Editor in Chief Bill | 24 Jul 2014 5:22 a.m. PST |
Some of us were talking last night, and this idea came up: What if we added a new forum, specifically themed around game designers? Each designer who wanted one could have their own board, named after them. To encourage designers to participate, this forum would have special rules to allow designers to exclude any participant for any reason (well, except for moderators!). Does this sound interesting? |
Rebelyell2006 | 24 Jul 2014 5:26 a.m. PST |
Sounds like an interesting idea, but people with grudges against specific people (like those who targeted Sam Mustafa) will latch on to them. |
Winston Smith | 24 Jul 2014 5:28 a.m. PST |
I think it would be a bad idea for the OP to be able to exclude anybody. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 24 Jul 2014 5:34 a.m. PST |
but people with grudges against specific people (like those who targeted Sam Mustafa) will latch on to them. And Sam could exclude them from his board. |
OSchmidt | 24 Jul 2014 5:34 a.m. PST |
Dear thread So what are the criteria to be considered a "game designer?" and essentially get your own private pulpit? My own thought is that anything that institutionally detracts or vitiates the basic equality of members beyond "gamers" will be harmful and deleterious. Otto |
MajorB | 24 Jul 2014 5:34 a.m. PST |
You've already got one. It's called "Gane Design". |
Editor in Chief Bill | 24 Jul 2014 5:35 a.m. PST |
So what are the criteria to be considered a "game designer?" To have written a set of wargame rules that have been published or are available to download. |
tberry7403 | 24 Jul 2014 5:40 a.m. PST |
Unless part of that function would be an automatic notice in that forum that an individual has been excluded. Just a simple messae like: "X has excluded from this forum". Regular viewers would know the reason. |
Winston Smith | 24 Jul 2014 5:43 a.m. PST |
On top of the bad vibes from stifle and ignore, "Exclude" would just add more fuel to the fire. Bad idea. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 24 Jul 2014 5:45 a.m. PST |
Unless part of that function would be an automatic notice in that forum… I don't think this would need to be automated, as I don't expect there would be many exclusions. It could be handled informally by a forum moderator. |
MrHarold | 24 Jul 2014 5:47 a.m. PST |
I think it would be a fun experiment. I like the idea of curated boards, designers could even use them as their official forums if they didn't have the time to put another one together and keeps the communities from fragmenting. |
martin goddard | 24 Jul 2014 6:10 a.m. PST |
Bill, marvellous idea, thank you. Can we have a RFCM one to cover all Peter Pig rules martin |
Sgt Slag | 24 Jul 2014 6:15 a.m. PST |
It actually does make business sense: there is no such thing as bad press… It would also be free advertising, free publicity. It could work. Cheers! |
Joes Shop | 24 Jul 2014 6:24 a.m. PST |
|
Broglie | 24 Jul 2014 6:31 a.m. PST |
Of course rules writers could always just start their own blogs and TMP could keep a register. Less work for TMP. If you do decide on the proposed board then – (1) I think it should also include those who are trying to write or publish their first set of rules without necessarily being in print already and (2) that there should be a third person as moderator such as one of the editors. The Rules Writer could then appeal to the editor to block certain people on the basis of certain criteria and not just because they don't like them. Just my two euro worth. |
Murphy | 24 Jul 2014 6:32 a.m. PST |
Not sure how I feel about this…after seeing some of the potential attitudes from designers, and companies, ("The War Event" comes to mind)…this could be a time bomb ticking down carefully concealed in a basket of kittens…. |
streetline | 24 Jul 2014 6:34 a.m. PST |
Can we have a RFCM one to cover all Peter Pig rules Duely seconded! |
Early morning writer | 24 Jul 2014 6:36 a.m. PST |
Ambivalent about this at best. The good? A moderated board – TMP can use some moderators (I know that wasn't the original intent but a small amount of 'guidance' might avoid some of the worst elements of this site (recent days being a stark example of that need). The bad? There must be scores, perhaps hundreds of individual designers. I'm not against new boards – but not that many! And then you have manufacturers – like Peter Pig. Since TMP is something akin to a daily newspaper (only more – sometimes less), you'd be cutting your nose off (with a laser) to spite your face on the revenue side of things. And I'm pretty sure you need that revenue to keep this thing going. (Yes, I know, I'm not a member at this time, was once briefly courtesy of a friend, might be again.) So, I'd vote against that. I wouldn't have a problem with a single board devoted to Professional Designers. I don't know about locking people out of the boards, though, not without a stepped series of warnings and trial suspensions to send a message. Anyone not getting the message, by all means, shove them out. Perhaps as you expand the editorial staff you can move more in the moderated direction. I expect most boards have a few consistent posters with a reasonable tone and an ability to bring a balanced perspective to the discussion – and it should be possible to get at least one of those individuals to volunteer to moderate a board of specific interest. Just have to guard against such individuals becoming a spokesperson for their favorite rules or figure lines. That should always be a democratic process (revenue stream again). Maybe have a trial period on a few of the most popular boards by putting a moderator in place and seeing how the users respond. A few will squeal loud and long, that's guaranteed; that's also one of the problems with TMP in my opinion. Too many really good conversations get too quickly derailed into base meaninglessness as one or two individuals snipe back and forth at each other. Though I must also say, there has been marked improvement in general tone of late, perhaps resulting from having those additional editors. But it is your site so you can do with it as you please. However, I feel you bear a heavy responsibility here because TMP is the closest thing there is to a worldwide discussion point for this hobby, by a mile or two. That must be a source of both pride and sometimes some pretty awkward decision making vis-a-vis personal preference measured against adhering to the commonweal. |
Mr Elmo | 24 Jul 2014 6:43 a.m. PST |
I think it would be a bad idea for the OP to be able to exclude anybody. The idea of excluding people would turn the boards into a fanboi echo chamber. Designers can already do that with their own boards and forums (Battlefront, Warlord Games, etc.) |
Repiqueone | 24 Jul 2014 6:58 a.m. PST |
No. I for one would find it totally unnecessary. I know of no designer, including Sam, who is wishing to avoid critique or discussion. That is a substantial misinterpretation of what has been said by any designer. If one writes for the wargame community then one expects criticism and should respond to it. However, it would be good if that criticism was focused, informed, and had a level of maturity. It would be also a good thing if it were not an ongoing restatement of long standing positions. To name names, I have been made aware of postings by Bart Allen on Frothers that are simply obscene, and directed at a gamer user-named Altius (whom I do not know) and also at me by name. He has also made thinly veiled accusations and innuendos here on TMP which are unwarranted, wholly untrue, and shows an unhealthy obsession with me on more than one occasion. He is the perfect example of the sort of unreasonable exposure a person and a designer can be subject to, solely based on views from the Blue Fez being brought to the main forum. McLaddie is a different case of a nearly decades long unvarying critique which has been discussed to death for over a decade. It never changes. Sam, I believe, just got tired of the SOS and decided to enjoy his time in Europe by concentrating on his research and not the profitless discussions of "theory" that seem to never end. At some point it would be only human for a person who had put his theory to practice in a published ruleset to hope that the more strident theorists would do likewise, thereby giving substance and definition to their ideas. Otherwise, they cannot be held to the same standard of practice and reality. Publishing also requires the person to put his money and time where his mouth is. I can honestly say, as I did on the "Sam is Leaving TMP" thread, that there is not much upside to a designer discussing anything on TMP. Many do not, and fewer will in the future. Part of this is just the nature of open forums where quasi-anonymous people, that lack judgement and maturity, post with the same weight with others of far greater experience and insight. Part of it is lax editing. Gresham's Law works for ideas, judgement, and insights as well – the bad chases out the good. Make no mistake, that is already happening. I've always subscribed to the idea of the 80/20 rule. 80% of wargamers are pretty good guys, 20% have problems. On the reverse, 20% of wargamers contribute 80% of the new ideas and things of value. The problem for lightly moderated or unmoderated forums is that the 20% of gamers with "problems" (maybe fewer) can eat up 80% or more of the oxygen. They have a tendency to drive off the 20% of the real contributors and make the forum less useful for the 80% of wargamers who just want good info. I'm not sure there is an answer for TMP. It certainly isn't solved by packing designers off on a reservation, or their own private rock. That assumes that they would wish to do that. They are better off just using their own blogs and websites, and well edited and curated outlets both on-line and in print. I'm sure criticisms of all sorts will continue to be posted on TMP, and that is fine, but other more trustworthy resources with recognized, informed, reviewers, and far less petty grudges and adolescent acting up, will be the primary places for most designers to speak up. The best immediate move would be to eliminate the most adolescent aspects of the forum and get rid of the Blue Fez isolation (just make it public but require all political topics to be there), stifles, ignores, and certain forums that reek of a 12 year old's treehouse club (I.e. More Boobies). If you expect people to act like grown-ups they just might surprise you. |
MajorB | 24 Jul 2014 7:02 a.m. PST |
|
OSchmidt | 24 Jul 2014 7:19 a.m. PST |
So Bill, do you mean PROFESSIONALLY PUBLISHED or do you mean excluding anyone who does not sell for profit. Does that include me who does not sell his designs but gives them away> |
Texas Jack | 24 Jul 2014 7:48 a.m. PST |
Bill, would this forum be open to supporting members, or can basic members participate as well? |
streetline | 24 Jul 2014 7:56 a.m. PST |
one or two individuals snipe back and forth at each other Oh no they don't. Anyway. If the designer is willing, and Martin seems to be for starters, then give it a shot. A trial with one or two willing designers can't hurt can it? |
Ed Mohrmann | 24 Jul 2014 8:06 a.m. PST |
Agree with Repiqueone. I really don't see a need. I've written scads of rules specific to the skirmish games I've run in the past (for lotsa years) and never considered publishing them – people can have 'em for free and usually got copies if they played in a convention game. |
Repiqueone | 24 Jul 2014 8:17 a.m. PST |
I do note that the primary solution on TMP for all problems is added segregation of the membership into more and more specific "silos." Rather than any attempt at extolling a greater sense of community, a wider acceptance of ideas and approaches, the solution always seems to be to insure more and more gated communities of like-minded people. Is this a good thing? Rather than broadening everyone's understanding of wargaming, its range of interests and ideas, we seem to see little silos or forts being created which insures no contrary ideas will ever confront the denizens of these forums. Shouldn't a hobby resource that reaches several thousand wargamers, of all stripes, be more interested in providing a big tent instead of a small fort? We need fewer boxes, silos, and forts, and more people open to the wider aspects of the hobby as Thinglum, Featherstone, and Scruby were in their past publications, and Henry Hyde is now. |
Weasel | 24 Jul 2014 8:17 a.m. PST |
Its nor a bad idea but I fear it'll make it more confusing to keep track of conversations. |
Silurian | 24 Jul 2014 8:33 a.m. PST |
I agree with Repiqueone. A breaking down of forum walls rather than more, and especially no more negative exclude/ignore/eliminate options. |
YogiBearMinis | 24 Jul 2014 9:19 a.m. PST |
A forum for actual publishing designers to discuss their craft sounds interesting, but creating a separate board for every (even just "major") designer--combined with the boards we have for the games written by these designers--would make the balkanization of this site far worse than it already is. I think there are many like me, people with a wide variety of interests, who are already befuddled by the number and overlapping nature of so many boards. Less, not more. So, when Peter Pig (for example) gets a board, and I have a question about using GW terrain in a Bloody Barons game, I would be posting on: Peter Pig the designer Medieval Discussion Warhammer Discussion Fantasy General Discussion Terrain and Scenics etc |
War Artisan | 24 Jul 2014 10:05 a.m. PST |
Does this sound interesting? No. |
Mr Elmo | 24 Jul 2014 10:24 a.m. PST |
And Mr. Elmo's response is the kind of response these drive-by-jerks are looking for. It's really more of a customer experience issue; but, TMP IS free so it's not like it costs me anything to not visit. |
etotheipi | 24 Jul 2014 10:25 a.m. PST |
In the absence of tagging, crossposting between the genre and "official" board becomes a substitute. Since I publish a multi-genre set of rules, this (or tagging) would make sense. If you were interested in discussing the mechanics of the game, it would allow you to browse collected posts across all genres. Since the exclusion of people is optional, I would guess that publishers who exclude users would be judged by the community for actually doing that. a time bomb ticking down carefully concealed in a basket of kittens Where does one purchase such a basket? |
Editor in Chief Bill | 24 Jul 2014 10:26 a.m. PST |
So Bill, do you mean PROFESSIONALLY PUBLISHED No. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 24 Jul 2014 10:29 a.m. PST |
Bill, would this forum be open to supporting members, or can basic members participate as well? I was thinking to have it open for everyone… A "premium" forum only for Supporting Members is an interesting idea, though. If Supporting Members want another perk, that is. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 24 Jul 2014 10:30 a.m. PST |
As I have said before, the best and brightest have left TMP. This is a bad idea. Could you elucidate, or are you just being the voice of gloom and doom? |
Repiqueone | 24 Jul 2014 12:10 p.m. PST |
Returning to the efficacy of such an idea: what is the incentive for a Designer? Any designer that sells his own games wishes to build his own website, not Bill's. He wants the email contacts and addresses in his files, not Bill's. At the moment, Sam, Richard, Brent, Osprey, and even smaller concerns, such as mine, all have developed websites, Yahoo! forums, etc, that THEY control. They can already dump the weirdos. They have an audience that appreciates their designs and, as a customer service, they provide answers and suggestions as required. The sole benefit that TMP provides to any established designers, and their companies, is access to the widest number of potential customers. If the designers get siloed into discrete little boxes on TMP, they are defeating the very purpose of being here! Not to mention that answering the many inquiries and questions, both online and by email, takes time. Any designer that has good sense will take care of his immediate, established, customers, before taking too much time on a specific designer's forum on TMP. Now, a small start-up may think that "WOW!, I have access to the TMP users!" However, that is a momentary and brief boost, and you have gained nothing if that cannot be built upon. Long term, this is a hobby of word of mouth, and certain reliable sources. Every set of rules that appears on TMP is the best thing ever written-until it isn't. I remember when Tom Dye was at Attactix, and everytime you walked in he would let you know that the best set of rules ever written had just arrived! All of this has a simple answer. Intelligent moderation and editorial concern, just as was shown by the people in the past such as Featherstone, Thinglum, Bryant, and some, like Henry Hyde, in the present day. Bill, this is your business and your forums. You have responsibility here, whether you want it or not, to think of the greater good of the hobby, in addition to your revenues. This means a true vision of where Wargaming can be improved as a hobby, and not a constant appeal to some mythical consensus as to what that might be. The great leaders of the past in wargaming did just that. None of them took a vote. All truly tried to be fair. All looked beyond their immediate gains, and none of them played to the basest elements in the hobby. You have a choice, and it isn't starting some half-assed Designer's forum. You need to be a leader and a person that has a broad vision of what this hobby can be. You need to be a responsible editor. I hope you try. |
Baron Trapdoor | 24 Jul 2014 12:49 p.m. PST |
It's a full time gig just keeping track of TMP these days, I do understand why many respected personalities are leaving. |
etotheipi | 24 Jul 2014 12:49 p.m. PST |
what is the incentive for a Designer? * Audience, as you mention. * No overhead for maintaining accounts, spam filters, moderators for in appropriate content, etc. * Exposure through cross-posting in other forums, especially if news articles were cross-posted to the publisher's and appropriate genre forums. * Persistence for news articles, especially if news articles were cross-posted to the publisher's and appropriate genre forums. |
Mako11 | 24 Jul 2014 1:24 p.m. PST |
Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps the ability to exclude some, but only if they get a bit over the top, and/or make overly numerous personal/product attacks, instead of just providing constructive criticism, e.g. someone badgering the designer repeatedly, without end. |
doc mcb | 24 Jul 2014 2:05 p.m. PST |
Yes, I like Bill's idea. Let's do t. |
Bandit | 25 Jul 2014 6:36 a.m. PST |
I am uncertain what problem this solution is in search of. Cheers, The Bandit |
doc mcb | 25 Jul 2014 10:53 a.m. PST |
Well, I like the idea of a Splintered Light or McBride board. I have started a lot of threads on the Game Design board, and many of them are generic enough. But others have been focused on my own rules and my own world. Don't know how many TMPers are interested, but if only one or two are, it's worth it simply as a convenience. |
Bandit | 25 Jul 2014 12:32 p.m. PST |
Editor: To encourage designers to participate, this forum would have special rules to allow designers to exclude any participant for any reason… If what motivates a designer to participate is the ability to exclude other participants I am at a loss to understand what that designer has to offer the community. Cheers, The Bandit |
doc mcb | 25 Jul 2014 1:14 p.m. PST |
I am always glad for helpful criticism, but the tone of it matters. Some people just cannot be polite. |
Bandit | 25 Jul 2014 1:18 p.m. PST |
I am always glad for helpful criticism, but the tone of it matters. Some people just cannot be polite. No argument there doc, but what lures you in to participate: a polite settings or the ability to exclude people? Cheers, The Bandit |
Dye4minis | 25 Jul 2014 2:33 p.m. PST |
Bob Jones wrote: I remember when Tom Dye was at Attactix, and everytime you walked in he would let you know that the best set of rules ever written had just arrived! Why of course! As a salesman and store owner, nothing is more fun than to see your customers getting excited about a new game system, figures, paints, etc. It's what makes the hobby so great- the sharing in the excitement of new things with your buddies. (IIRC, we did the same for Piquet when it first came out- the problem was that demand far outstripped the ability to supply!) But it was exciting to actually get to see and buy the new things in the hobby and take it home with you….now! As one who tried to introduce a new approach to game design (well, new to me since finding discussions about game theory and fresh, new ideas has been elusive), here was an exciting yet a somewhat surprising eye opener. I did my best to answer questions posed about what I had posted and got accused of having the largest amount of postings from one person in a thread on TMP, ever. So that was more significant than the incredible exchange of ideas that took place? I think not, yet for all but 1 or 2 posts, everyone was civil and the questions and comments were composed with thought and respect. Bill, like Bob reminds, this is your business to run as a business first. The fact that it also serves as the world wide source for all things miniature gaming is now well established. Just like when I ran a store and tried to make sure my customers were made aware of new releases in their fields of interest, I think this new board idea for designers could be yet another feature TMP has to offer to it's customers. You don't have to be a published designer to have good ideas! (BTW, I authored Marshal's Baton back in 92 for Stone Mountain/Adler 6mm figs and financed it on my own.) A free flow of ideas with as little moderation as possible would be the best IMHO. As long as people can discuss things in a civil manner, why not? Those who find it boring or NIQ (Non-Interest Quotient) always have the option not to click on it. I am sure you started TMP with a vision of what you wanted it to be. Whatever that vision was/is, stick to it as it seems to remain growing from what I can see from this OP. Thanks! Tom Dye |
doc mcb | 25 Jul 2014 6:25 p.m. PST |
Bandit, I see those as compatible, perhaps even complimentary, and not opposed. Hopefully the regretable and necessary exclusion of a lout would be very rare. You can look at some of the long threads I initiated on the game design board, relating to theology in fantasy settings. Lots of debate and fundamentally opposed viewpoints -- but with gentlemanly restraint and good will. And tremendously helpful to me, as well as being great fun. Bill is much more King Log than King Stork on TMP, I believe appropriately. But sometimes a little more hands-on moderation can be useful. I have a great many ideas about games and rules and worlds, and some of them are good. And some of them are not. And I can't always tell which is which. The TMP community is a great resource that I'm happy to make use of, and having a "sounding board" board would be excellent. But not if I have to put up with trolls and chronic troublemakers. |
Repiqueone | 25 Jul 2014 7:11 p.m. PST |
Well since Bill has offered a potential board to anyone who has written a set of rules, published or downloadable, including freebies, I guess almost anyone could qualify with his downloadable one pager. So, just observing the threads that have occurred over the years there are probably hundreds of potential "Designer" boards that Bill can set up and everyone can have his board. OR Bill could decide to limit the people who receive the privilege, and we can guess how that would be received. And, of course, with every "designer" having his own board, there would be more designers than players visiting each board. The postings might make Tango look like the Prince of Moderation. Even more pertinent is if the designers of the major rules ( who already have sites, Yahoo! Forums, and email lists) see this as fractionalizing the postings on their product on TMP into a sea of sites, will they participate? Has Bill asked any of them? I bet not. Would he assign them to their own boards whether they want that or not, "just to be fair?" The most common board for several designers might simply involve one posting…a link to their site. I think this idea might deserve a bit more considered thought. |
doc mcb | 25 Jul 2014 8:05 p.m. PST |
If there is interest a board will flourish. If not, it will die a natural death. I assume that Bill will respond to requests, which those with no interest need not make. Bob, you know better than most how much energy and attention and commitment and determination it takes to get a set of rules finished and tested and published. If there are authors of one page downloadables who have such qualities, why not give them a chance? I had a lot of good ideas before anything was published, and having a good forum for discussion would have helped then -- as it will help now. |
Repiqueone | 25 Jul 2014 9:09 p.m. PST |
Doc, I suppose if someone has those abilities he will make his own chances with or without his own TMP board. But, if Bill wants to devote his time to this effort, and if he's cool with his major rule company sponsors, I have nothing against people having a board, but as I said above, this idea has a lot of hair on it, that will become quickly apparent. I suppose there is no finite limit on the number of boards under TMP4.0, or Bill's time, and with ignore the users can sort it out to some degree, but that blocking may leave large numbers of "designers" without canoes, out on that island with Tango. I guess we'll just see if the idea flies and works. Should be interesting. |