Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
216 Posts
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  Next »  [9] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Complaint Department

Subject: Thread locking in a community forum rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You can read most of redi's responses in people quoting it (just a heads up)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dylan Thurston
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Octavian wrote:
cbezier wrote:
Or would it be possible to promote a forum regular who would be sympathetic to LGBT+ issues to moderate?


My guess is you did not mean to imply that I am not sympathetic to LGBTQ+ issues, but rather you are suggesting adding someone more specifically versed in/attuned to those issues - yes?
I just wanted to come back and give my own take on this question, which I think is important. Yes, I think that a moderator that's part of the relevant community is kind of necessary, both to better understand the issues involved and also to get better buy-in on the hard decisions made. I think it's a lot easier to take things like a temporary suspension from someone that you view as a peer. It's a matter of agency: It's very different if an outsider is telling you to do something versus a community regulating itself.

(I don't necessarily agree with the later comment about wanting a moderator separated from the BGG hierarchy.)

One thing to be careful of here is "tokenism", the idea that if you need to have exactly one member from each under-represented group. In general, the group of moderators should be diverse and reflect the communities.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. B. Downey
United States
Suitland
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The thread actually resolved itself, and the user in question admitted that there was some kind of mistake, overreacted, tried to scam the person, and apologized. Seems like the transparency actually worked.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Knight
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dthurston wrote:
cbazler wrote:
dthurston wrote:
cbazler wrote:
... it was great you guys made an LGBT+ forum, but disappointing when that forum was quickly hidden from the front page after an outpouring of criticism. ...
Is the Rainbow BGGers forum hidden from the front page in some way I'm not aware of? Which forums can show up in the top "Forums" box?

Rainbow BGGers do show up in the "Community" box on the front page, a little bit farther down.
Sorry, I meant to say "Gaming Forums on the front page," where W&G is located.
My understanding is that, if W&G were created now, it would be part of the "Community" group of forums, but that W&G was created before that Community section existed.

(More broadly, I think Rainbow BGGers is reasonably discoverable now. I did meet someone at a gaymer gathering at Gen Con who was surprised to learn about it, though.)


I think BGG oughta implement a Guild of the week, like Geek of the week, which could spotlight a different Guild every week and show up at the top of the front page.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Désirée Greverud
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Keeper of the Sacred Aardvark
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gee Whiz wrote:
dthurston wrote:
cbazler wrote:
dthurston wrote:
cbazler wrote:
... it was great you guys made an LGBT+ forum, but disappointing when that forum was quickly hidden from the front page after an outpouring of criticism. ...
Is the Rainbow BGGers forum hidden from the front page in some way I'm not aware of? Which forums can show up in the top "Forums" box?

Rainbow BGGers do show up in the "Community" box on the front page, a little bit farther down.
Sorry, I meant to say "Gaming Forums on the front page," where W&G is located.
My understanding is that, if W&G were created now, it would be part of the "Community" group of forums, but that W&G was created before that Community section existed.

(More broadly, I think Rainbow BGGers is reasonably discoverable now. I did meet someone at a gaymer gathering at Gen Con who was surprised to learn about it, though.)


I think BGG oughta implement a Guild of the week, like Geek of the week, which could spotlight a different Guild every week and show up at the top of the front page.

as was discussed back when we were arguing for getting the Rainbow forum, guilds, in their design and implementation are a lousy solution for any kind of large scale, visible community here on BGG. The are fine for small, private groups but not for larger communities.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Désirée Greverud
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Keeper of the Sacred Aardvark
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brutilus wrote:


Has anyone considered approaching one of the RainbowBGG founders as it were to be a moderator for the comunity? I think that MamaPapillon, DragonsDream, and dlthurston have shown to be pretty level-headed and generally shown the judgement needed to be good mods...

Edited: spelling

I appreciate the shout out. I do like to think that I am one of the people here who tries to keep things on an even keel, but coming off a 1 day suspension (reduced thanks to post deletion) as a result of the Sandy Peterson thing, that is not always the case. Anyway, I have been a mod on other sites before and I'm not sure I'd want to put myself through that again.

I'm not even sure if having a rainbow-person as a rainbow-mod is really even the best solution or if the tendency won't be to simply go the other way, and overlook minor rules violations by rainbow regulars while jumping on top of every minor slight from an "outside" in an effort to protect the community. Not saying that would happen, but, since we are talking about perceptions of moderation, that is a real concern. It also runs the risk of isolating and insulating the rainbow forum by creating an insider/outside dichotomy that doesn't really help anybody.

A community liaison might be an idea. Not a mod, but somebody who can have private communication with mods re: mod issues, so for instance, when an troll is being disruptive, Octavian can let the liaison know that yes, this person was disciplined/suspended/banned and the trusted-by-the-Rainbow-community liaison can then reassure the community that yes, the problem was dealt with.

I realize that something like this just adds another layer in between the mods and the community and implicitly suggests that the mods aren't, on their own, trusted by the community; but this allows for a means to build up that trust. Doing so through a surrogate of sorts, who already has a level of trust.

I don't want to imply that Octavian is untrustworthy in any way, however, it does seem like some of the modding decisions are a bit opaque from the side of the Rainbow forum user which hurts trust. Having an extra level of reassurance could help with that.

Just a random thought (before my first coffee - so go easy on me).
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
DragonsDream wrote:
as was discussed back when we were arguing for getting the Rainbow forum, guilds, in their design and implementation are a lousy solution for any kind of large scale, visible community here on BGG. The are fine for small, private groups but not for larger communities.

I only remember the complaints about typical BGG users not easily discovering Guilds. What else was considered wrong with their design or implementation?

FWIW the 1-Player (solitaire gamers) Guild seems a very large and active and successful community.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C Bazler
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
"Come, and trip it as you go..."
badge
"...on the light fantastic toe."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:
as was discussed back when we were arguing for getting the Rainbow forum, guilds, in their design and implementation are a lousy solution for any kind of large scale, visible community here on BGG. The are fine for small, private groups but not for larger communities.

I only remember the complaints about typical BGG users not easily discovering Guilds. What else was considered wrong with their design or implementation?

FWIW the 1-Player (solitaire gamers) Guild seems a very large and active and successful community.


For starters, they are ridiculously hard to find. Not only do you have to click on the "misc" tab, but even if you know the name of the exact guild, the list is dozens of pages long. Categories make no sense:

Gaming Convention / Event
Game Group / Club
Game Store
Hobby / Interest
Language
Occupation
PBEM (Play By Email)
Podcast
Region

...and the sheer number of guilds make the task of choosing one incredibly daunting. Names are sorted alphabetically, but unlike regular BGG conventions, that includes the article (so, "The Dice Tower" is listed under "T"). It's a total mess, IMO.
8 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
OK, but that's still just specifics of their discoverability (which BGG has acknowledged as something that needs to be addressed) - I took Russ's question to be if that sort of stuff was solved, is there functionally anything wrong with using a guild as the primary location for community conversations?

As far as I can tell there's not - they have all the same functionality as a regular forum, plus several additional advantages (including the ability for the guild owner to delete posts and pin/lock/unlock threads).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C Bazler
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
"Come, and trip it as you go..."
badge
"...on the light fantastic toe."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
col_w wrote:
OK, but that's still just specifics of their discoverability (which BGG has acknowledged as something that needs to be addressed) - I took Russ's question to be if that sort of stuff was solved, is there functionally anything wrong with using a guild as the primary location for community conversations?

As far as I can tell there's not - they have all the same functionality as a regular forum, plus several additional advantages (including the ability for the guild owner to delete posts and pin/lock/unlock threads).


It's impossible to talk about one without talking about the other. Apart from a handful of thriving, successful guilds, most guilds are desolate wastelands, in part because no one can find them. Long-defunct guilds are still on the list because BGG admins don't spend time cleaning them up. The "Guild" module is not defaulted on the home page, so it's impossible for newcomers to see which guilds are still active.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Désirée Greverud
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Keeper of the Sacred Aardvark
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
col_w wrote:
OK, but that's still just specifics of their discoverability (which BGG has acknowledged as something that needs to be addressed) - I took Russ's question to be if that sort of stuff was solved, is there functionally anything wrong with using a guild as the primary location for community conversations?

As far as I can tell there's not - they have all the same functionality as a regular forum, plus several additional advantages (including the ability for the guild owner to delete posts and pin/lock/unlock threads).

the very design of the guilds system. In a sense, everything but "general gaming" could/should be a guild in that case. Currently, guilds can cover everything from the significant (1 player guild) to the completely random (Amateur Radio operators guild). The problem now would be one of perception: "sure, you LGBT gamers can have a guild, over there--->
while Women, gaming with kids, designers, gaming photography, every state and country and random chit chat get a forum" No matter the logic or logistics of it vis a vis the site architecture, the perception is that it is dismissive. It shuffles an unwanted minority group off to their own space away from the main discussions. Now, were the forums nothing more than General Gaming and off-topic chit chat (stuff that theoretically any and all BGGers could make use of) while every other group was a guild, you'd have a point.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Boyung
United States
Brookfield
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DragonsDream wrote:
col_w wrote:
OK, but that's still just specifics of their discoverability (which BGG has acknowledged as something that needs to be addressed) - I took Russ's question to be if that sort of stuff was solved, is there functionally anything wrong with using a guild as the primary location for community conversations?

As far as I can tell there's not - they have all the same functionality as a regular forum, plus several additional advantages (including the ability for the guild owner to delete posts and pin/lock/unlock threads).

the very design of the guilds system. In a sense, everything but "general gaming" could/should be a guild in that case. Currently, guilds can cover everything from the significant (1 player guild) to the completely random (Amateur Radio operators guild). The problem now would be one of perception: "sure, you LGBT gamers can have a guild, over there--->
while Women, gaming with kids, designers, gaming photography, every state and country and random chit chat get a forum" No matter the logic or logistics of it vis a vis the site architecture, the perception is that it is dismissive. It shuffles an unwanted minority group off to their own space away from the main discussions. Now, were the forums nothing more than General Gaming and off-topic chit chat (stuff that theoretically any and all BGGers could make use of) while every other group was a guild, you'd have a point.


You're aware that all of those groups you mention should just be guilds as well, and would be moved to guilds too, if/when they finally fix the information architecture of the site with respect to guilds.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
DragonsDream wrote:
while Women, gaming with kids, designers, gaming photography, every state and country and random chit chat get a forum" No matter the logic or logistics of it vis a vis the site architecture, the perception is that it is dismissive. It shuffles an unwanted minority group off to their own space away from the main discussions. Now, were the forums nothing more than General Gaming and off-topic chit chat (stuff that theoretically any and all BGGers could make use of) while every other group was a guild, you'd have a point.


I don't see having a guild as dismissive. It would be if anyone was forcing all related discussion to be held there, but as Octavian has said before, no-one from the community should feel they have to post there (or in Rainbow Gamers); and we are all welcome to post in General Gaming if we prefer.

The guild is just an option for those that want to use it. They take time to grow, even the largest ones currently were once small.

And the admins have said for some time now that all the regional forums will be converted to guilds anyway, so the list of forums is intended to shrink in time.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
DragonsDream wrote:
col_w wrote:
OK, but that's still just specifics of their discoverability (which BGG has acknowledged as something that needs to be addressed) - I took Russ's question to be if that sort of stuff was solved, is there functionally anything wrong with using a guild as the primary location for community conversations?

As far as I can tell there's not - they have all the same functionality as a regular forum, plus several additional advantages (including the ability for the guild owner to delete posts and pin/lock/unlock threads).

the very design of the guilds system. In a sense, everything but "general gaming" could/should be a guild in that case. Currently, guilds can cover everything from the significant (1 player guild) to the completely random (Amateur Radio operators guild). The problem now would be one of perception: "sure, you LGBT gamers can have a guild, over there--->
while Women, gaming with kids, designers, gaming photography, every state and country and random chit chat get a forum" No matter the logic or logistics of it vis a vis the site architecture, the perception is that it is dismissive. It shuffles an unwanted minority group off to their own space away from the main discussions. Now, were the forums nothing more than General Gaming and off-topic chit chat (stuff that theoretically any and all BGGers could make use of) while every other group was a guild, you'd have a point.


I.e. it's nothing about the "design or implementation" about the guild system itself (other than the current "discoverability" issue), but rather it is this meta issue about whether it would be "dismissive" to have Rainbow BGGers as a guild and W&G et al not as a guild?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T S

Chicago
Illinois
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
russ wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:
col_w wrote:
OK, but that's still just specifics of their discoverability (which BGG has acknowledged as something that needs to be addressed) - I took Russ's question to be if that sort of stuff was solved, is there functionally anything wrong with using a guild as the primary location for community conversations?

As far as I can tell there's not - they have all the same functionality as a regular forum, plus several additional advantages (including the ability for the guild owner to delete posts and pin/lock/unlock threads).

the very design of the guilds system. In a sense, everything but "general gaming" could/should be a guild in that case. Currently, guilds can cover everything from the significant (1 player guild) to the completely random (Amateur Radio operators guild). The problem now would be one of perception: "sure, you LGBT gamers can have a guild, over there--->
while Women, gaming with kids, designers, gaming photography, every state and country and random chit chat get a forum" No matter the logic or logistics of it vis a vis the site architecture, the perception is that it is dismissive. It shuffles an unwanted minority group off to their own space away from the main discussions. Now, were the forums nothing more than General Gaming and off-topic chit chat (stuff that theoretically any and all BGGers could make use of) while every other group was a guild, you'd have a point.


I.e. it's nothing about the "design or implementation" about the guild system itself (other than the current "discoverability" issue), but rather it is this meta issue about whether it would be "dismissive" to have Rainbow BGGers as a guild and W&G et al not as a guild?


It can be two things.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C Bazler
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
"Come, and trip it as you go..."
badge
"...on the light fantastic toe."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
col_w wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:
while Women, gaming with kids, designers, gaming photography, every state and country and random chit chat get a forum" No matter the logic or logistics of it vis a vis the site architecture, the perception is that it is dismissive. It shuffles an unwanted minority group off to their own space away from the main discussions. Now, were the forums nothing more than General Gaming and off-topic chit chat (stuff that theoretically any and all BGGers could make use of) while every other group was a guild, you'd have a point.


I don't see having a guild as dismissive. It would be if anyone was forcing all related discussion to be held there, but as Octavian has said before, no-one from the community should feel they have to post there (or in Rainbow Gamers); and we are all welcome to post in General Gaming if we prefer.

The guild is just an option for those that want to use it. They take time to grow, even the largest ones currently were once small.

And the admins have said for some time now that all the regional forums will be converted to guilds anyway, so the list of forums is intended to shrink in time.


At this point, I think turning Rainbow BGG into a guild would be extremely dismissive and disrespectful, after having been given a prominent place on the Community forums.

As for the injection of dozens and dozens of more guilds into a system which is already overflowing with dead, irrelevant ones, I don't see how the system will get any better. Considering two years have passed and developers have STILL not been able to switch the home page into the new game page style, how many more years do you think it will take to "fix" the guild system? And how many more empty and inactive guilds do you think will spring up between now and then?

P.S. Did you know Octavian has a guild? It's called "The Awesome Octavian Guild." It contains a total of two threads, it has three members, and hasn't been active for over 2.5 years. It's also really easy to find, on p. 23 under "T" (for "The"). Of course, to make it much easier, you can find it under category "Occupation" (because, why not?).
9 
 Thumb up
1.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
plezercruz wrote:
natureslayer wrote:
Intolerance of intolerance is not hypocrisy.
You know, when you posted this, I didn't know what to think. I pondered it for a little while, but came to no conclusion. Then, thanks to my subscription to Octavian, I came across Sandy Petersen's Goodbye thread.

I can't say I'm sure yet what to think of your statement, but I will say this...

...the results sure do look the same.

Pete (isn't sure you're right)
I've been stuck on this topic ever since natureslayer posed it.

I'm inclined to agree that intolerance of intolerance is not inherently hypocritical. I would even go so far as to say that the opposite, tolerance of intolerance, is nonsensical. If you tolerate intolerance absolutely, you foster it, which is absurd, because if that is your goal, you're effectively stating that intolerance is to be promoted and thus you should also be intolerant.

Yet the inverse is absurd as well. If you are absolutely intolerant of intolerance, you are similarly in a paradoxical situation. Your absolute intolerance will necessarily employ the same methods and yield the same results as the very intolerance you're seeking to be intolerant of, resulting in promotion of intolerance as a methodology. If it is proper for you to be intolerant to seek your goal of stamping out intolerance, it is likewise proper for others to employ the same method to meet their goals, leading to exactly the sort of behavior you are intolerant of. This cannot be sensible. It too presents the argument that intolerance is beneficial, and that we should be intolerant.

I think I'm forced to conclude that he best policy was stated by Oscar Wilde:

Moderation in all things, including moderation.

Pete (is of course using a different definition of that last word in this thread than Mr. Wilde was)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Désirée Greverud
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Keeper of the Sacred Aardvark
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
motoyugota wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:
col_w wrote:
OK, but that's still just specifics of their discoverability (which BGG has acknowledged as something that needs to be addressed) - I took Russ's question to be if that sort of stuff was solved, is there functionally anything wrong with using a guild as the primary location for community conversations?

As far as I can tell there's not - they have all the same functionality as a regular forum, plus several additional advantages (including the ability for the guild owner to delete posts and pin/lock/unlock threads).

the very design of the guilds system. In a sense, everything but "general gaming" could/should be a guild in that case. Currently, guilds can cover everything from the significant (1 player guild) to the completely random (Amateur Radio operators guild). The problem now would be one of perception: "sure, you LGBT gamers can have a guild, over there--->
while Women, gaming with kids, designers, gaming photography, every state and country and random chit chat get a forum" No matter the logic or logistics of it vis a vis the site architecture, the perception is that it is dismissive. It shuffles an unwanted minority group off to their own space away from the main discussions. Now, were the forums nothing more than General Gaming and off-topic chit chat (stuff that theoretically any and all BGGers could make use of) while every other group was a guild, you'd have a point.


You're aware that all of those groups you mention should just be guilds as well, and would be moved to guilds too, if/when they finally fix the information architecture of the site with respect to guilds.

you did see now bolded part of my post right?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Désirée Greverud
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Keeper of the Sacred Aardvark
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
plezercruz wrote:
plezercruz wrote:
natureslayer wrote:
Intolerance of intolerance is not hypocrisy.
You know, when you posted this, I didn't know what to think. I pondered it for a little while, but came to no conclusion. Then, thanks to my subscription to Octavian, I came across Sandy Petersen's Goodbye thread.

I can't say I'm sure yet what to think of your statement, but I will say this...

...the results sure do look the same.

Pete (isn't sure you're right)
I've been stuck on this topic ever since natureslayer posed it.

I'm inclined to agree that intolerance of intolerance is not inherently hypocritical. I would even go so far as to say that the opposite, tolerance of intolerance, is nonsensical. If you tolerate intolerance absolutely, you foster it, which is absurd, because if that is your goal, you're effectively stating that intolerance is to be promoted and thus you should also be intolerant.

Yet the inverse is absurd as well. If you are absolutely intolerant of intolerance, you are similarly in a paradoxical situation. Your absolute intolerance will necessarily employ the same methods and yield the same results as the very intolerance you're seeking to be intolerant of, resulting in promotion of intolerance as a methodology. If it is proper for you to be intolerant to seek your goal of stamping out intolerance, it is likewise proper for others to employ the same method to meet their goals, leading to exactly the sort of behavior you are intolerant of. This cannot be sensible. It too presents the argument that intolerance is beneficial, and that we should be intolerant.

I think I'm forced to conclude that he best policy was stated by Oscar Wilde:

Moderation in all things, including moderation.

Pete (is of course using a different definition of that last word in this thread than Mr. Wilde was)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DragonsDream wrote:
plezercruz wrote:
plezercruz wrote:
natureslayer wrote:
Intolerance of intolerance is not hypocrisy.
You know, when you posted this, I didn't know what to think. I pondered it for a little while, but came to no conclusion. Then, thanks to my subscription to Octavian, I came across Sandy Petersen's Goodbye thread.

I can't say I'm sure yet what to think of your statement, but I will say this...

...the results sure do look the same.

Pete (isn't sure you're right)
I've been stuck on this topic ever since natureslayer posed it.

I'm inclined to agree that intolerance of intolerance is not inherently hypocritical. I would even go so far as to say that the opposite, tolerance of intolerance, is nonsensical. If you tolerate intolerance absolutely, you foster it, which is absurd, because if that is your goal, you're effectively stating that intolerance is to be promoted and thus you should also be intolerant.

Yet the inverse is absurd as well. If you are absolutely intolerant of intolerance, you are similarly in a paradoxical situation. Your absolute intolerance will necessarily employ the same methods and yield the same results as the very intolerance you're seeking to be intolerant of, resulting in promotion of intolerance as a methodology. If it is proper for you to be intolerant to seek your goal of stamping out intolerance, it is likewise proper for others to employ the same method to meet their goals, leading to exactly the sort of behavior you are intolerant of. This cannot be sensible. It too presents the argument that intolerance is beneficial, and that we should be intolerant.

I think I'm forced to conclude that he best policy was stated by Oscar Wilde:

Moderation in all things, including moderation.

Pete (is of course using a different definition of that last word in this thread than Mr. Wilde was)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Dammit!

Pete (wasted all this time pondering when he should have just gone straight to wikipedia)
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
natureslayer wrote:
russ wrote:
I.e. it's nothing about the "design or implementation" about the guild system itself (other than the current "discoverability" issue), but rather it is this meta issue about whether it would be "dismissive" to have Rainbow BGGers as a guild and W&G et al not as a guild?


It can be two things.

Certainly it can be, but if it is, then can someone actually give an example of a "design or implementation" problem with the Guilds besides the already-mentioned discoverability?

That's why I asked; the only design or implementation problem I recalled being discussed was discoverability in the current user interface.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
natureslayer wrote:
russ wrote:
I.e. it's nothing about the "design or implementation" about the guild system itself (other than the current "discoverability" issue), but rather it is this meta issue about whether it would be "dismissive" to have Rainbow BGGers as a guild and W&G et al not as a guild?


It can be two things.

Certainly it can be, but if it is, then can someone actually give an example of a "design or implementation" problem with the Guilds besides the already-mentioned discoverability?

That's why I asked; the only design or implementation problem I recalled being discussed was discoverability in the current user interface.
It's more than just discoverability. You have to also answer for me this question:

Why would I rather post in a guild, where fewer people will see my post, than in the main forums?

Pete (thinks that for most BGG-related discussions there is no good answer to that question)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
plezercruz wrote:
russ wrote:
natureslayer wrote:
russ wrote:
I.e. it's nothing about the "design or implementation" about the guild system itself (other than the current "discoverability" issue), but rather it is this meta issue about whether it would be "dismissive" to have Rainbow BGGers as a guild and W&G et al not as a guild?


It can be two things.

Certainly it can be, but if it is, then can someone actually give an example of a "design or implementation" problem with the Guilds besides the already-mentioned discoverability?

That's why I asked; the only design or implementation problem I recalled being discussed was discoverability in the current user interface.
It's more than just discoverability. You have to also answer for me this question:

Why would I rather post in a guild, where fewer people will see my post, than in the main forums?

How is that not discoverability? I'm asking whether there a different design or implementation problem other than discoverability.

Let me put it another way, hopefully clearer: I only remember the "design and implementation" complaint that many users don't see guilds. So let's suppose that particular problem is fixed: suppose that users see guilds just as easily as they see "normal" forums. Now, are there any other design or implementation problems with guilds? I.e. within the guild itself; set aside the question of discoverability and assume that the users know about and see the guild. To me, their design and implementation give everything the "normal" forums give, plus additional features.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Northampton
MA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
I.e. it's nothing about the "design or implementation" about the guild system itself (other than the current "discoverability" issue), but rather it is this meta issue about whether it would be "dismissive" to have Rainbow BGGers as a guild and W&G et al not as a guild?
The way you say "nothing about the 'design or implementation'" and then discount "other than the current 'discoverability' issue" is troubling. That's like saying "So nothing about famine is a problem, other than the lack of food and the starvation".

In addition to all the ways that the design and implementation make it hard to find anything useful in the guilds, I also don't like how the guild pages are set up currently. They're essentially laid out like a game page... when really the main thing of interest in them is the forum sections. When I randomly go into a guild, most of the page is white space and has a lot of information that could be displayed in a better, more concise way.

And while I've seen guilds that use the calendar, image sections and something other than the general forum... most of them don't. As it stands now, guilds are essentially just a single sub forum that's really hard to find.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
plezercruz wrote:
Why would I rather post in a guild, where fewer people will see my post, than in the main forums?


Because posting in a guild focussed on a specific subject matter and/or community may be more likely to lead to a productive conversation with people engaged in the topic than posting in a forum that's not?

(e.g. consider the way game-specific posts made in general are moved to the appropriate game forums)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  Next »  [9] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.