262 replies to this topic

[Drew]

Learning how to communicate is very useful, indeed. I would definitely recommend it.

I agree. Using obscene/rude expressions (as some users did in this thread) and posting in an arrogant/agressive style just reflects how uneducated and primitive the user is. It has no real effect. Civilized people communicate in a civilized way.

Baronious, you are aware that the guest was making a jab at you, right? It's pretty clear that the only person who was confused by my initial statement was you. And not even you, since you made it very clear that you, yourself, also understood what I was talking about when you decided to start playing semantics with me.

Edited by Drew, 22 June 2006 - 11:10 PM.

[jester]

Also I would like to introduce the idea of a quick round of applause for everybody who tried their hardest and bravely soldiered on even when the lights of Valinor where fading.

So the faithfull gathered, not waivering in their staunch defiance and recited the gospel during their long dark vigil:
'Look to my coming, at first light, on the nth year. At dawn, look to the East.'

Alas, the time of reckoning is at hand.

[Grunker]

- "Do you have a suggestion?"

- "Yes, the ones that have been made 50 times already."

- "But do you have a suggestion?"

Sorry JC, but although it seems I have overlooked the suggestions made, my comments were really to the people still discussing should we/should we not remove said tools

I'm sorry if I repeated myself.

(Incidentally, I'm fairly sure this thread has had the most different people posting as "Guest" in Studios history.)

Yea.

Right. To re-cap, the suggestions were:

-First and foremost separate out the broken and non-broken tools and be upfront about it, without using the titles that have falsly positive connotations
-Designate specific people to maintain the tools that need additional work that are operational, but buggy (MOS editor) and to support the tools that are fully operational

-Forbid or at least restrict the access to the tools that if used have a potential to dissuade users or cause the rest of the community grief down the road

Obviously the suggestions for restricted use ranged from:

a) removal from download, replacing it instead with the historical information;
having the tools available for research purposes on special request;
c) having the tools available from a section that in no uncertain terms specified that those tool are not for use;
d) having them available for public download with a current disclaimer;
e) and finally, having them available without any restrictions at all

I don't think it was discussed if TeamBG will consider itself liable for whatever damage the broken tools will do and man-hours of those who tries to troubleshoot the arising issues. I simply do not know if they did so historically.

Great. So take the discussion from here, if indeed further discussion is needed. Although I think everyone agrees suggestion ?e? is a bad idea.

[Creepin]

IIRC TeamBG should be largely remembered for its unfriendly/unhelpful attitude towards newcomers and the lack of guest posting.

What is wrong with disabling of guest posting? If someone has really important thing to ask he quite could register to ask it. OTOH if even author himself think of his post as of "not important enough to bother with registering" why should community waste their time reading it?

More to the topic: what is the problem with these broken tools? "Remove", "restrict download", this kind of crap... All that should be done is a tag "Broken" placed near d/l link. If someone will d/l it anyway, then either he's perfectly aware of what and why does he doing, or he's his own enemy and no-one but himself is to blame for his own stupidity

Edited by Creepin, 23 June 2006 - 04:23 AM.

[Baronius]

What is wrong with disabling of guest posting?

Guest posting is originally a possibility for those who doesn't want or can't register, or cannot log in from certain places. However, usually those users are the most loud when shouting for its availability who love to read (or participate in) moronic threads full of spam, and those who doesn't want to take responsibility for what they say.

Drew: okay let's get over this. I often try to pay attention to things which improvement may be beneficial for other users. (Such as making a slightly ambigious statement clear.)

Edited by Baronius, 23 June 2006 - 04:39 AM.

[Baronius]

Baronius, I tried very hard to keep that out of sight and just like everyone else swallow your poisonous remarks, but first you absolutely undeservedly bash people who do NPC mods, and trash this thriving sub-genre in general, calling it 1/2 day unispired projects; now you label people who prefer not to register a gang of violent spammers.

You're twisting my words (and using words I've never used, i.e. giving words to my mouth). I didn't want to bash people who make NPC mods, in fact I told that most such works e.g. at G3 or PPG are professionally made. I only reacted to NiGHTMARE's comment about G3 "more modding-orientated" than TBG was -- in fact I found it outrageous (or ridiculous? Everyone can decide). I told that G3 has many small and a few bigger projects, and reminded that TBG, independently from its policies and mistakes, supported more longer/challenging projects than e.g. G3 (and was more versatile). I pointed out that just because NPC mods is the main fashion today, and TBG didn't have any (if I remember correctly; or at least didn't support too many if any), it doesn't mean it was less modding oriented.
Later, if I remember correctly, NiGHTMARE (IIRC it was he) clarified that he also meant the high number of off-topic discussion at TBG which are not present at G3 -- if I have understood it correctly. While I don't agree with that entirely, I can only add that offtopic threads is not the best base of comparison of how modding-oriented a site is. Modding (and related) activities should be compared if compared. (But I've also added that in my opinion, these comparisons are pointless, especially comparisons with the old TeamBG.)

As for the guest posting issue: just like the first part of your statements, this part is also false:

now you label people who prefer not to register a gang of violent spammers.

I won't repeat myself, I said that most of those who bring up the matter of guest posting are exactly those who just want to flame and attack (or have nothing better to do), and actually wouldn't benefit from the enabled guest posting at all (e.g. because they're registered users, usually). Guest posting is not enabled on many well-working and active gaming forums either, and no one has any problem with it. Certain people having problems with the old TeamBG are just using this as an additional argument to bash the old TeamBG.

Guest posting is nice, but it has disadvantages as well. From security and other aspects, it is not the best option.

Secondly, in my experience I recieve plenty of posts with suggestions, polite critisism, high praise from non-registered guys. Stripping a person of anonimity where anonimity is possible is not necessary, and frankly undemocratic.

• Anonym suggestions can be made through email, e.g. by using a freemail
  
• Eventually registered, accounts are also anonymous, because they are not validated and you can pretend to be anyone
  
• You can call your registered account as Mr.Anonym/Ms.Anonyma (i.e. choose something like this as username), and use a freemail for the email address the forum asks you to provide.
  
• If I remember correctly, I listed some serious advantages of guest posting in my previous post. However, disabled guest posting is a common practice nowadays, and it has a reason (actually more good reasons). Who really wants to send his/her suggestion or comment to its target, he/she will find a way to. Maybe not as easy as through guest posting, but sometimes we give up certain advantages in order to gain other ones.
  Furthermore, each site with a forum has its own policy, and this should be respected. If a forum admin decides to disable guest posting, it's none of others' business. No, this is not a (virtual) democracy. It doesn't even have the basic conditions required for a democracy. Using a free forum service is a privilege, and not a right. Bashing a site just because you don't agree with its policies is ridiculous. It is their business.

As for the TeamBG issues, I've never said that the "legacy" tools are good and should still be used generally etc. I just expressed my agreement with igi's current policy (adding a red warning to such tools' descriptions).
Furthermore, I've told that certain users (but not all) are using this discussion to bash TBG, because they had (very) negative personal experience with it in the past, and thus they are emotionally influenced (biased). Other (naiv) users are just misled, because they believed things told by other users, but they didn't experience them on their own skin. In fact, some of these (latter) users weren't active in most of TeamBG's "golden age", so they just believe and repeat what they hear from others.

All in all, the (main) reason I posted in this thread were the unfair statements, or rather just the hostile atmosphere, towards the old TeamBG. I don't doubt that many people had negative experiences with it, and that the old TeamBG was responsible for most of these, but TeamBG has done many many good things as well (from which we benefit on the present day, and lot of things are based on them), and if too many threads such as this one are available, newbies will think of TBG as something that must be despised. This causes harm to the new TBG as well, and damages the memory of the old one. To sum up, it implies that it had no achievements, it was just a site to ban people and produce cr*p tools and editors etc. Unfortunately, several users are already misled, and have that kind of opinion I've detailed above. On the other hand, fortunately, several users welcoming the new TBG can still be seen, and most of them respects (the memory of) the old one as well.
This was all off-topic, because TBG-bashing itself was also also off-topic in thread: igi looked forward to contructive criticism and suggestions (and other things), not for saying "what the f*** is making it inappropriate to have these things at any other community" (asterisks added by myself) or for mentioning how bad the old TBG was etc.

Edited by Baronius, 23 June 2006 - 07:47 AM.

[Andyr]

If you have a quick question about a mod or a technical query, it is much faster and less hassle to post a message as a guest on a message board than to go through registration, wait for account validation and then post, or to email the author and then wait for a response.

[Baronius]

I didn't list any points contra Guest posting except the security risk / spam risk I've experienced on BWL forum as well. I'm not going to continue the off-topic discussion of guest posting, that is not the subject of this thread.

If you have a quick question about a mod or a technical query, it is much faster and less hassle to post a message as a guest on a message board than to go through registration, wait for account validation and then post, or to email the author and then wait for a response.

I've mentioned this point in my post, but come on, ideal things don't exist. As I've said, some advantages must be given up for more important things. And as I said, if someone really wants to send the message to its target, he will do so. Don't say that it's so horrible to register and validate. One minute to fill the fields, another for the email to arrive. (In fact most forums don't require validating. BWL will also return to its original setting too.) But I respect your policy, what you say is G3's policy (as well), and I respect it. I hope you (and others) will respect those sites' policies who disable guest posting. (And remember, there isn't only one good recipe to run a forum properly.)

Oh, I see that you have re-edited your initial wording regarding NPC mods. This is welcome, though it still sounds vaguely dismissive and arrogant (ie G3 does not have "any special stuff").

I re-edited it basically directly after I've posted it. Considering I'm not a native English speaker, I often (in fact, usually) edit my posts due to grammar and stylistic errors/problems. I can assure you that I meant no disrespect towards G3.

Edited by Baronius, 23 June 2006 - 08:20 AM.

[Baronius]

To each his own. I haven't experienced any problems with the communication on BWL forums, including but not limited to bug reports. In case of Grey Clan Episode 1: In Candlelight mod, those players who registered and told their bug reports managed to inform me about the most important bugs.
If a mod contains a significant bug, there will always be at least one user who decides to register and reports it -- simply for statistical reasons. (A bug is encountered by more players, obviously.) This assumes some level of popularity of the mod, however, nowadays most mods are WeiDU-based and all normally made mods are tried out by a relatively big number of players. (Furthermore, a mod should properly be tested by volunteeers before it is released, and this is the task of the author. A well-tested mod has few bugs.)

Edited by Baronius, 23 June 2006 - 09:12 AM.

[Creepin]

he whole reason for the board media to exist in my view is communication. Hence this is the most important thing. I think that enabling Guest posting is one step in serving this goal, while restricting it prevents the free flow of information.

You forget about quality of information.

I'd rather see a bug report than miss out on it

Even for the price of making your way through dozen of "OMG you suck", "OMG you rock" "LOL NOOBZ" and the like posts per really adequate guest-post?

[igi]

This thread, like so many, seems to have degenerated into a mixture of semamantic arguing, 'humorous' analogies, mind-numbing sarsasm and a theatrical history lesson.

So, in the interest of moving a little, I'll propose a solution to the tools issue, and some reasoning:
IDU/IDW will be marked even more clearly as not-for-use.
Visitors will be highly discouraged from downloading them (not that they are encouraged anyway).
If people would like any of the other tools to have an explicit and highly visible message, please post the tool name and some relevant reasoning.

The other tools currently marked as 'legacy' will stay as they are - I'm not aware of any game-crashing bugs, and I see no reason to remove something that is potentially useful. IAP will carry a message explaining possible compatability issues.


Some reasoning:
I think all the tools should be available for download; it's not for me (or anyone) to decide what someone can and cannot download.
I'm against a PM for download system, as I don't want to force visitors to register just download something. I'm against a two-tier tool section, as I feel it may confuse people.


As for nominating a single person to be responsible for the TBG tools - that would be me. I don't really feel that this will accomplish much, as any of the current TBG staff of three would be happy to help, but if people want a single person for support, use me (though the entire TBG staff is still happy to help). If you have a comment, or a suggestion about tools, contact me.

Note that while IDU/IDW will not be removed from the site, they will not be highly supported - people will be actively encouraged to use other tools where-ever possible, and actively discouraged from using IDU/IDW. This low support extends to IDU/IDW tutorials, which will be phased out/replaced/re-written.

I thank those who have proposed other solutions for their time. As for those who have just complained and argued, I suggest you use your time more efficiently.


Moving on to the matter of guest posting: this issue is not currently up for debate, the decision has been made. We've chosen to disable guest posting for several reasons, including (but certainly not limited to):
Spam avoidance (both bots, and visitors)
A feeling of a tighter community
Accountability
Staff preference
The guest posting issue may be considered further after TBG has had a little more time to settle.

Regarding anonymity and forums - a forum name is pretty anonymous as it is. If someone is concerned about being traced via their IP and communication with an ISP probably should consider the security of the entire internet, rather than the specifics of the TBG forum.


I know these statements will not satisfy everyone, however to a certain extent these decisions are decisions for the TBG staff. We'll certainly listen to suggestions, but they need to be a little better than "It sucks. A mod made with that tool by some unknown modder broke my brothers friends game 7 years ago", or "Guest posting is essential, because I'm too busy to fill in a registration form".
So, hopefully we can move on a little now.

[jester]

..Guests that posted a few posts w/o registration, and then becoming interested in other discussions and encouraged by a welcoming atmosphere joining the boards.

I think accessibility is a major contributor to forum growth, if that is what you are after. Back in the days I knew of one single site which modded the IE, now you have several very successful models to choose from. Each with their own flavour and focus, despite the fact that I seemingly always run into the same names wherever I go.

Back in the old days compatability was not that big and, frankly, it could be said that it did not seem that necessary. Now, if you look at Weidu logs posted together with questions, people seem to approve of methods to have everything and the kitswitcher installed at once.

The special focus that BG (like no other CRPG before it and not that many after) has on NPC/NPC/PC interaction open the path IMO to the lasting success of this game. I would therefore claim that the NPC-mod is actually the mainstay of IE modding togheter with kits, banters, romances, flirts and some gruesome stuff which luckily never got finished.

@guest posting: I always stand by my insults. That is why you can count on the 'jester'-tag.

[Baronius]

I told that G3 has many small and a few bigger projects, and reminded that TBG, independently from its policies and mistakes, supported more longer/challenging projects than e.g. G3 (and was more versatile).

If I start a new space agency {modding community) and work towards colonizing Pluto (releasing a TC) using a rocket-propelled chair (stripdown), this does not make me more oriented towards space exploration than NASA.

Yes, but it doesn't make you less modding-oriented either. NiGHTMARE's remark was that G3 is more modding oriented than TBG (= TBG was less modding oriented than G3). I clarified my disagreement with several arguments in my previous posts.

Forgive me for posting off-topic igi, I needed to reply this post. (Otherwise, I'm glad to see the thread has returned on-topic again.)

Edited by Baronius, 23 June 2006 - 12:10 PM.

[Andyr]

Igi's decisions on tool labelling from a few posts up seem good to me.