Forums and arguments.

[Derek H]

Mike wrote:

Therein lies the problem. Most fora, LAF, WD3, etc use phpBB software, they are without doubt the bees knees in forums. However they don’t have the other functionality needed for TWW. Such as a home page with news articles, membership systems that grant access to various areas of the site. Automatic payments and header and side banner advert facilities etc. Short of spending a lot of cash on getting a bespoke site made the only option was an off the shelf bit of kit. TWW is wordpress with a BBpress forum plugin. The other things are plugins too, such as the membership system, the calendar, forms, private messaging, etc. It was tough choice but in order to make it have all the things that were needed it ended up being WordPress based.

You don’t have to run the whole site using a single bit of software.  Why not run the forums with phpBB and leave the rest on WordPress?

[Not Connard Sage]

What you have to decide is what you want TWW to be.

• A public forum, open to all.
•  A public forum, open to all. Apart from the exclusive little bits that aren’t.
• A public forum, open to all.  Apart from the exclusive little bits that aren’t, which require a fee to get into.
• A private forum that is invitation only.
• A private forum that is invitation only, and has a membership fee.

If you’re going to start sectorising, ghettoising,  restricting and banning because people can’t cope with other people having an opinion (and god forbid, a, shock, horror, negative opinion) you’ll need more mods. And good luck checking the credentials of the ‘wargames professionals’ who want admittance to Bohemian Grove, or whatever you call it. You might also consider a new name for this place, ‘TMP’ is rather catchy.

 

An ignore function will be easier…

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Mike]

Derek H wrote:

You don’t have to run the whole site using a single bit of software.  Why not run the forums with phpBB and leave the rest on WordPress?

Because the membership system does not work on PHP.

[Mike]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

An ignore function will be easier…

As noted before, it is not available and would require bespoke coding which is costly.
Also, only a few people have asked for it.

I have had 4 people out of the 1193 members complain to me about the posting habits of others.

Ignore functions are too costly.
I am trying an alternative for the few that want something done about the fact they don’t like other people posting their opinions.

To be fair I could just ignore them as it is a very small percentage.

[Not Connard Sage]

Mike wrote:

To be fair I could just ignore them as it is a very small percentage.

 

About 0.003% by my WAG. Is it really worth changing the forum structure for that?

 

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Cameronian]

Just have to get ’em whacked instead I suppose. Anybody know a cheap hitman?

'The time has come" The walrus said. "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--Of cabbages--and kings--And why the sea is boiling hot--And whether pigs have wings."

[Guy Farrish]

You see Michael, I’m in favour of liberal democracy but when it comes to  military organisations, quasi-military organisations and wargames forums, rigid authoritarianism works better every time. Ask for opinions from 30 wargames forum members, you’ll get 100 different answers. Good idea if your canvassing for a different way of doing it but don’t agonise about the results or using quasi-democracy to make the decision (look at another place for the weird results of poll systems!) just do what you think best for the type of forum you want. Somebody will complain. Somebody will always complain. Some people will complain if you do exactly what they say.

But it’s yours, you were the one who put their time effort and cash into the thing – make it what you want it to be. Not a great believer in the ‘build it and they will come’ mantra myself, (you could build a swimming pool when they all want to play billiards) but in this case you’ve built it and we are coming. You know what you want it to be – stick with that it’s a winner.

Best of luck

[willz]

Well done Mike 1193 members in less than 3 months is pretty impressive.  You can be proud of what you have achieved on this forum, I enjoy it and visit it most days.  There is lots of different and interesting things on the forum, some I may not have a particular interest in, and the occasional comment I may not agree with but that’s the beauty of a forum you can come and go as you please.  Overall this forum is informative, very friendly, full of lots of interesting people and with loads of useful information.

Keep up the excellent work.

[James Rivera]

Here’s my 2 cents.  I agree with others that more rules or segmenting the membership aren’t likely to solve the problem.  Considering we are talking about just a few members who are having a problem with just a few other members, I’d suggest you have a private chat with each of them.  Suggest to the ones who complained that they include a few more ‘restrictions’ or ‘guidance’ in what they are seeking for responses when they post a thread, then invite them to let you know if those ‘restrictions’ are grossly violated.  At the same time talk to those who were complained about and see if you can’t get them to show a little more ‘sensitivity’ to those who were bothered.  Its very likely they never intended to agitate anyone.  I’d remind all of them we want a fresh friendly hobby focused forum here and not another unwieldy car wreck like a certain place we all know.  After that if you continue to see the same problems I think it’ll be clear that you have some specifically troublesome members who don’t want to respect what the rest of us are hoping to build with TWW and you can consider or ask advice for stronger measures at that time.

So, in a nutshell, talk directly to those few involved and see if you can’t resolve it in a friendly conversation, before we jump to rules, ignores, stifles, segmenting memberships and whole bunch of other crud that made another website just plain unpleasant to visit.

James

[McLaddie]

And how would you determine who qualifies as a ‘published game designer?’   I have published wargames in the past and simulation games in a number of venues.  Yet, a couple of game designers insist that I don’t ‘qualify’ as either a game designer or professional because I currently don’t have a miniature rules set out.  Who decides?  How would that be determined? What about all those folks that have rules free online?  Is that published, or does it require money exchanging hands to qualify?  Even the categories of professional and amateur aren’t necessarily established by selling a product.  In a small hobby where most designers don’t do it for a living, does that make a difference with those categories?  How about only those who design games for a living?  Do we send in our profit and loss reports as evidence of our ‘professionalism’?

I’m with Not Connrad.  What are the odds that such a division could or should work to anyone’s benefit?  The free exchange of ideas and information is what the forum is all about.  Obviously, some folks are against that…

 

 

 

 

[repiqueone]

I don’t think many are complaining about ideas, but boorishness.  In my ever diligent pursuit of the perfect rule, (and since it appears that the definition of published wargame designer, is just too tough for some, and any suggestion of qualifications strikes some as “elitist”) might I suggest that on the Game Design forum and the Napoleonic Forum, the poster pay you per word that they post. Say a nominal 5¢ a word? McLaddie and Bandit could finance the entire website for you!  It would encourage pithiness instead of pissiness, and people would only reply when they were willing to put their money where their mouth is (or whatever orifice they use to express themselves).

There could be surcharges and extra fees for any foul language or any exrtended quotations from Nafziger, or Nosworthy; and  gradually increasing costs for such words as “Simulation”, “Historically accurate”, and the highest cost for any additional post until at least two other posters had intervened.

Think of it as a Prolixity Tax.  If anyone says anything meaningful, then a tax refund might be paid to encourage them.

I hope everyone appreciates my heartfelt attempts to solve this dilemma, short of doing the obvious, but rude, solution. 😉

 

[Buzzard Design Bureau]

Perhaps one solution might be that instead of the “agreement only” option, is there any technical way that the original poster of a thread could insert and “intermission” break in a thread, whereby Editor Mike and Co. could be alerted that a thread has been hijacked (potentially). After a review, and if necessary a quiet word with the concerned parties, the intermission ends and back to normal programming, or the thread gets locked with a summary statement of why. After a while repeat offenders can choose to change their posting style, leave TWW, or push it further and either have their posting privileges reduced or be banned.

The ability to pause a thread would give the original poster more confidence in avoiding the problems that Mike highlighted in his original post.

 

For me, if I decided to start a thread, and any of these problems happened, I’d just ignore those posters anyway. It’s like sitting in a room where a tv is on with a programme you don’t want to watch, but others do. You’re not forced to absorb all of it, just the programmes you find value in.

 

Andrew

[Howard Whitehouse]

Shahbahraz wrote:

Newbury Fast Play ? Bah. much too simplistic. .

Indeed. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars  lasted for two decades, and a proper recreation of the era should take that long to play. Also, some people should die of natural causes before it’s all over.

I do all my own stunts.

[Howard Whitehouse]

Catullus wrote:

You will never get every single member of any large group of people to get along. You’ll twist yourself into knots trying to apply a rule like this. It is no substitute for hands-on moderation and dealing with problems on a case-by-case basis.

Exactly!

The best approach to moderating is to take a light touch, send messages to those who seem to be getting along poorly, and occasionally chipping in with an “Ahem!” post on a thread. The worst way is to have lots of rules, erratically applied, and to essentially act as a troll on your own forum.

I do all my own stunts.

[Jonathan Gingerich]

I’d like an open, well-moderated forum.  Deferring to Mike is one thing – he’s providing the forum.  But I don’t want to kowtow in one thread to McLaddie and in another to Repiqueone just because they are the bums that started the threads.

Outside of politics and religion (liberally defined), adults can pretty much accept any opinion.  They are very sensitive to how that opinion is advanced.  A good moderator will keep a close eye on the how, and let the audience decide whether or not the ideas are popular.

[Rick Inhoff]

We could always rely on maturity, self control and above all, good manners. After all, gentlemen are able to admit when they are mistaken or politely allow an opposing view point to be aired without negative comment. A self assured person is able to entertain the idea that all need not agree with him or her and carry on a fruitful and satisfactory conversation. Thus I see no need for arbitrary or artificial constraints on the exchange of ideas on any fora.

yours,

Rodney Foambuckle-Trivet

[Not Connard Sage]

Maturity?

 

We’re the daft buggers who play with toy soldiers.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Mike]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

But I don’t want to kowtow in one thread to McLaddie and in another to Repiqueone just because they are the bums that started the threads.

Easy there, no need for name calling.

repiqueone wrote:

Say a nominal 5¢ a word? McLaddie and Bandit could finance the entire website for you! It would encourage pithiness instead of pissiness, and people would only reply when they were willing to put their money where their mouth is (or whatever orifice they use to express themselves).

Please stop with the snarky comments

I have locked this thread for a while whilst I decide what to do about some members.
It seems that even when I try to find a solution they will make attacks and digs at other members.

[Author]

Posts