if someone doesn't follow the form specified or doesn't use a forum form to create their thread? Delete their thread? Write it ourselves? Somewhere between the two? Let it stand on its own merits or lack thereof?

Quote :

Should I require a re-cap of any of the data in the thread title? What would be the point of so doing?

PvE, PvP are vague term. PvP can be warzone only or open world only. PvE can be "raiding" only, etc.

I suggest making a "form" for the main information that doesn't take too much place at the top of the post. Example:
Guild Name: Maybe-Serenity (optional?, depends on forum layout, example: if the thread title isn't visible enough)
Contact info: Me@me.com
Guild Master(s): Me
Gameplay: PvE + drunken RP every Friday nights
Limitation(s): Pink bunnies are not included

Quote :

What do we do if someone doesn't follow the form specified or doesn't use a forum form to create their thread? Delete their thread? Write it ourselves? Somewhere between the two? Let it stand on its own merits or lack thereof?

Send a PM warning to the poster with X days to fix it. If it's not fixed delete (archive in an hidden forum in case the poster is away or something and answer back later).

Thread Title Form I agree with.
Contact info, guild master name, these I think are by no means crucial. For me this form would be there to help those looking for guilds and not just to create an order. Therefore I think about "what is the first information one looks for before taking a closer look at a guild."
That should be the criteria for the form, I suggest.
Therefore: Yes to the multi-guild question (would not pin this down as a common issue, but it is important).
Re-cap of info in thread title: maybe, maybe not... probably not, because it's just a couple of inches above the actual post.

I agree creative freedom is good but a form like this at the top can be very useful for people who do look for something specific (and they always do).

I agree with your "NOT requirements". What I would suggest to have in there is purely the crucial stuff, the likes of "PvE/PvP/..." (orientation). I really don't expect it to be that much, at least I can't come up with a lot right now.

What do we do if someone doesn't follow it? I guess a mod will ask the creator of the post to add it. Since it's gonna be a rather small task that should be no problem. If we only "recommend" using it, it might not find much appreciation, but I think this would be a very fine thing for people in search of a guild. This is my opinion of course and if you think it is not needed by all means, say it.


One thing, which is a different topic really, has caught my attention in your post. What about the guilds that do not want to advertise but just want to voice their support for RIG?

(RIG is not officially affiliated with any guilds, it is the guilds that support RIG.)

It has to be made sure that people understand however that any guild that advertises in our forums is in no way "RIG tested" or vouched for.
This knowledge should in some way be brought across (in the forum sticky).

I think it would make most sense to split these two groups, lest it gets confusing. Maybe have an extra thread somewhere, like the charter thread now, where guild leaders can announce they support our cause. And then be listed in the top post.

azarhal wrote:

PvE, PvP are vague term. PvP can be warzone only or open world only. PvE can be "raiding" only, etc.

I suggest making a "form" for the main information that doesn't take too much place at the top of the post. Example:
Guild Name: Maybe-Serenity (optional?, depends on forum layout, example: if the thread title isn't visible enough)
Contact info: Me@me.com
Guild Master(s): Me
Gameplay: PvE + drunken RP every Friday nights
Limitation(s): Pink bunnies are not included

Agreed. Orientation in the form should be as short as possible, yet also as clear as possible. (e.g. "PvE (casual raiding), casual RP" - either way, it will probably need to be a little longer than in the title and therefore: yes, put it in the form AND the title) More detail here is not really needed because the task this form is most of all is to help get a first look at the guild, to decide whether or not you're interested in learning more (and that "learning more" will be left in the hands of the guild, whether it is a detailed post or a link to their website - whatever fits them best).

Like I said, I disagree with the need of putting contact info and guild master's name in the form, as that is stuff you only care about when you're actually applying or looking to ask further questions (hence, after you read the whole post).

Limitations is good.

We could have a few items that are "require in your guild advertisement". Like guild contact info and guild master. Poster could be free of setting them were ever they like after the "top notice".

azarhal wrote:

We could have a few items that are "require in your guild advertisement". Like guild contact info and guild master. Poster could be free of setting them were ever they like after the "top notice".

Concerning this I really liked Ald's argument: Let them write what they want, it's their post to mess up. It's not like they don't have the incentive themselves to have everything important in it.

Personally I would suggest trying to keep the requirements as small as possible. But I feel we would benefit greatly from a few bits of info at the top as a first peek (aka the form).

I have added two statements to the Guild Forum post on page 8.

PLEASE NOTE: While we encourage guilds that support RiG to post here, we in no way verify that they represent our ideals. In fact, there are so many ways of expressing respect and so many ways of misunderstanding respect that we encourage you to find what works for you.

PLEASE NOTE (2 items):
1. This is not a place for guild drama. Bringing guild drama into this forum is likely to force a moderator to edit or remove posts or even entire threads.
2. If your guild wishes to have its own thread in these forums, but is not open to recruiting, please post it here, in the top level forum.

Grome or Azarhal,

Could I please get a consolidated list of things you want at the top of each guild post? I'm going to be much busier today. My head's spinning a bit atm, but so far the only things I see are all in the title, which recruits had to click on to get into the post.

I guess, if the title with the guild name is visible enough only Gameplay and limitation (maybe rename to restriction???)

Gameplay would be explaining the type of PvE/RP/PvP the guild do.
Limitations would be things like class restriction, age restrictions, time restriction, etc.

Quote :

Gameplay: PvE casual raiding
Limitations: age 18+, Troopers only
------------------------
Anything else that the poster consider worthy of having

------------------------

Isn't the title by definition visible enough? You have to read and decide to click on it to get to the point where you're looking at the post. Therefore you know its there, what's in it, and you know that you can look at the top anytime you want to review the info that was in the title.

Ok, back to the original premise; this forum is meant to support an open community. We accomplish this by keeping things as free-form as possible. Something a very senior and well respected engineer once told me is pinging in the back of my head right now. "Better is the enemy of good." This is why I've started pushing the concept of "Show me yourself, unfettered, unconstrained. I can make my own decision best if I don't box you in." I called it "sink or swim" earlier, and perhaps that was misleading. I don't mean for this to be competitive or ruthless. That's why there are all those suggestions. I mean for this to be open and free, for guilds to show themselves for what they are and not the box we place them in. A large part choosing a guild comes down to "how do they feel to me?". The more we mold these posts into a form the greater the loss of "gut instinct" to potential recruits.

I know you both feel the same way, I just don't want it slipping out of focus.

Back to the current element of discussion...

The title, as written, is your quick-surf "Do I want to look at this guild or not?". I don't think we want to move very far, if at all, from the quick-surf in our controls, do we?

To use these forums properly you need to read and make a decision based on that title. I think that pretty much any further type of summary falls under "show me yourself" category. Since the "first glance" info has already been read, I would view this as a "if you don't want to talk about it I'll factor that into my decision." I'd be more than happy to move the "explain your guild type suggestion" to the top of the list of suggestions.

One thing I can see being important is a "Restricted Applicants" line at the top. This wouldn't fit into the title, but it is something all players need to know right away, possibly even if there are no restrictions. "Should I even bother reading or will I be auto rejected before even being considered?" While I'm open to persuasion, at the moment this is the only thing can see a strong argument for enforcing. And I'm disinclined to create "toothless requirements".

I actually realized that we need a "accepting new applicant" line at the top too (or in the thread title, something easy to recognize???)

As for the title, sometimes I don't click on the right one. and some forum layout don't put the thread title at the right place (I'm looking at you BioWare Social Network). Also, it is limited in term of space and you don't want to overcrowd it.

Title:
Something like "Server [Guild Type] Faction: Guild Name"?
Guild Type tags would be something like: [PvE] [PvP] [RP] [PvE&RP] [PvE&PvP] [PvP&RP] [ALL]

example: Dathomir [PvP] Empire: Clash of the Sith

Top post header:
Recruiting: yes/no
Gameplay: explain particularities if any
Restrictions: list if any

I think that is all that is necessary indeed. Keep it as short as possible.

We don't need Faction in the title though, since we'll have a forum for Empire and one for Republic.


Ald, I understand your argument that orientation (pvp, pve, ...) doesn't need to be called upon again in the first lines, as it is mentioned in the title.
However, this will depend on the tags we "offer" for the title. Sometimes "PvE" just doesn't cut it and especially when you have more than one focus you'll want to give it a few more words.

Recruiting and Restrictions are both necessary. Who wants to go through a wall of text only to read at the very botton, "oh and by the way we only take force classes".

Alright, I've spent 48 hours on this and I can't get comfortable with the idea of forcing guild's to use a particular format. I can understand the need for "Restrictions" and "Recruiting", even if I don't like it. I can't agree with the "Gameplay Style". Nonetheless, you are both reasonable people so I shall consider myself out-voted.

Top post header:
Recruiting: yes/no
Restrictions: list if any, otherwise none
Gameplay Style: explain particularities if any

"Gameplay style" IS a bit of an unsure one and for sure the one that would be missed the least of the three.

If we can find the reasons to keep it, in examples, perhaps we can justify its presence more easily.


To put it in WoW format (as we don't know how raiding will look like etc) I could be thinking of this:

Guild that chose something like "PvP/PvE" in their title could need to go further, while readers would not have to, to extract important bits of information of the likes of these:
"PvE: only 5-man instances, not raids / PvP: regular battleground activity, no official arena activity"

Maybe Az can come up with a good example.


Anyway, I do not stand 100% firmly on this one point. As said, this is the one I would insist least on, like you, and it would seem bearable to miss.
I find it quite useful though! I'm therefore something around 60-70% in favor of keeping it (the rest being to not include it, but you probably got that).

I'll want to let Az come to word to see how convinced she is of this particular point.

Gameplay isn't useful for all guilds, that's probably why you are both uncomfortable with it. A guild that does all kind of PvE won't need it, but a guild that does only raiding will. Same goes for PvP, some guilds will be warzones only, others open world only.

The point of the field was that the thread title tag aren't sufficient to know exactly what a guild is doing and guild advertisement post usually keep that information at the bottom of the post, not the top. So with the field people who are looking for a particular type of guild know right away after opening the post if it was the kind of PvE guild they were looking for.

Although, it could be condensed into Restrictions, I guess. It's kind of an activity restriction. If we do that, we will need to give an example. Restrictions would have only things like: No raids, No Warzones, while the thread title would have [PvE&PvP].

Something to note is that some guilds (or their leaders) don't know right from the start where their guild might end up gameplay-wise. Maybe they want to leave it open. This might be a reason for removing the Gameplay line, instead of forcing them to write something they don't want to. This might indeed be better explained in their post (or however they envisioned).

Adding it to restrictions is also an idea we should consider. If it's a sure thing for the guild, then it is worth to know right away, I suppose. Wouldn't quite call it a "restriction" though, to be exact

Both of you are hitting on reasons why I don't feel its appropriate. Are we really going to force all guilds to conform to a standard that applies only to some guilds? Even if it applies to most guilds? Better for some recruits is the enemy of good for all guilds and recruits.

If we add it to "Restrictions" we are forcing guilds to imply that if you join a PvE (All) guild you may not PvP, etc. Off the cuff I don't see a way to avoid that if we place it into restrictions.

The next thing we need to deal with is how to ensure that every thread maker is aware of these rules. We can expect everyone to read the Requirements and Recommendations sticky, but let's be honest, we all know that few if anyone will stop to read every single sticky. The only way I know to ensure that everyone is aware of the requirements is to allow thread creation in these sub-forums only through one of Arzon's forms.

Right, restriction is a bit too "harsh" for gameplay. hmm. I guess we can leave it out then.

Or maybe replace it by a "casual, hardcore, ?" tag somewhere at the top. Title or under the header?

Mh, maybe it is best left out then. I think it definitely needs more explanation than just "PvE" but then again a single line might not be enough.

And what about the tag in the title then? I think we should keep that one at least to give a first impression. Tags would be what? PvE, PvP, Both. Or more detail?

Ald made this list earlier in the thread:

[PvE] [PvP] [RP] [PvE&RP] [PvE&PvP] [PvP&RP] [ALL]

Only one can be used in the thread title. Is there any other?

Maybe add a C or H for Casual or Hardcore?

Looks good then. Maybe make it an optional C or H on top of the main tag. Like so: "Server [PvE+RP] [C] Guild Name"

Optional C or H is good for me.

Let's see what Ald says then.

I'm averse to using the terms casual or hardcore. First of all, you can find plenty of discussions on the official forums wherein no consensus is reached on the definitions. Worse, many if not most community oriented people I know consider hardcore to be a pejorative. Honestly, if the three of us currently working this thread were to discuss the definitions we'd have at least 2, probably 3 separate definitions of the words. I therefore believe that particular pair of words to be ineffective.

By design I'm trying for titles to be blindingly obvious. That's why I've stuck to very common acronyms. If we start including random, arbitrary letters that people have to look up to understand, it will make the interface less "user friendly".

Therefore I would want to find a different pair of words that are obvious in meaning, and spell them out in the thread title. They would therefore need to be reasonably short words.

Any further thoughts on broadcasting the requirements?