Advantages:
(1) It's obvious where to place reviews and impressions
(2) People wanting to comment on or discuss specific reviews and impressions can do so without risk of "review" threads taking up vital space for other miscellaneous threads.
Would threads about reviews from other site go in this proposed forum, or in Mikes "D&D: Across the web" forum?
Some threads like that were merged into the megathread as well, and what is to keep such threads in the proper place rather than moving and moving them back again?
I think a review forum sounds good rather than the current method. I prefer form to follow function, and the metathread is disordely chaos rather than organization.
Maybe just a "First Impression" forum?
gleemax.com and use the same log in as the boards. :D
We actually don't need a forum for it because everyone has a blog where they can even set one of the tag/options to "review".
gleemax.com and use the same log in as the boards. :D
No thanks. I don't visit these forums for a MY[WotC]Space account.
The only reason I type in gleemax is for the main domain name after I type forums for the subdomain in the URL.
I have no use for the rest of the "gleemax initiative".
Likewise the point to having an off-topic forum in the D&D section is so people can discuss off-topic things with like minded people or with other players of D&D.
No need to NOT have a review section for D&D products within the D&D forums. Otherwise you might as well remove the off-topic forum here and everywhere else, and combine them (including the Thickett) into one big off-topic forum under gleemax.
So a reviews forum within the D&D forums is a more logical step with the precedent set by the Off-topic Tavern.
We actually don't need a forum for it because everyone has a blog where they can even set one of the tag/options to "review".
gleemax.com and use the same log in as the boards. :D
I, for one, always go directly to the forums and didn't even know I had a personal blog!
ps. I checked out www.gleemax.com and will, most likely, continue to go directly to the forums. Sorry.
We actually don't need a forum for it because everyone has a blog where they can even set one of the tag/options to "review".
gleemax.com and use the same log in as the boards. :D
By this statement alone some one could be snarky and say then we don't need forums at all,just use the blogs period. End of story. See you later Goody bye. I think a review forum is a good idea if done corectly,and right now i don't have a defention of correctly.
and right now i don't have a defention of correctly.
Well, that's obvious. "Not wrong." Duh.
I think I'd like to see a "first impressions/general discussion" thread for a product, plus let people who are really going to put time into it to do a more comprehensive review where they put forward a list of "design goals" and evaluate the product with regards to those goals. Any discussion that pertains to those goals (including other comprehensive reviews) would fall under that thread, but someone could start a new thread with a different design goal that they're using as a figure of merit. You might also have threads for specific discussions, like a discussion of Skill Challenges (Review of Skill Challenges, for example), but that might belong more properly on the General Discussion boards.
I can see it now. Welcome to the "EDITION WARZ" sub forum...verily a gold mine i am sure.
It could get its own section between the 4E forums and "previous editions". Later, they could add a forum specifically for thread-crapping. lol
:D
As long as the circular arguments and duplicate posts are made, we'll have to continue to merge threads. (Perhaps it's time to start a new one. Second look mega thread!)
Eh, no it's not really needed. It seems people are asking for a board to let them flame each other, and that's against the rules. I guess by default (some would call it entrapment.), anyone posting on it should get a warning.
:D
As long as the circular arguments and duplicate posts are made, we'll have to continue to merge threads. (Perhaps it's time to start a new one. Second look mega thread!)
A big thanks to everyone involved (CM/VCLs/CS) for being firm on this.
Sometimes I'm annoyed when a thread that hasn't yet turned into a war-zone gets Mega-Threaded, but if that's what it takes to discourage infinite copies of the same thread, I'll live with it. I'd rather lose some productive discussion than all productive discussion.
The "Give the People What They Want" crowd has to realize that these boards are not a democracy. We have moderators and rules. If the folks who run the show don't want a screaming free-for-all, there won't be one. It's a free internet, and anyone who wants to host and manage yellateachotherabout4e.org is welcome to do so.
And just because someone finds himself consistently outside the community standards doesn't mean there is no community. It just means his behavior consistently places himself outside the community. Which is why sometimes one must accept that not every community is for every individual.
If the General Discussion forum doesn't feel like a community it is because so much of the conversation (by pro- and anti-) seems more designed to tear each other down than to listen to what one another has to say.
Eh, no it's not really needed. It seems people are asking for a board to let them flame each other, and that's against the rules.
But that's not what anyone who has posted in favor of this idea have asked for at all. Reviews and discussions of new products don't have to be flame wars. Many of the reviews and discussions on General Discussion were productive and interesting, but they ended up getting lumped in with the unproductive discussions since, honestly, you guys have to be fair. The people who have requested this forum have listed several positive reasons why the forum would be of benefit to the community, and your stated fear that it will turn into an authorized flame war isn't really supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the proposed review forum can be moderated just like the general discussion forum, but won't require such strict moderation since many of the threads which currently are taking time and energy to moderator review and moved to the megathread could be left alone, freeing up internal resources for other projects.
The general discussion forum is, basically, "stuff about DnD that doesn't have a home elsewhere." Since reviews don't have a home elsewhere, they end up on General Discussion. It's good odds, however, that a Review forum will have sufficient post count to justify its existence, which is the main criterion I've seen listed around here for whether or not a topic should have its own forum. Thus, it seems like a review forum is justified. Furthermore, I think it will be of great benefit to the site and the community.
When did "community" means "mobocracy"?
It's true that this website is not owned or controlled by the people who use it. That does not, however, mean that the users cannot express their desires to the people who do own and control it. There's nothing wrong with this dialog. We're not whining and we aren't feeling any sort of entitlement to get a forum like this just because we want it. We're just expressing our desire and using reasonable and fair methods to persuade the owners to give it to us. It's very healthy and reasonable to articulate and ask for what you want. It is unhealthy and unreasonable to feel entitled to what you want, but that's not what is happening here.
But that's not what anyone who has posted in favor of this idea have asked for at all. Reviews and discussions of new products don't have to be flame wars.
That's not what people were asking for, but I can give you a 100% guarantee that it is exactly what will happen.
Someone will give a review, and express like/dislike of a particular piece of fluff or a mechanic. People that will disagree will then jump in, and chances are good that the threads will descend into the realm of a flamewar.
While it would be possible for the WizOs to keep things clean, the fact that a significant number of the posters on these forums seem to have no impulse control at all, and would not be able to resist biting on that nice, big juicy hook that the troll would drop would result in *a lot* of work for the both the CS and CM teams.
It's true that this website is not owned or controlled by the people who use it. That does not, however, mean that the users cannot express their desires to the people who do own and control it. There's nothing wrong with this dialog. We're not whining and we aren't feeling any sort of entitlement to get a forum like this just because we want it. We're just expressing our desire and using reasonable and fair methods to persuade the owners to give it to us. It's very healthy and reasonable to articulate and ask for what you want. It is unhealthy and unreasonable to feel entitled to what you want, but that's not what is happening here.
Umm... I apologize if you thought that I considered anything said in this thread as "whining" or a sense of entitlement. I do not believe that to be the case. I was simply responding to hellmute's preceding sentence "Then it isn't much of a community is it?" which was itself in response to emwasick's statement "The 'Give the People What They Want' crowd has to realize that these boards are not a democracy."
hellmute was asserting through his rhetorical question that a board that is not a democracy is therefore not a community. I was merely taking issue with that fallacy. You can have community without democracy. I did not thereby mean to imply that I agreed with emwasick that there is a "'Give the People What They Want' crowd."
Sorry for any confusion.
Most of the people amking the decisions are not even part of the community as they do not participate in it, just issue orders form on high as if the community was filled with its employees.
I think the CO boards found a new home, as well as a few other forums because of the dictator attitude rather than wanting to work with the community, they prefer to dictate terms to them.
Again, not a very welcome atmosphere and not something that will make Gleemax "the online home for all gamers".
You don't tell me what to do in my house (thread/mind).
It isn't like the forums users are going in and destroying furniture or something when asking for an additional forum to be added or a forums name to change to something the community likes rather than something one person decided sounded good.
A community is NOT s business. When the forums are treated less like a business and more like a place for all people then that is what it will become.
See Games Workshop forums for further details on this matter.
That's not what people were asking for, but I can give you a 100% guarantee that it is exactly what will happen.
Then arrest everyone who buys a car for drunk driving because they MIGHT do it in the future.
Arrest everyone who drinks for drunk driving because they MIGHT do it in the future.
See how silly it sounds?
Pretty bad when the management of a forum starts accusing users of wrongdoing before even a proposed idea come to fruition.
Might as well ban every user the instant they sign up because they MIGHT start a flame war, or make personal attacks in the heat of a discussion, or may even make an off-color statement that could offend some random reader as "hate speech".
Time to close the forums down to prevent any of that from happening! That is obviously the safest route to go. Blame first and make sure to include everyone including yourself that might with to review some 3PP product or even WotC product because you are a forum user so obviously you would post a product review just to start a flame war.
hellmute was asserting through his rhetorical question that a board that is not a democracy is therefore not a community. I was merely taking issue with that fallacy. You can have community without democracy. I did not thereby mean to imply that I agreed with emwasick that there is a "'Give the People What They Want' crowd."
Sorry for any confusion.
No you assumed that is what I was "asserting".
God how I love when people read what they want into something rather than just reading the thing.
I said and will use small plain words to prevent any further confusion from any reader (native English speaking or other) that "a forum without any democracy is nothing more than a dictatorship which can never become a healthy and thriving community"
Then arrest everyone who buys a car for drunk driving because they MIGHT do it in the future.
Arrest everyone who drinks for drunk driving because they MIGHT do it in the future.
There is a *very* big difference between "might" which you are using, and "100% guarantee" which I am using. It is that difference which makes me lean towrds saying no to the idea, rather than yes. If I could be reasonably certain that most of the threads would *not* turn into flamewars, I would have said yes. However, the acts of a significant number of posters on these forums leads me to believe otherwise.
Pretty bad when the management of a forum starts accusing users of wrongdoing before even a proposed idea come to fruition.
You can use past behaviour to predict future behaviour. I am comfortable with my prediction of what would happen.
Might as well ban every user the instant they sign up because they MIGHT start a flame war, or make personal attacks in the heat of a discussion, or may even make an off-color statement that could offend some random reader as "hate speech".
Again, I am going to point out the difference between might (your word) and 100% guarantee (my word)
might (from http://www.answers.com/topic/might) - Definition#2
[indent]
2. Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may: We might discover a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
[/indent]
Guarantee (from http://www.answers.com/topic/guarantee) - Definition #1
[indent]# Something that assures a particular outcome or condition: Lack of interest is a guarantee of failure.[/indent]
When did the term community come to mean dictatorship? Just because WotC owns the forums hardware (if they do) and rent the forums software for the yearly fee from Jelsoft, doesn't mean they are the only ones who have a say in what the community wants.
But they are the ones who have the final say in what the community gets.
You don't tell me what to do in my house (thread/mind).
If you make it on their forums, they get to tell you what to do in your thread.
That's not what people were asking for, but I can give you a 100% guarantee that it is exactly what will happen.
I strongly disagree, mudbunny. I don't think a specific "Reviews" forum would be any more (or less) problematic than if those reviews were in D&D General or on gleemax blogs or whatever. I don't think the replies will be any worse (or better) than the replies to any other thread on topics about things like "Why I like 4e" or "My thoughts on Pathfinder" or whatever.
There will absolutely be jerks who roam the forum looking to pick a fight with somebody who says mean things about his favorite product; there will absolutely be people who will respond to the jerks. But that's true regardless of where the thread exists.
Personally, I think a "Reviews" forum has a lot of merit as an idea. Especially if it allows for the review of 3rd party products. I'll even go a step further and say that a similar forum should be added to the Gleemax forums to cover all the non-D&D games/products out there.
I strongly disagree, mudbunny. I don't think a specific "Reviews" forum would be any more (or less) problematic than if those reviews were in D&D General or on gleemax blogs or whatever. I don't think the replies will be any worse (or better) than the replies to any other thread on topics about things like "Why I like 4e" or "My thoughts on Pathfinder" or whatever.
There will absolutely be jerks who roam the forum looking to pick a fight with somebody who says mean things about his favorite product; there will absolutely be people who will respond to the jerks. But that's true regardless of where the thread exists.
I think that having them concentrated in one place would strongly attract trolls and those wishing to cause other sorts of disruption. Granted, my perception/viewpoint may be (probably is) tainted by the 4E C&C forum.
Personally, I think a "Reviews" forum has a lot of merit as an idea. Especially if it allows for the review of 3rd party products. I'll even go a step further and say that a similar forum should be added to the Gleemax forums to cover all the non-D&D games/products out there.
I agree that it is a good idea, and I would love to see it implemented. However, I feel that it would be more trouble than it would be worth. Again, I grant that I may be more pesimistic than normal about this due to the 4E C&C forum and my experience in there.
When did the term community come to mean dictatorship?
Community is independent of the means by which it is governed. Dictatorships have communities. Anarchies have communities. Democracies have communities.
Just because WotC owns the forums hardware (if they do) and rent the forums software for the yearly fee from Jelsoft, doesn't mean they are the only ones who have a say in what the community wants.
They don't have a say in what the community wants. They have a say in what the community gets.
You don't tell me what to do in my house (thread/mind).
I do... and you are performing your role very well... mwa ha ha ha!
When the forums are treated ... more like a place for all people then that is what it will become.
The D&D forums are not a place for "all people". Not every community is for all people (except perhaps the "world community", which is fairly axiomatic). Heck, it's not even a place for all people who play D&D. It's a place for people who want to discuss D&D pursuant to the standards set forth by CM.
A guy who only wants to post his D&D characters in pornographic poses is not welcome in the community. A guy who plays D&D and wants to post his real-world political manifesto in the "Character Building: Leaders" board is not welcome in the community. A guy who plays D&D but spends his time discovering forum members' real-life identities and then posting pictures of them to the Community Business boards is not welcome in this community. A guy who exhorts people to make real swords, pretend to be their D&D characters, and run around killing their parents is not welcome in the community.
And they are not welcome, even if a majority of users like these people. They are not welcome by Community Management.
That's the way these boards work. You knew this (or should have known this) when you first became a member.
I understand you're bitter that Community Management doesn't run the boards the way you would run them if you were in their position. But claiming that it's not a community because of perceived community mismanagement (even if that perception is shared by many other people) is 1) factually in error and 2) utterly unproductive.
This is a community, regardless of how it is run and who feels excluded.
I strongly disagree, mudbunny. I don't think a specific "Reviews" forum would be any more (or less) problematic than if those reviews were in D&D General or on gleemax blogs or whatever. I don't think the replies will be any worse (or better) than the replies to any other thread on topics about things like "Why I like 4e" or "My thoughts on Pathfinder" or whatever.
There will absolutely be jerks who roam the forum looking to pick a fight with somebody who says mean things about his favorite product; there will absolutely be people who will respond to the jerks. But that's true regardless of where the thread exists.
Personally, I think a "Reviews" forum has a lot of merit as an idea. Especially if it allows for the review of 3rd party products. I'll even go a step further and say that a similar forum should be added to the Gleemax forums to cover all the non-D&D games/products out there.
QFT. These reviews will happen, whether we have a specific place for them or not. Putting them on General Discussion does nothing to dissuade the people who are posting them. Having a reviews forum will at least make it easier to find this stuff, and to find non-review posts on the general discussion forum.
I strongly disagree, mudbunny. I don't think a specific "Reviews" forum would be any more (or less) problematic than if those reviews were in D&D General or on gleemax blogs or whatever. I don't think the replies will be any worse (or better) than the replies to any other thread on topics about things like "Why I like 4e" or "My thoughts on Pathfinder" or whatever.
There will absolutely be jerks who roam the forum looking to pick a fight with somebody who says mean things about his favorite product; there will absolutely be people who will respond to the jerks. But that's true regardless of where the thread exists.
Personally, I think a "Reviews" forum has a lot of merit as an idea. Especially if it allows for the review of 3rd party products. I'll even go a step further and say that a similar forum should be added to the Gleemax forums to cover all the non-D&D games/products out there.
Agreed. I think this is a good idea.
Yes, there would be flaming, but two things would be accomplished.
A) break the edition war's hold on the general forum (as it moves to the new forum), allowing the rest of us to return there.
B) Allow for specific threads in the new forum to be salvagable, as opposed to one massive insalvagable megathread.
Ya'know there wouldn't be any flaming edition wars if the 4vengers and hater trolls would just DIAF.
QFT
QFT. These reviews will happen, whether we have a specific place for them or not. Putting them on General Discussion does nothing to dissuade the people who are posting them. Having a reviews forum will at least make it easier to find this stuff, and to find non-review posts on the general discussion forum.
C'mon guys you can't realistically expect the VCLs to act like actual responsible community leads and act on what their community is telling they want...That would mean they would have disagree with GZ, and then what kind of yes people would they be?
In all fairness to the VCLs though, even if they wanted to and even if they suggest a new sub forum it isn't going to happen. GZ has already decided that it won't, so he'll ignore anything and anyone that suggests otherwise. Up to and including logical reasoning, and clear evidence...When it comes down to whats good for the community, and him being right, him being right will win every time, and thats why nothing will ever improve.
C'mon guys you can't realistically expect the VCLs to act like actual responsible community leads and act on what their community is telling they want...That would mean they would have disagree with GZ, and then what kind of yes people would they be?
Go ahead. Ask G0 how many times I have told him that I think that CM made a mistake.
The thing is, once CM makes a decision, I can accept that the decision that was made is the decision that I have to support, whether or not I agreed with it when it was first proposed.
As for me listening to my community, so far the indications from the DDi community is that I am doing a decent job.
There is a *very* big difference between "might" which you are using, and "100% guarantee" which I am using.
So you think that 100% of the posts in some review forums would be flamewars?
That no single user on these forums can post without it becoming a flamewar?
I think that indicates a very big problem with the community or the subject matter of the forums themselves that eneds to be addressed by the forums providers.
If the users are not trusted to post in a civil manner then I revert to the previous. Time to close the forums.
Assuming good faith is the better part of the job of running online communities.
You need to find and prove bad faith was used in order to do something about it.
Assuming bad faith from the start means a very short future for any forums.
So you think that 100% of the posts in some review forums would be flamewars?
In my experience, yes. I may be wrong. I can live with it if I am wrong or if CM creates the forum.
That no single user on these forums can post without it becoming a flamewar?
If people had control over what responses were posted in their threads, yes, I feel it could be done without flamewars. However, once the OP is posted, people can reply to it.
In all fairness to the VCLs though, even if they wanted to and even if they suggest a new sub forum it isn't going to happen. GZ has already decided that it won't, so he'll ignore anything and anyone that suggests otherwise. Up to and including logical reasoning, and clear evidence...When it comes down to whats good for the community, and him being right, him being right will win every time, and thats why nothing will ever improve.
I'm all in favor of pointing out G0's mistakes, Wings. I certainly do it often enough. But I think in this instance you might be a bit unfair. In [thread=1060447]this thread[/thread] on the same topic, Mike's post in reply to Webster's statement certainly at least implies he likes the idea and is willing to consider it. At the very worst, to the best of my knowledge, Mike has never come out and said the idea was a bad one.
I think that having them concentrated in one place would strongly attract trolls and those wishing to cause other sorts of disruption. Granted, my perception/viewpoint may be (probably is) tainted by the 4E C&C forum.
I agree that a reviews forum would be a troll magnet. Let's face it- there are plenty of people who have no qualms about giving their strong opinions on a product they don't even own.
The worst part is that a reviews forum would seem to sanction some of the activities of the trolls. Some people would write 10 negative "reviews" a day and hide behind the notion that the reviews forum existed as a place to share opinions. Moderation would be difficult, since you can't really restrict users based on whether or not they actually own/have read the books.
I agree that it is a good idea, and I would love to see it implemented. However, I feel that it would be more trouble than it would be worth. Again, I grant that I may be more pesimistic than normal about this due to the 4E C&C forum and my experience in there.
On the other hand, reviews of 3rd party products would be fine. Anything WotC makes will get some people to defend it 'til death and others to launch kamikaze attacks against it. 3rd parties provoke far less emotion in most cases.
However, I think it would be best to segregate the reviews. Discussion of, say, Pathfinder right next to discussion of GSL products is just asking for trouble. But if there are distinct sections (e.g. 4e supplements, 3e supplements, OGL-games, etc) that would probably be good.
On the other hand, reviews of 3rd party products would be fine. Anything WotC makes will get some people to defend it 'til death and others to launch kamikaze attacks against it. 3rd parties provoke far less emotion in most cases.
However, I think it would be best to segregate the reviews. Discussion of, say, Pathfinder right next to discussion of GSL products is just asking for trouble. But if there are distinct sections (e.g. 4e supplements, 3e supplements, OGL-games, etc) that would probably be good.
This is a possibility that might work (separate forums), however I am not sure that the traffic each individual forum would get would be high enough to warrant its own forum.
mudbunny's Avatar
mudbunny mudbunny is online now
Volunteer Community Lead
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gatineau, Quebec, Canada
Send a message via AIM to mudbunny Send a message via MSN to mudbunny
Default Re: Constructive response to megathread idiocy
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellmute View Post
So you think that 100% of the posts in some review forums would be flamewars?
In my experience, yes. I may be wrong. I can live with it if I am wrong or if CM creates the forum.
Quote:
That no single user on these forums can post without it becoming a flamewar?
If people had control over what responses were posted in their threads, yes, I feel it could be done without flamewars. However, once the OP is posted, people can reply to it.
Wow, just wow!
Wow, just wow!
I am not sure what that post is supposed to show hellmute.
I think I have been quite clear in this thread why I think the way that I do.
Weren't you commenting in a different post that people can't tell you what to think? Why am I not afforded the same right?
Um... why'd you quote mudbunny's profile instead of his post?
I am guessing because he feels that the fact that I am a VCL, I am not allowed to have my own opinions. That I should follow the wishes of the community, and that the community, by some coincidence, happens to feel the same way that he does. His copying my profile and a post I made is apparantly proof of that.
However, like I said above, my reasons I have explained, quite clearly and in the open. I also have been quite clear that my thinking may be biased.
However, what I am assuming bad faith on the part of is on the part of those posters who are bound and determined to not allow others to enjoy an edition of a game different from that which they enjoy, be they "h4ters", "Avengers" or any other label that gets applied.
I am not assuming any bad faith on the community at all. The community is an amazing community.
However, what I am assuming bad faith on the part of is on the part of those posters who are bound and determined to not allow others to enjoy an edition of a game different from that which they enjoy, be they "h4ters", "Avengers" or any other label that gets applied.
But those posters are going to be jerks no matter what. They aren't sitting around thinking, "Man, I hope WotC creates a review forum! Then I can really tell people what I think about 4e! :evillaugh "
If somebody is consistently disrupting the forums by being a h4ter or 4venger or whatever, then make a case with Customer Service that they ought to be warned. Put together a list of posts demonstrating a history of poor behavior.
I think it's a mistake to run this (or any) community out of fear of what somebody else is going to do.
There might be good independent reasons to have a Product Review board. But fixing the Edition Wars isn't it.
Right, but the Product Review section was suggested as a way to clean up the General Forums. mubdunny is properly pointing out it will clean up the General Forums only by creating a new wastebin for edition wars. It won't in fact solve the problem it was proposed to change. Just like closing the C&C board only moved the fighting to the General Boards.
There might be good independent reasons to have a Product Review board. But fixing the Edition Wars isn't it.
And this is wear I get pessimistic. Here we have one forum leader, I think Zherog is a lead, (You must have the patients of saint to continue to volunteer for this company) and a half dozen members of the community asking for something to be done about a serious problem on the general boards. And is far from the first thread asking for this, nor will it be the last, sadly.
The response we get, from people supposedly representing us (2VCLs and another forum lead --or whatever wrecam is calling himself these days)? That what we want simply will not happen. Nor is there any point to further discussion as the discion has been made, and there is no going back on it. What we think be damned. Why? Because they are too afraid of a few jerks in the community. So instead of running the risk of a sub-forum getting full of flame wars, we'll have a general forum full of it -- and community manage will bliss fully ignore it the whole time.
AThe response we get, from people supposedly representing us (2VCLs and another forum lead --or whatever wrecam is calling himself these days)? That what we want simply will not happen.
I didn't say that. I said that an open Product Review forum will not solve the problem that it is proposed to solve -- the edition wars currently located in General Discussion. It will merely move them into the Product Review forum.
I specifically stated there might be good independent reasons for a Product Review forum. (And, in fact, Gamer_Zer0 has proposed a Product Review forum with directed discussion, to keep out trolls or any stripe.)
So, please don't misrepresent what I've written, TPK.
instead of running the risk of a sub-forum
Product Review wouldn't be a subforum, even if created. CM has stated that there not be any new subforums. It will be a forum just like "Future Releases" is now.
And this is wear I get pessimistic. Here we have one forum leader, I think Zherog is a lead, (You must have the patients of saint to continue to volunteer for this company) and a half dozen members of the community asking for something to be done about a serious problem on the general boards. And is far from the first thread asking for this, nor will it be the last, sadly.
You will find that I have started a couple of threads on this same topic, both about the original 4E C&C forum, and also about the General Discussion forum. There has been discussion on what can be done that is within the powers that are currently held by VCLs, Fls and Wizos, and balancing that with the time and effort it would take to implement them. There is also the desire of WotC to do those things. Some of them, yes, they would have did some things towards improving the GD forum, but at what cost to the community and the image of WotC.
In addition, there is another large group of users that needs to be taken into account. The users of the forums. No matter how much advbice and guidance is given to users on how to ignore trolls, baiting threads and to not post inflammatory things, CM and CS cannot control what is being posted.
The response we get, from people supposedly representing us (2VCLs and another forum lead --or whatever wrecam is calling himself these days)? That what we want simply will not happen. Why? Because they are too afraid of a few jerks in the community. So instead of running the risk of a sub-forum getting full of flame wars, we'll have a general forum full of it -- and community manage will bliss fully ignore it the whole time.
I am not sure that it is accurate to say that I was originally against the idea because I waas afraid of a few jerks. More accurate to say that I felt that the "few jerks" who would go out of their way to disrupt the forum would do more damage to the community than would be gained by having the forum.
I have since changed my mind and support the idea.
I also reject the idea that CM is "blissfully ignoring" the problems in the GD forum. Webster and his FLs work *very* hard with the forum. The WizOs do what they can to keep the flaming and trolling to a minimum. However, as I mentioned above, the community itself has to take some responsibility.
Product Review wouldn't be a subforum, even if created. CM has stated that there not be any new subforums. It will be a forum just like "Future Releases" is now.
Some people do not understand the term "subforum".
D&D is a subforum for Gleemax.
Every forum inside the D&D subforum is a subforum to D&D.
It is the category heirarchy system that creates these subforums...
That said....
The product review forum wasn't suggeste to my knowledge as a way to clean up GD, but to stop the megathread mergers and leave some threads with valuable content intact.
A side effect would be cleaning up GD and spreading the traffic there out, but the main goal would be a place for threads to belong rather than appearing as they do not belong.
The problem mud is that webster is but one person and the WizO (is it like fish? does WizO plural get an "s"?) have other threads and forums to handle than just GD.
Not that webster is unable to do the task, but like Mike, has been given too large a task for one person....
Some people do not understand the term "subforum".
I don't know why you're being insulting to TPK. He made an innocent error. ;)
The problem isn't the use of "subforum". TPK wrote "instead of running the risk of a sub-forum getting full of flame wars, we'll have a general forum full of it". Clearly he was positing that Product Review would be a "subforum" different from the General Discussion "forum." That's untrue. Whether you want to call the General Discussion forum a forum or a subforum, the Product Review board would be the same type of (sub-)forum.
The product review forum wasn't suggeste to my knowledge as a way to clean up GD, but to stop the megathread mergers and leave some threads with valuable content intact.
That was one of the reasons proposed in this thread. Certainly, there have been many others (as I also specifically stated).
I was addressing your post about subforums wrecan, and CM attitude towards them without understanding that EVERY forum under vBulletin IS a subforum due to the category system.
mudbunny just slipped in there unnoticed while I was reading threads and had lasy opened this one before making a "quick reply".
So let me clear it up REAL good to indicate who I was replying to.
I was addressing your post about subforums wrecan
Then you somehow missed the fact that my use of the term was merely adopting the word that On the wings of TPK had used, and to which I was replying (and quoted!)
So let me clear it up REAL good to indicate who I was replying to.
The winky emoticon in my post was to indicate in a nonserious and friendly way that I knew you were replying to me -- and that you clearly missed the fact that my use of "subforum" was merely repeating On the wings of TPK's use of it, and not making some statement of the underlying nomenclature of the vbulletin system.
Can you please not derail this thread (as you have done so many others) by pretending we were ever talking about the capabilities of the vbulletin system?
The megathread would be less of a problem is the threads merged were handled differently.
Are you suggesting it does not have any bearing on the problem at all?