23 replies to this topic

[Dauth]

Since the opening of the PA the activity spiked and then fell away to a point where posts are now rather rare. We were wondering if the posting members of the PA would like to give comments and suggestions on the future of the PA.

Dauth & Wiz,

[Rich19]

I think the rules are a little too draconian, which puts people off posting/making threads. But I do see why they were put in place as well... Difficult situation.

[Wizard]

Suggestions for improvements to all aspects are welcome

[CommanderJB]

To be entirely honest I always expected to see this happen to the PA. I think that it's not necessarily such a bad thing - I doubt it's really the rules that are to blame for keeping people away - just the seriousness of the topic and the generally small number of people actually interested in political issues and willing to go to the lengths necessary to outline them and discuss them here. It's not a failure in that I think the PA is a necessary area for discussing issues in a way that the rest of the forum will not allow, and I'd probably support moves to decrease the formality, but I don't think that the lack of activity is unexpected nor terrible. It's just the way it happens and if political issues crop up then we know we can come here to discuss them.

[Alias]

CommanderJB, on 28 Jan 2009, 12:04, said:

To be entirely honest I always expected to see this happen to the PA. I think that it's not necessarily such a bad thing - I doubt it's really the rules that are to blame for keeping people away - just the seriousness of the topic and the generally small number of people actually interested in political issues and willing to go to the lengths necessary to outline them and discuss them here. It's not a failure in that I think the PA is a necessary area for discussing issues in a way that the rest of the forum will not allow, and I'd probably support moves to decrease the formality, but I don't think that the lack of activity is unexpected nor terrible. It's just the way it happens and if political issues crop up then we know we can come here to discuss them.

The old Deep End, while it had its own flaws, was a far better system than the current one. I'd say the rules ARE the thing to blame here... everyone should be able to post without "application", as well as being able to create a thread without going through a rather painful procedure (one of the reasons why I haven't started many threads). If a user of the section is deemed bad enough they should just be expelled from the section - exclusion after action, not before.

I believed that the new system may work, and I helped how I could to make it work - but that was false hope. We can tell by the level of activity that it is a failed system. While the Deep End was too lenient, the Political Area is too strict. Common ground between the two needs to be found in order to make a truly successful section.

Also - this should be moved to Questions, Feedback & Suggestions, so those not able to access the Political Area can comment on this.

~A

[Rayburn]

I'm inclined to agree with Alias. The DE may have had its problems but it's not like there was a constant onslaught of political flamers who totally ruined the entire forum. Those who stepped out of the line received their punishments and the rest of us moved on; it was still enjoyable. I was quite optimistic when the PA was launched but now I also have the feeling that it's just overregulated. Let's just get back to the system used in the DE: Let everyone post and open topics and punish those who break rules with an immediate removal of their PA posting rights, length depending on the heaviness of the offence.

[Libains]

As Rayburn and Alias have pointed out, it would be fair to say that the PA is overregulated, to such a point that the forum is loosing some of it's life because it's too much effort. I for one really wanted this to work and to be a good place to post and discuss things, but it seems as though it's sometimes too much bother, especially with the extensive ruleset. As it stands, the subforum lacks people posting, and sometimes it takes people who wouldn't always be seen as the most intellectual members of the board to stir things up a little - it provokes discussion, no matte who is involved. I would say that posting rights be granted to all, and the rules relaxed slightly to accommodate for the rest of the forum as well. However, I would also say that it is within the power of the moderators, of this forum specifically, to crack down on members and topics to a greater degree than is seen elsewhere, so as to prevent any of the problems created by the Deep End. Should a topic appear inappropriate, the moderators have the power to lock it immediately, and leave it locked pending discussion, with the topic either staying locked, or edited to a degree of appropriateness. People will become accustomed to this, and as such the forum should regulate itself as it is, with people who wish to post having a free reign, as much as they would anywhere else, whereas those who consistently damage the integrity of the subforum will soon find their every move regulated, or just plain barred; that is if we have anyone who would do such a thing here. While letting this subforum out into the rest of the forum may result in more work for the moderating team, at least at first, it should prove to be the success, whilst the Political Area has currently not been one. A possible middle ground would be the creation of new topics, which only pre-approved members, such as those who are currently posting here, would be capable of doing - those who did not apply for these rights would simply be able to reply to these topics - should be a simple alteration of the permission masks already in place. I would like to see this place work, I really would, but currently it cannot, as it is being strangled by bureaucracy.

Oh, and I agree with Alias that this should make it's way to the Feedback forum - those who cannot post can still see what goes on in here, and should have the right to voice their opinions.

[Wizard]

Well to begin with Dauth and I wanted to find out what you chaps who can post would like to see happen. Hence why it's here.

This forum was always intended to be an experiment. Following the closure of the DE it took quite some discussion and several attempts to bring this back and I think you have all appreciated why we have these rules in place atm. That is not to say these rules will remain in place forever, or that the PA will remain forever.

We have considered the idea of allowing those with access to post their own topics which would obviously create more topics to post in. Regarding the idea of allowing anyone access, this I can't see happening yet, though we may give it some consideration.

More points of view still welcome.

[CommanderJB]

Indeed, moving this to Questions, Feedback and Suggestions makes a great deal of sense. Done.

[Alias]

Wizard, on 28 Jan 2009, 20:47, said:

Well to begin with Dauth and I wanted to find out what you chaps who can post would like to see happen. Hence why it's here.

This forum was always intended to be an experiment.

Do you seriously think you can use that excuse twice? That is the EXACT same reason you had for creating the Deep End... I can hardly think that a more restricted experiment will yield better results than a more open one (actually, I believe the more open "experiment" would yield the better result). Why redo the same "experiment" anyway!?

Wizard, on 28 Jan 2009, 20:47, said:

Following the closure of the DE it took quite some discussion and several attempts to bring this back and I think you have all appreciated why we have these rules in place atm. That is not to say these rules will remain in place forever, or that the PA will remain forever.

I (and I'm sure quite a few others) appreciate Dauth and yourself bringing politics back, but now we've seen you've taken the completely wrong route in doing so. The Political Area will be closed from inactivity if you do not remove some of the restrictions currently in place.

Wizard, on 28 Jan 2009, 20:47, said:

We have considered the idea of allowing those with access to post their own topics which would obviously create more topics to post in. Regarding the idea of allowing anyone access, this I can't see happening yet, though we may give it some consideration.

How about you give us reasons as to why people should not be able to post by default? We've provided our reasoning (greater activity in a practically dead subforum), how about you provide yours for keeping the user exclusion.

[Dauth]

I deliberately posted this in the PA to get PA reviews. I do not want a stream of Xenophobes and Children asking "Why wasn't I let in?". This thread is being moved back and staying until the PA leaders decide to move it.

Alias we did not create the Deep End, we did not look at the suggestion for the deep end this was done off our own backs to bring back politics in some sensible way. After a thread recommending the purging of 250m people in the USA the DE was closed and will stay that way. I am of the opinion it would be better to close the PA than let in the people we have kicked out.

We are looking at removing restrictions, but I can give you a list of 10 members who I never want to see posting in a political thread since all they do is promote suffering for other people.

[Rayburn]

``I am of the opinion it would be better to close the PA than let in the people we have kicked out.´´

'Close' as in 'shut it down' or as in 'keep out those who don't apply'? I'm asking this because if it means the former, I'm dead against it.
The fact that there'll always be some nutters who can't handle it is no reason why an entire medium should be banned/abolished. True, some nasty things have been said in the DE but the majority of those who participated in the discussions didn't cause much trouble. If anything, the DE was TOO liberal because those who broke the rules were not punished quick/harsh enough but the PA on the other hand is over-regulated which, at least in my opinion, makes the discussions rather formal, dry and stale since no-one dares to use even the slightest bit of irony/humour/controversy because that could potentially violate one of the rules. What I'm trying to say is that some middle ground would be nice: Don't make it as strict and serious as the PA by letting outsiders post as well but don't make it as lenient and potentially messy as the DE by immediately punishing those who can't handle themselves. I really don't see anything wrong with scrapping the whole application process. During the days of the DE, anyone could post, there were some offensive remarks here and there but the crux is that these 'flame wars' rarely ever spread beyond the DE. It's not like these political discussions ever posed a threat to the harmony of the entire forum or anything...Plus, if everything else fails, one could just ban the violators and delete their topics which, in most cases, were generally marked down as the brain-fart of an uneducated fool rather than a serious statement which caused any real offence anyway; the cleverer give in.

Edited by Rayburn, 28 January 2009 - 10:52.

[Alias]

Dauth, on 28 Jan 2009, 21:23, said:

I deliberately posted this in the PA to get PA reviews. I do not want a stream of Xenophobes and Children asking "Why wasn't I let in?". This thread is being moved back and staying until the PA leaders decide to move it.

More user exclusion? Everybody should have a say about this, regardless if they were let in or not.

Dauth, on 28 Jan 2009, 21:23, said:

Alias we did not create the Deep End, we did not look at the suggestion for the deep end this was done off our own backs to bring back politics in some sensible way. After a thread recommending the purging of 250m people in the USA the DE was closed and will stay that way. I am of the opinion it would be better to close the PA than let in the people we have kicked out.

My use of "you" was probably too general. By "you" I meant the moderating/administration team, let us call them "admods". I'm sure that to create the Political Area you had to put the idea through other admods otherwise it would've never been approved. I'm sure that if this was an "experiment", as Wizard said, the other admods would've said that it's already been done before. On the Deep End thing, it is MUCH, MUCH easier on the long run for all parties for you to just remove the "nutters", as Rayburn calls them, and leave the others in peace rather than just remove the whole bloody section.

Dauth, on 28 Jan 2009, 21:23, said:

We are looking at removing restrictions, but I can give you a list of 10 members who I never want to see posting in a political thread since all they do is promote suffering for other people.

Well then. Do not allow those 10 members to post, and allow all others. Simple.

Edited by Alias, 28 January 2009 - 10:44.

[Libains]

Because of the way that this forum works, I frankly haven't seen much of a discussion take place at all, aside from on your manifesto Dauth, which prompted people to discuss. Most of the threads and posts here show opinions. But that's it. The opinions of the people in this subforum are pretty airtight, and don't allow much room for discussion, leaving us with what are essentially lists of opinions. This is partly due to the the rules, which are restrictive, such as 'no trying to change people's opinions'. That is the essence of a discussion. However, as mentioned earlier, the people who post here have airtight opinions, and makes it extremely difficult for any other member in here to reply to them, instead starting on a new tangent. Take, for example, the recent thread by Rayburn concerning the EU. Through no fault of anyone in particular, the thread became a list of opinions, with very little discussion. The subforum lacks that spark that some of the non-posting members can offer, just to light a fire under the arses of some of the threads. Notice, how the majority of posts on the whole forum are kept alive, or started by, the newer members of the forums. Such is the way for the whole forum, and by cutting the majority of them off from the PA, you are hindering any progress that could be made, as the members posting here are more veteran, and as such are more measured, and less likely to post consistently. This isn't meant to be offensive in any way to anybody, it's just how I see it.

Undoubtedly, there are people here who could cause the Political Area difficulties. No matter them, however, the forum should be mature enough to learn from the mess that was the Deep End, and apply that learning to this new subforum. Rules/punishments/etc are still very debatable, but as I see it, without the whole forum demographic, we will likely never have the required activity to keep this forum from being closed and removed.

[Wizard]

Granted that the DE wasn't totally awash with flames in every post and from my memory there were some interesting discussions that took place. However, whether the punitive measures that were handed down back then were either not quick enough or handled badly, that is besides the point. We elected to do this this way. This topic is a chance for you to give us your feed back on that. The political leaders decided to restrict this topic to those that can, and it's our perogitive to do so. If we want to open that up to the wider forum then we will make the decision ourselves. The general public do not get a say in the way a mod is run, what goes on behind closed doors stays there. Consider the PA in the same way.

What we are saying is that it's probably unlikely we will allow the whole forum to post to avoid any [even remote] chance of history repeating. I can't reiterate enough that the whole "Stadmin" team consider this a gaming forum and not really a venue for political discussion. Therefore any type of political discussion was/is going to be regulated. How regulated is a constantly evolving process. We have seen that the contributions have tailed off and have responded accordingly. We will continue to do this, even in infinitely small incremental steps as we see fit to ensure a smooth forum.

All your comments have been noted and will be discussed.

[Alias]

Wizard, on 28 Jan 2009, 22:18, said:

Granted that the DE wasn't totally awash with flames in every post and from my memory there were some interesting discussions that took place. However, whether the punitive measures that were handed down back then were either not quick enough or handled badly, that is besides the point. We elected to do this this way. This topic is a chance for you to give us your feed back on that. The political leaders decided to restrict this topic to those that can, and it's our perogitive to do so. If we want to open that up to the wider forum then we will make the decision ourselves. The general public do not get a say in the way a mod is run, what goes on behind closed doors stays there. Consider the PA in the same way.

If you're going to be so centred on doing it one way, why even bother asking us...? This is like a mod team starting a feedback thread yet ignoring all the comments posted.

Wizard, on 28 Jan 2009, 22:18, said:

What we are saying is that it's probably unlikely we will allow the whole forum to post to avoid any [even remote] chance of history repeating. I can't reiterate enough that the whole "Stadmin" team consider this a gaming forum and not really a venue for political discussion. Therefore any type of political discussion was/is going to be regulated. How regulated is a constantly evolving process. We have seen that the contributions have tailed off and have responded accordingly. We will continue to do this, even in infinitely small incremental steps as we see fit to ensure a smooth forum.

Why is music, religion, philosophy or weaponry any more related to "gaming" than politics? As I mentioned in previous arguments about the regulation of discussion about religion comparing to the regulation on discussion about politics, either ban both of them or allow both of them, otherwise that is a completely flawed argument.

[Wizard]

It's not completely flawed because it is incredibly rare that music, religion, philosophy or weaponry generate the same flames that occured in the DE and those we are trying to prevent now.

As for how we change, asking others for opinions is a way to see if you can think of something we can't. How we apply and interpret those suggestions are the Stadmins/PA leaders choice.

I also see that this thread is becoming derailed from people suggesting options for change to arguing about decision making, which is not this threads purpose.

[Alias]

Wizard, on 28 Jan 2009, 23:00, said:

It's not completely flawed because it is incredibly rare that music, religion, philosophy or weaponry generate the same flames that occured in the DE and those we are trying to prevent now.

Prevent the perpetrators from posting there.
Problem solved.

Wizard, on 28 Jan 2009, 23:00, said:

I also see that this thread is becoming derailed from people suggesting options for change to arguing about decision making, which is not this threads purpose.

I replied to what was posted.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 28 Jan 2009, 12:08, said:

Wizard, on 28 Jan 2009, 23:00, said:

It's not completely flawed because it is incredibly rare that music, religion, philosophy or weaponry generate the same flames that occured in the DE and those we are trying to prevent now.

Prevent the perpetrators from posting there.
Problem solved.

They can't post here, so you're right, problem is solved.

[Alias]

Wizard, on 28 Jan 2009, 23:14, said:

Alias, on 28 Jan 2009, 12:08, said:

Wizard, on 28 Jan 2009, 23:00, said:

It's not completely flawed because it is incredibly rare that music, religion, philosophy or weaponry generate the same flames that occured in the DE and those we are trying to prevent now.

Prevent the perpetrators from posting there.
Problem solved.

They can't post here, so you're right, problem is solved.

Problem is solved with a huge number of unnecessary side effects. As I said before "Exclusion after action, not before."

[Wizard]

Which is not the way we chose to do it at the time which is why it's under review.

NOW THIS IS THE FINAL POST ON THIS PARTICULAR DEVIATION.

Unless someone has an alternative suggestion to make there will be no further discussion. Failure to follow this rule will result warnings being handed out.

NO EXCLUSIONS.

[Dutchygamer]

I don't really care for the warning or not, but here's my suggestion: this is a modding forum right? Why not stay at the stuff we are suppose to do: modding. What do games and politics have in common? Next to none. I know this will revert back to the days that DE was closed and politics where not allowed, but what was wrong with that? If you want to discuss politics, do that on a forum that is meant for that, not a game modding forum...

[Rich19]

Dutchygamer, on 28 Jan 2009, 16:11, said:

I don't really care for the warning or not, but here's my suggestion: this is a modding forum right? Why not stay at the stuff we are suppose to do: modding. What do games and politics have in common? Next to none. I know this will revert back to the days that DE was closed and politics where not allowed, but what was wrong with that? If you want to discuss politics, do that on a forum that is meant for that, not a game modding forum...

To be honest, I don't really come here for the modding any more. Games with better graphics these days are getting harder to mod to a high quality, so putting all our eggs in that particular basket would ultimately doom the forum.

[Wizard]

Ok, this has gone far enough. This thread has deviated from it's intended topic so I am locking it now.

We are looking at applying some of the suggestions made and we will announce then in due course. Thanks for the suggestions.