Gamer_Zer0;15571568 wrote:
(i.e. should Astrid's Parlor be included here? Answer: No, it's a D&D forum)
Why is Astrid's considered a D&D forum? As best as I can tell, it's not about D&D, but rather about gaming in general.
*
And while d20 Modern is under "RPG" it will still have multiple forums, correct?
Why is Astrid's considered a D&D forum? As best as I can tell, it's not about D&D, but rather about gaming in general.
And while d20 Modern is under "RPG" it will still have multiple forums, correct?
Astrid's Parlor is a D&D brand. d20 can have as many forums as traffic can support.
Astrid's Parlor is a D&D brand.
If that's the case then it would appear the forum needs some serious editorial moderation, since there's a fair amount of non-D&D talk there.
You can see and read the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
As of now it appears to be more a debate clup for feminist and sexist issues.
The following is an adaptation of DoveArrow's excellent first draft
Welcome to Astrid's Parlor! Please drop a line here to introduce yourself; conversely, we can use this thread to welcome new faces to our forum.
Before posting in this forum, we would like you to take a moment and read the following couple of posts. The first involves the most frequently asked questions about this board and links that might be of interest.
1) What is Astrid's Parlor?
Astrid's Parlor is an evolving community for women in gaming, dedicated to the discussion of women's issues related to gaming. It is our hope that these discussions will encourage more women to come to the table, and will help make the gaming experience a better one for everyone.
2) How did the forum get its name?
Astrid's Parlor was named after Shelly Mazzanoble's first player character, a 134-year old, elven sorceress, named Astrid. Astrid is also one of the main subjects of Shelly's first book, published by Wizards of the Coast, Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress
3) What kinds of threads/posts am I allowed to create?
Discussions about women's issues in gaming cover a wide variety of topics. Female miniatures; the portrayal of women in fantasy art and D&D; female writers and developers of WotC products; the creation of female characters; ways to ensure that your game appeals to female gamers; and discussions that seek the opinion of the members of Astrid's Parlor are all welcome topics here.
4) Are men allowed to create threads/posts in this forum?
Absolutely! Astrid's Parlor welcomes the opinions of all individuals, regardless of gender.
Now, I don't think it needs to be exclusively D&D, but it is D&D-related.
As to the OP's list:
D&D Game Day -- about D&D, but not related to gender: Agreed. This thread should be moved, but to where, I don't know.
Quantifying sexism -- not related to D&D specifically: Agreed, but it was drawn from another conversation about sexism in D&D, so I guess I'm ok with it.
How would you remake the drow? -- on topic: Agreed
What Art Gets It Right? -- on topic: Agreed (yay, that's my thread!)
Realistic Armour or Fantasy? not about D&D specifically: Disagree - it encompassed D&D and how you prefer your character to look in D&D. It's about the type of armor you prefer style-wise, and I've seen posters talk about D&D characters.
Egads! Now she's on the webpage! -- on topic: Agreed
Illusionism -- about the ulterior motives of WotC: Agreed, should probably be in this Forum.
Jonathan Tweet on Gender and Gaming -- not about D&D specifically: Disagree - the thread is a discussion about a WotC employee's blog that talks about how RPGs (D&D in specific) focuses on things that guys like
Tokenism -- not about D&D or gaming, characterisation of opponents: Agree. Should probably be removed, but there is a really interesting conversation going on there! ;)
Some threads should be moved or deleted, I agree. But I think a lot of the discussion in Astrid's is D&D-related (see: "So I married My DM", "New PHB cover", "Some Help, Please", "So...About the Half-Orcs", "Female Warlocks", etc). I think some threads are generated from side-discussions in other threads, which may or may not have value.
I don't think, as D1Tremere asserts, that it's a forum for feminist and sexist issues - I think those issues come up because those are some issues that women who game deal with, and they want to post about them.
3) What kinds of threads/posts am I allowed to create?
Discussions about women's issues in gaming cover a wide variety of topics. Female miniatures; the portrayal of women in fantasy art and D&D; female writers and developers of WotC products; the creation of female characters; ways to ensure that your game appeals to female gamers; and discussions that seek the opinion of the members of Astrid's Parlor are all welcome topics here.
indicates that it's much more than a D&D forum.
As for the D&D Game day thread. The article pointed the poster there (probably better placed in D&D General). Check it out for yourself. Article. Go down to the bottom where it says Print, E-mail a Friend, and Discuss. Click Discuss and you will end up in Astrids. GZ this should probably be fixed
At which point, what is the purpose of separating such queries and dropping them into its own thread on the forum with no material comment?
He answered the question in your OP, as was explained in post 28, which you appeared to acknowledge in post 29. That would appear to have been the purpose of the thread, plus allowing the rest of the boards (like me) comment on the question and response.
Queries are separated when G0 thinks they merit separate discussion from the main thread. In this instance, for example, G0 separated out discussion about whether Astrid's Parlor's moderation would be changing in the reorganization from the more general discussion as to what forums should go where in the reorganization. The fact that the question was answered pretty quickly (the first substantive post by G0 in the thread) doesn't mean it didn't merit being separated from the prior thread.
Or am I misundertsanding your concern?
Does each board have its own editorial standard or is there a common standard?
As I understand it, editorial content is determined by the Volunteer Community Leaders ("VCLs"), as explained in this FAQ:
[indent]Q. Can you give a few examples of what the VCLs might be asked to do?
A. {snip}Provide editorial leadership and coaching in specific communities, like Astrid's Parlor.{snip}[/indent]
So, it seems to me that editorial content is determined by the VCLs.
He answered the question in your OP, as was explained in post 28, which you appeared to acknowledge in post 29. That would appear to have been the purpose of the thread, plus allowing the rest of the boards (like me) comment on the question and response.
Queries are separated when G0 thinks they merit separate discussion from the main thread. In this instance, for example, G0 separated out discussion about whether Astrid's Parlor's moderation would be changing in the reorganization from the more general discussion as to what forums should go where in the reorganization. The fact that the question was answered pretty quickly (the first substantive post by G0 in the thread) doesn't mean it didn't merit being separated from the prior thread.
Or am I misundertsanding your concern?
Likely we are talking at cross-purposes.
The response seems to be a non sequitur not an answer.
Let me abstract the converstion as I see it.
Me: X implies Y to me, but I see Z currently. Will Z become Y?
G0: No. X has no implication on Z. <-- this one is an answer and would be sufficient if left alone.
G0: No need to panic. Stop assuming a big unannounced change!. Any change to Z anywhere will be announced. <-- this is an obfuscation and qualifies the previous response.
Me: OK, is there going to be an announced change then?
Wrecan: you got an answer
Ultimately, my endurance has run out.
As I understand it, editorial content is determined by the Volunteer Community Leaders ("VCLs"), as explained in this FAQ:
[indent]Q. Can you give a few examples of what the VCLs might be asked to do?
A. {snip}Provide editorial leadership and coaching in specific communities, like Astrid's Parlor.{snip}[/indent]
So, it seems to me that editorial content is determined by the VCLs.
I would expect editorial standards would be determined by Community Management and the VCLs would act as agents of that policy simply to maintain some consistency. It may be CM will abdicate such responsibility to the VCLs.
Likely we are talking at cross-purposes. The response seems to be a non sequitur not an answer. Let me abstract the converstion as I see it.
No, please don't It will make it impossible for us to know what's being discussed.
"X implies Y to me, but I see Z currently. Will Z become Y?"
Now, if I'm reading you right:
X = Astrid's will be a D&D forum in the reorganization
Y = Astrid's will receive editorial monitoring to keep non-D&D stuff out
Z = Astrid's currently allows a lot of non-D&D discussion.
You then characterize G0 as saying "No. X has no implication on Z." and "Any change to Z anywhere will be announced." You clarify the latter as "an obfuscation and qualifies the previous response."
I disagree it is an obfuscation. He wrote it in response to my question asking him to clarify the first statement. And it absolutely clarified the first statement for me. I really can't see how you think the latter obfuscates the former. The seem perfectly congruent with one another.
You know what? This is exactly what I was discussing when I said "everybody has to draw a line somewhere as to when they just have to stop responding to people asking questions". I think this is my line. Sorry to cut the conversation short.
The decision on where a forum lives will not change the editorial policy of that forum, unless otherwise stated.
It's my way of saying "OMG, please don't panic based on where things are organized in the forums, because everything needs to live someplace. If we have a change in the editorial policy of ANY forum, we'll announce that specifically and independently, not by changing which heading it falls under in the forum heirarchy!1!!" =)
I'd appreciate it folks help spread the word in the future, when people mistakenly assume that proposed new location of a forum suggests an implied editorial policy change.
I'm only asking so that I can be clear on this (yes, it was FL editorial requests that swept through Astrid's last night. Threads were brought to my attention, and I acted on them), I am not trying to be antagonistic, honest!
Astrid's is about women in gaming, not specifically women in D&D, correct? So, threads discussing women and [insert other game here, or gaming in general] are OK?
Regardless of where Astrid's happens to be located, yes?
So, if I started a thread about female NPCs in Star Wars d20, or in World of Darkness, or WoW, it would still be OK?
I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. I am not expressing an opinion on this at the moment, simply because I want to understand how I can help with the forum upkeep without going overboard. :D
Periodically, we have a discussion about Astrid's Parlor, what it means, what it should be, etc. Right now, I'm not able to get into a discussion about Astrid's Parlor editorial policy because of other things on the front burner. So in this case, what's previously been decided is what we have to move ahead based on, which will in part be based on the interpretation of that by people in the VCL program, and by CM itself.
In this case, the question has been asked if the editorial rules for that forum have been changed. The answer is: "No they have not." The follow up question is: "Okay, then what are they?" While I'd love to further clarify, it would take a lot of time to add to anything we've already said and discussed in previous threads on the topic. In fact, to speak further about what Astrid's is all about, I would need to reread through all those threads to recall the exact reasoning and explanation used in discussion about it in the past.
So I don't mean to make this a case of "see what we already posted", but I'm not able to dedicate the time that the issue deserves right now to write up a detailed editorial explanation. Sorry!
The follow up question is: "Okay, then what are they?" While I'd love to further clarify, it would take a lot of time to add to anything we've already said and discussed in previous threads on the topic. In fact, to speak further about what Astrid's is all about, I would need to reread through all those threads to recall the exact reasoning and explanation used in discussion about it in the past.
So I don't mean to make this a case of "see what we already posted", but I'm not able to dedicate the time that the issue deserves right now to write up a detailed editorial explanation. Sorry!
And this my friends, is why design and development documentation is so important to ongoing system support!
The only thing I would add to this conversation is that I currently think Astrid's is trying to do too much. The kinds of conversations that happen there are so varied, and it makes it next to impossible to talk about anything intelligently without the thread getting wildly off topic, or locked. Honestly, I know I've suggested it before, and it was a wildly unpopular suggestion at the time, but I really think that Astrid's needs a few, smaller subforums. For example, some people people want to be able to post general discussions in a forum that is friendly to women. Some people want to post discussions about issues of feminism in gaming, without fear of criticism from naysayers. Finally, some have expressed an interest in debating the subject of whether or not the game is friendly to women and/or if there should be any changes to the game to draw more women into the game. I think these are all fine conversations, but the way the forum is currently structured, they often get jumbled up. For example, if someone new to the board posts a general discussion thread, it is often unclear whether or not they meant to post it in Astrid's Parlor, because they may not be familiar with the rule that they need to say they want the opinions of the Astrid's Parlor posters. Also, sometimes people just want to talk about how to get Wizards to respond to certain concerns about the treatment of women in game, and too often those conversations degenerate into a shouting match about whether or not the issue is really worthy of discussion. Finally, there are people who just want to wail at the wind for a little while in the vain hope that what their ideas will change minds (guilty), but it's often unclear whether other posters (including the OP) were intending to wail at the wind too, and it can be frustrating, because these conversations often overtake the thread. Having separate subforums for each of these kinds of conversations, I think, would make things a lot more congenial, and it would be easier to direct certain conversations. However, again, I realize that this has been a wildly unpopular idea in the past, so if people are still opposed to it, I don't think we need to get into another debate about whether or not it will segregate the boards, etc. So if you're still opposed to it, just say "Sorry Dove, but I still think you're crazy," and I'll drop it.
That's all I have to add to the conversation. Carry on.
...because they may not be familiar with the rule that they need to say they want the opinions of the Astrid's Parlor posters.
I'd like to go on record, since you brought this up, and say that this is the dumbest rule ever designed, anywhere. The fact that anything is on-topic for Astrid's as long as I say "I want the opinion of this forum" is asinine.
I'd like to go on record, since you brought this up, and say that this is the dumbest rule ever designed, anywhere. The fact that anything is on-topic for Astrid's as long as I say "I want the opinion of this forum" is asinine.
Well personally, I think the rule is a little dumb myself. I also think it's dumb to let anyone come in and complain about the fact that the board exists, and to let them tell everyone why they think people shouldn't be discussing women's issues in gaming. However, I lost both of those arguments a long time ago, and to people who frequent Astrid's Parlor a lot more often than you. So while I respect your opinion, I think it should really be up to the people who frequent the messageboard to determine what kinds of conversations they want to have, and how they want to moderate them.
In any event, the anything-is-on-topic rule for Astrid's Parlor doesn't have anything to do with the discussion of forum reorganization, so I don't think we should devote too much time and/or energy to discussing it.
In any event, the anything-is-on-topic rule for Astrid's Parlor doesn't have anything to do with the discussion of forum reorganization, so I don't think we should devote too much time and/or energy to discussing it.
I agree. Let's start a new thread if people want to (re)explore that tangent.
Okay, which one of you told Mike about the hidden forum? Was it you, Autumn?
