Main Menu
Events Calendar


Latest Threads
Where Are You Now?
Last Post: Aethon
09-22-2018 09:00 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 62
You are a fond memory. Good night, CoTH...
Last Post: Stealthscout
09-05-2018 03:04 PM
» Replies: 25
» Views: 81892
What is glistening
Last Post: Geoni
07-04-2018 01:24 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 429
"Years of Service" Awards
Last Post: Maulbane
05-26-2018 09:58 PM
» Replies: 100
» Views: 3065
Introduction Memphis
Last Post: Maulbane
05-26-2018 05:09 AM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 3786

Who's Online
There are currently no members online.

Google AdStuff

Commenting in Character Profiles
If I may make a quick suggestion, how about permitting mentors to post to character profiles? It would add an extra layer to their jobs (as the ones needing the most lore/profile help are new players anyway), and it could be even limited to posting to peon profiles if the staff still wishes to keep a degree of control on things. And it would keep it from being every Tom, Dick, and Harry making 80 different lore points on a profile.
Now that I'm awake, I'll just poke my nose in here.

The original idea with this ruling was to prohibit everyone but the server staff from posting on Peon profiles (as suggested by @JVNemesis), specifically. It was then expanded to cover the entire profile queue. I'm not sure about this whole deal with the "extra step", as I've been hearing that a lot lately and it's starting to grind my nerves. Is that little "extra step" really so time or energy consuming? As far as I can see, none of those who bring up the "extra steps" or "restrictive processes" have actually gone through them or tried to take that "extra step" even once.

To be perfectly honest, I've been thinking about suggesting an official extra step to the approval process where the Workshop becomes a mandatory step in profile creation and threads then are moved from the Workshop to the Profile Queue by a staff member, meaning you can't actually create new threads in the normal profile queue. That'd add an "extra step" that everyone has to take, but it'd also address all of the concerns that people have so far beyond "making the process simpler". I'm not really sure it needs to be made any simpler, considering how extremely simple it was before.

About commenting in profiles... There are both positives and negatives to restricting people from doing this. Like people have mentioned earlier, it has happened so many times in the past (not just in one particular profile; let's get that out of the way right now) that player posting has conflicted with the staff members and undermined their authority and prevented them from doing their job. Sure, sometimes player input is useful and informative. You point out things that we didn't see before, or call us out when we're wrong. But then there's the time when you call us out when we aren't, and no matter how much backing we'll have, you'll somehow have backing against that. Sometimes you don't even have backing, but you'll continue to argue anyway. Then your friends come in, and the party's on.

Those situations get overwhelming. Especially for Forum Helpers, who don't have the same sort of authority as the rest of the staff does. They also don't have to deal with player conflict on the same level as we do, but they're still staff that has the authority to ask for changes. They aren't players when they are commenting on profiles; they are staff. They are to be treated as staff when they do. If they are making mistakes, sure, you're supposed to speak up. Not necessarily in the profile threads when it's going on--if you sincerely think they are making a mistake and they aren't retreating from their point even in the face of contradicting proof, contact the GM team and we'll look into it. If we find a mistake, we'll correct. And if we don't? ... Well, then maybe they weren't making a mistake in the first place, and further arguing's not going to change that. All that achieves is create hard feelings between people.

Something that's important to remember here, as well, is that we have Skype channels for Forum Helpers. There is usually extensive discussion going on in those before a Forum Helper comes forth to comment on a profile. Many times, those discussions also involve large parts of the GM team. So, many times, the feedback coming from a Forum Helper has already been discussed among several staff members and the likelihood of it changing is small. There's no point in arguing. Bring up your points. If that doesn't work, contact another staff member. And, if that doesn't work, chances are the feedback will still stand because it's right.

And then... how do we decide who can comment on a profile or not? We're not about to give special permission to some players and prohibit others. If you're confident in your ability with the lore, apply for a staff position instead. Or, heck, I'll go through with writing up a real suggestion for that change to the process that I mentioned above. But, we're not about to single people out, unless we instead take the turn of creating a new badge (EVERYONE LOVES BADGES) for "Certified Profile Commentators". Which would be redundant, no matter which way we choose to do it, since that completely destroys the point of having the Forum Helper team in the first place, and will still end up with some people just not being permitted to post. Hard feelings all around.

[-] The following 8 users Like Loxmardin's post:
  • ImagenAshyun, Grakor456, CappnRob, Jonoth, Ural, Valicor, Edgar, Esthrunil
I would state that, instead of forcing people to put their profiles in the workshop as a mandatory step, causing an already slow process to take more and more time, I would recommend something different.

Swap 'em. Make that first 'Character Profile Forum' the Workshop, as everyone looks at that first area first, Workshop second, if at all. At least that way, when people post their profiles, everyone who just peruses through will see what is in the Workshop, instead of what is ready to be printed and shipped out.

An additional thing, I talked to Zen about this; have Forum Helpers, and whichever GM that decides to do a profile for once, post a courtesy post. Something along the lines of "Hey, we are acknowledging that we have seen your profile and are reviewing any issues or questions, or are waiting for GM approval (in the case of the new FH's)." I feel that would certainly ease confusion and tensions all around about the issue.

I feel like this is going to be an issue that wont really budge, but at least giving an acknowledging post can help to make it seem like you aren't being ignored.
Do you have what it takes to join the Fighting Blues?
Do you have what it takes to defend your homeland?
Will you stand up in defense of the innocent? The weak?
Will you stand up in defense of Justice and the Law?

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVE3uy8TjirssygDEKMi2...Ia13_WYQpw]

The profiles haven't been taking that long, however. Most profiles get commented on and approved within a week. There's a rare exception that passes through Initial Approval first, because people easily forget that the forum even exists. I also don't see the few days of silence as a problem since you can still RP your character without delay during that time. It's different for Special Profiles that aren't supposed to be played before they are approved, but these profiles don't require approval before the characters can be used.

So, the profiling process right now is faster than it has ever been with few exceptions. Adding another step, from where I'm sitting, isn't looking like it could hurt anyone or the process as a whole. The new Forum Helpers are pretty much out of their trial periods soon, as well, which means they will be unrestricted to post beyond their own insecurities that need to be cleared in private first. That also means the old Forum Helpers can start pitching in unobstructed, since they've been stepping aside for the new staffers up until now.

... And, given that... It has been slower now because of the FH trial period. But it's still been going this fast. I will sincerely say that the speed at which the profiles are being checked is not an issue.

I do agree with the tagging, however, and we'll look into that.
[-] The following 3 users Like Loxmardin's post:
  • Grakor456, Jonoth, CappnRob
Aye, tagging posts as "read, needs discussion, we'll be right back" is a fair enough request. We'll see what can be done there. (Though that might take adjustment, since FHs can currently check if a profile is in need of reply by looking at the last poster, and this might throw them off. Nonetheless, worth looking at.)
Have you hugged an orc today?
- I am not tech support. Please do not contact me regarding technical issues. -
[-] The following 1 user Likes Grakor456's post:
  • Harmonic
Quote:As far as I can see, none of those who bring up the "extra steps" or "restrictive processes" have actually gone through them or tried to take that "extra step" even once.

Loxxy, being I'm one of the people that says this a lot, I'm going to be honest. This is offensive. This is -very- offensive, since I've gone above and beyond doing shit for CoTH. Yes, I think that doing an "extra step" can be aggravating, because we forget what CoTH is about.

It's not for GM's to play around with. It's for the players. When we keep adding more and more steps to doing something, it becomes -restrictive-. I agree, that I know some things are mandatory processes that we need on CoTh. I know when I was a GM things were different. When I was a forum helper... it wasn't so different.

What I observed was this---there's a lot of Micro-management from the GM team, and makes it probably -the hardest and most stressful job on CoTH-. There's an overwhelming feeling that you're going to screw up and that your shit is being second guessed all the time, because to be blatant and blunt? It is. Everyone is so afraid of "screwing up" and having to say "HEY, we need to go back on this" that you put these extra steps -everywhere- and talk things to death.

I'm sorry, but it's to a point now where things are taking longer than they should (2-3 days per profile is fine---without word though? Not so cool. It would be courteous as Grak stated for people to at least say that it's being looked at so we know what's up). It's indeed true I handled profiles by myself when we had less people on staff, and more profiles to worry about so we had less time to be nit-picky---but that's something that I will always address -because- now that we have the opportunity to -do- profiles in a timely manner, we -still- should focus on that instead of going about this in a retroactive, unopen way that impedes players more than helps.

Yes, adding more steps to everything is always going to be viewed as silly to me. Yes, I think it's harmful. No, I don't think it means we aren't paying attention to our characters or we don't know what we are doing. Truth be told, there's not much bad here on CoTH. There's just... not. Along with that, there's also little room to grow as an RPer, and things are becoming consumed by rules and standardization and an overabundance of regulations ontop of regulations and people constantly looming over your shoulder -just- to tell you how wrong you are for thinking X.

It's tiresome. It's hard to watch. It's counter-productive. It's all my opinions, but they are strong ones. In a time where our population is dwindling, do we -really- want to over-complicate things and drag out profile approving? Do we want to continually check up on everyone and what they are doing? Do we want to not trust the forum helpers to... help with the forums?

We all know it's the step below trial-GM. It's the trial before the trial. The problem I have with that is -because- of all these silly steps that are constantly being followed now... there's a severe lack of trust to those with purple names. Until you get the green name, you are constantly expected to ask the GM's "is this okay? Did I do this right?" which just feels plain, plain wrong.

Whatever happened to people doing profiles and having wowwiki/wowpedia open, and them being trusted to find out the solutions themselves? What happened to trust being handed out and us saying "This person is in a position where they need to know lore, we put them in that position, we trust them?"

Because if we don't trust people to do this job and it's needed to micro-manage them... why the heck are they forum helpers in the first place? (This isn't directed at the FH's. You guys do your job, just I think more -trust- needs to be put in you.)

If someone doesn't cut it, they don't cut it. They shouldn't have to have their hand held.

I'm sorry if this is coming off as agressive or rant-y, but... I'm really bothered by the fact it's okay that profiles take so long to get approved, while we have more than enough people to check them. I'm also bothered that the idea is not being entertained that we'd have to have -yet another- step in this process that a lot of us already loath, a process that now has very little benefit associated with it as well.

So, to sum this up? It's offensive to me that you think I don't take part in these methods, Lox. Mostly because I've spent -years- on CoTH doing this stuff. Literally years. As well as coming up with solutions to -improve- this place, without a shred of gratitude. I don't even bother asking for it anymore, because I know that it's either been forgotten what I've done or now is for some reason seen as a hindrance.
[Image: desc_head_freemasons.jpg]

△Move along.△


(01-21-2014, 01:12 AM)Harmonic Wrote: It's not for GM's to play around with. It's for the players. When we keep adding more and more steps to doing something, it becomes -restrictive-. I agree, that I know some things are mandatory processes that we need on CoTh. I know when I was a GM things were different. When I was a forum helper... it wasn't so different.

So...we cool, right Rensin? We were on staff together for a while, we joked and all that. I'd like to think we know each other a bit better than most other people on the server know us. Not all, granted, but still. So, let me point out one thing, man...

Things were a lot more strict when you were a GM. I know this, and you should know this, too. For that matter, profiles took a lot longer than they do now. Month-long profile processes weren't unheard of.

The point is, we've come a long way since CotH's inception, and a lot of things have changed for the better. We're much more lax than our previous literal and rigid interpretations of races and classes. Loxy is correct when she says that profile checking has never been as fast as it is now. So...it honestly is confusing me as to why you have lately been on this crusade to push things even further. Why now? Population dwindling aside...and a more cynical person might point out that our population problems began to surface around the same time we removed a number of our previous restrictions.

I'm also confused as to why you're making certain assumptions that aren't really true. How are we micro-managing the forum helpers? We do ask that for their first couple profiles they check with us to ensure they're doing a good job, but beyond that they act without much supervision on our end. If they have discussions on problem profiles, they primarily talk among themselves and call on us if there is real uncertainty or disagreement as to a rule or policy. Otherwise, it's their show. We only pick things up if things are really uncertain or there is a lot of disrespect. If anything, we've been letting them run so free that we've had to pause to take a look at some of them to ensure that -they- aren't being too strict with their grammar checks.

I'm...just...not understanding at all where this is coming from. It's not like we're asking that people return to the vouches system. We're just politely asking for people to not have lore debates in the disposable profile threads and instead put them in a place where everyone can benefit from it. Is that really so bad?
Have you hugged an orc today?
- I am not tech support. Please do not contact me regarding technical issues. -
[-] The following 8 users Like Grakor456's post:
  • Loxmardin, Maulbane, Harmonic, Ural, JVNemesis, Esthrunil, Jonoth, CappnRob
We are cool Grak. I'm not really angry, just a bit offended that bringing up my opinions was seen as unwarranted or that I hadn't put in "effort", as it seemed to be worded. And you're right---it was more strict when I was a GM. It was stupidly strict. Largely in part due to myself, a mistake I don't want to see be made again.

Yes, profiles are faster now. Instead of two weeks to a month, they take about a week, or a little longer. It's just to me, it seems like it could be quicker---perhaps if the FH's and whoever else would designate days, times to check them it'd be easier? It's a lot to ask, but there is a lot of them now, so it wouldn't be a hard thing to see when their availability is. The reason I'm going on this crusade, as it were, is because I -loath- the process of making profiles. It feels like it takes forever, and when you see people idling around (which I know is in their right as this is a volunteer job) while you're waiting days for a single word, it can get very frustrating.

When it comes to micro-managing forum helpers... I hope I don't get in trouble for saying this. When I was a forum helper, I perceived that as true. Very true. It was hard for me to want to continue to be one, probably due to my experience as a GM before-hand, along with being the "forum" GM for so long. When we had to go through the process of being told what to do, how to do it, and were -corrected- when we did something wrong... it was draining.

Having to run things by the GM's that oversaw it was a difficult pill to swallow. It felt like little trust went to the FH's, and in my opinion it felt like "If I'm being double checked, why don't the GM's just do this instead?"

That's something I've sat on for... well, almost a year now or longer. I didn't want to really bring it up directly, because I don't want to offend people. It felt like I was constantly being checked on by Reigen, or whoever else was in the chat for FH's, and we continually had to watch our steps on what we approved and what we did not.

Again, this might be more my problem than anything. I don't mean offense by this, as it's just how I perceived it... but I think the system could be a bit more loose to accomodate to the FH's and the players.

I understand things are more loose now. However, I think with that we still could make this easier on everyone. I see your point of view, and I agree with a lot of it---just I think we need to discuss a lot of things before decisions are made---which is exactly what we are doing now, eh? I feel very, very strongly that making the workshop manditory is a bad, bad idea and would only make things more difficult.

It'd be easier and more efficient to outline how players can "help" in profiles rather than doing that.

Just... I ask one favor. Please, loxxy... please don't take anything I say personally. You have been a lot lately, and you know me better than that. I know -you- better than that. But also please don't say that I don't go through the steps. I -created- some of the steps, heh.
[Image: desc_head_freemasons.jpg]

△Move along.△


Let me just clarify first that the "extra step" I was referring to in my post was the Workshop (and all the discussion about it in this thread up until now) and the "further restrictions" I referred to was the Nobility Revamp as the most recent "restriction" (in quotations because I don't personally agree with it being "restrictive") we've introduced. Two very specific examples. I didn't mean to offend or imply anything more than that, but I've got myself to blame for being vague.

I still don't see the issue with the profile waiting time, however. The effort has been made to make the profiling process as fast as it is today, and when people come around to say it's still way too slow... You understand that this is stepping on exposed nerves, yes? It has never been faster, yet it's still not fast enough. That's the way it comes across.

As far as trusting the Forum Helpers go... There has been times when we didn't feel entirely confident in the Forum Helper team. No offense to any particular Forum Helpers intended. Some generations have made more mistakes than others, and that is going to affect the way the next one is treated since we're not keen on making the same mistakes again. There's only so much we can tell from a Forum Helper application and we'd love to give more people the benefit of the doubt and many times, when it's an applicant we don't know well, we're taking a gamble when we appoint them. This leads to us watching a bit closer to make sure things are working out. But, otherwise, it's like Grakor said. We've let the Forum Helpers work independently and a few times, it's that liberty we're giving them that's caused issues with individual Helpers and makes us look a little bit closer on the next one.

And when people have been corrected, it hasn't really mattered what kind of background they've had. They can still make just as many mistakes as anyone else and we're going to have to step in and correct the mistakes when we can. Including our own! Policies, rules and expectations change on the server all the time as the community or the staff changes. I've been a staff member on CotH for four of my almost five years on the server and it's not the same as when I started. I make mistakes and some policies still confuse me.

When it comes to making the Workshop mandatory... The core of the idea is to let or encourage the playerbase to give their input on profiles before they go up for approval. [Peer Review] > [Staff Review] > [Approval], as it were. A similar system has been in the works in another community I frequent and it has worked just fine, but then again... It's far more ambitious and strict than CotH has ever been. It's the "Peer Review" part in particular that I'm fond of, since it requires a certain number of members to give their feedback on the article/profile/whatever before it gets checked by the staff. By then, it should be ready to be approved, but the staff might find things that the rest of the players didn't. It's also a good way for the staff to keep their eyes on the players that work well with their peers and have a good grasp of the setting. I already know this would never happen, however, and probably wouldn't work if it was ever introduced here. Good in theory, but it wouldn't mesh with CotH.

Lastly, I'm sorry if I'm coming off like I'm taking things personally. I'm not, or at least I'm doing my utmost not to.
Honestly I don't see much of a problem with the current time profiles take to be approved. You can still play the character and, if you are unsure because of a particular bit (say, a special skill or bit of the history) being okay or not, you can always not play it until you get approved, ask a GM about it, or something of the sort. Then again, I never had a specially bumpy ride when it comes to profile approval.

As for getting approval for your peers... I will be honest, I'm actually not sure if all players would want that, in fact! During my first time (and profiles, I suppose) in CoTH, the idea of having so many different opinions flying around was a scary one for me. So, I actually think the "only staff members can comment" policy in the main forum is actually beneficial. However, other people -love- getting input from other players and flying ideas around. So, I believe the Workshop may need some tweaks!

Here's my idea.

-Make a complete separate section (like "Important", "Main" and "Other stuff") for profiles. Heck, go ahead and even put it right after the Important stuff section! In that section, place:

--"Profiles Lined For Approval" (jeez, I suck at coming up with names!) forum
---Sub-forums: Initial Approval, Approved Profiles Pending Gruntship, Profiles To Wikify, Approved Profile Archive, Denied/Abandoned Profiles Archive


Now the workshop will be ten times more visible! Heck, go ahead and write in big bold letters what the workshop is for! Make it all caps (or not)! "A place for building profiles with the help of other players and for coming up with character ideas" or something else that sounds nice and catches the eye. Well, you could even make a sub-forum for the Workshop called "Character Ideas" (again, just a descriptive name, I know it's a bad one) for people to expose their character ideas and brainstorm how they would work and such. Make the Workshop a true workshop, not just a place to post your profiles waiting to be perfected and put in the queue, but a place for actually creating characters, throwing out ideas, discuss bolder concepts, etc...

Well, this is all I could come up with, but hopefully it helps a little. Cheers!
[-] The following 4 users Like ghaskan's post:
  • Loxmardin, Maulbane, Ural, Jonoth
I'm just going to poke my head in here. Sure, I've got opinions about this whole thing, and I can't say if they're "good" or "bad" opinions. To keep the drama and blame-game to a minimum, I can say I'm aware I'm one of those people who probably triggered this thread to even come into existence. Like I said, to keep opinions to a minimum on my part, perhaps it's correct and fixes needed to be made. But there should be no shame in helping out a friend, a fellow community member, regardless of how new or not they are. I hold that view just to the very root of this rule, and still follow the belief that open discussion on profile threads could be a helpful thing.


Many things have been brought up in this thread. People downright enraged by this "restrictive" rule., and others that don't really care that much. While I was one of the people that tried to frequent profiles to help out, it didn't really burst my bubble when this thread popped up, I just kind of fell to the side and reminded myself that it was possible that my help wasn't needed, even though I felt it could help.

There's no doubt that varied opinions from several people can only help on a topic, it's just the fact that some people (and this isn't a direct statement to anybody) have the tendency to become extreme, or dramatic in their views, which turns things into a riot.

On the topic of approval process, I'm rather proud of it. I've been here.. what, less than two years, and the approval process is already much faster then it had been when I first came here. Part of that, really, is that fact that I've learned to write better profiles, thus my own profiles don't usually sit in the forum for more than a day or two without being approved.
This doesn't say I don't empathize with other people's experiences, but I don't think so much effort should be put into a speedy, quick, fast approval process. Waiting for approval doesn't hinder you or your character.. you're free to continue RPing. And picture this, those of you who wish to speed up the process..

If we believe that we should have open discussion on profiles, just in case any staff members miss something.. will their ability to catch these little details improve if we seek to rush them more? If we pressure staff members into thinking they have to blaze through profiles and approve them, won't they be more the likely to miss more and more details? Profiles are what define a character in text, I would imagine they have to be deeply studied and picked apart. When I say it that way, it amazes me that this can be done in only a few days, as it happens now.

Loxmardin Wrote:[Peer Review] > [Staff Review] > [Approval], as it were. A similar system has been in the works in another community I frequent and it has worked just fine, but then again... It's far more ambitious and strict than CotH has ever been. It's the "Peer Review" part in particular that I'm fond of, since it requires a certain number of members to give their feedback on the article/profile/whatever before it gets checked by the staff. By then, it should be ready to be approved, but the staff might find things that the rest of the players didn't. It's also a good way for the staff to keep their eyes on the players that work well with their peers and have a good grasp of the setting.

I honestly just want to say that, even if the rule of commenting in profiles wasn't revoked, I think that this could be a project worth pursuing. I can't speak for other players, but I know personally I'd lurk around the Peer Review forum often, and help out where need-be. While this may make the process feel a little longer, it definitely makes it easier and it doesn't stifle anybody's opinion, which was the whole focus of the sudden explosion of debate in this thread-- feeling stifled.

All in all, this rule doesn't bother me. It does feel restrictive only in the fact that I feel like I'm being asked NOT to help, but that in itself doesn't bother me much either... it's just as easy to do nothing then it is to help, mind you. Approval process time/speed should not be a deciding factor in any decisions being made, honestly because it's not even a big deal. I especially like the idea that if we introduced Peer Review, we could efficiently rid ourselves of the Workshop subforum, leaving that all those profiles automatically posted in Peer Review would be picked clean by all those grunts that want to help and give their opinions, being a sparkly and shiny profile by the time it reaches Approval, where it can be slapped with approval by FHs or other staff.

Rambling sure is infectious in this thread.
[Image: 4ab673a110e5324a7acf57e330a6c8eb.jpg]
I've always been encouraged to seek peer review in-game. Give that character concept a test drive. Ask questions about gameplay, lore or character history. I've yet to be chided for a gap in my character's profile if it comes up in natural RP. "I haven't thought about that yet." is perfectly valid and then move on. Build the character as you go.

This doesn't take in account Special Profiles or perhaps family members that need a bit of collaboration beforehand. Also this isn't fool proof because I've still made mistakes when it comes to profiles.

All in all, it's a breather for me to step back and let another pair of eyes look over my work.

Posted from my phone!
The true test of his choice lies forward.
— The story of the Silithian.

See life through shades of silver.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Ural's post:
  • Edgar
Quote:It's the "Peer Review" part in particular that I'm fond of, since it requires a certain number of members to give their feedback on the article/profile/whatever before it gets checked by the staff.

Can't say I'd be in favor for this much. Whether the process is slow or fast, I can't say. I tend to ditch my profiles in when the main forum goes quiet, and the majority of mine have been approved with two suggestions or less. To put it somewhere else first, have the community review it, and then send it off to have the guys with power review it seems redundant to me and it might, as been stated before, pass on incorrect info where I end up making changes where none are needed.

Especially the 'requires' certain members is something I fear. It hasn't worked out in the past, I don't see it working out now. I'm not against people passing on their thoughts and ideas, but I tend to discuss these things as I make the profile with a group of friends and have already gone through that step. People tend to already proof-read my profiles, already point out personality flaws and history flaws, motives and reasoning and so forth.

Lately (meaning many months ago) I've only used the Workshop when I put in a profile I had inspiration for but didn't know how to finish and had nobody to talk to it about. Ironically, those WiP projects as I labelled them have all gone ignored. I ended up finishing most of them on my own when I got a new burst of inspiration.

So, I'm not sure here. I like the workshop. I just don't contribute to it or have used it recently. It ain't my 'thing' and I feel others can handle it and word it better then I. I recall sending in a PM once how profile reviews had gotten to a grinding halt, and a month was normal for them, but I haven't felt that for the past.. year? A week is good for public profiles. All in all? I don't want to go through a x-users-must-post-first requirement and I don't think I require it, the current system works for me.

Edit: Once there was a discussion of tagging your profiles. Why not just go with that? I recall putting them in mine as optional step.

Tag: GM/FH Only.
Tag: Open for comments.
Hi, I was probably the biggest proponent of this rule during its inception. I am also in favour of heavily altering it, because I strongly believe that grunts and peons should be able to offer their opinions (if only because a lot of Warcraft lore is, at best, based largely on opinion). I'd also like to add that I apologise if my post offends someone, but I believe being honest about problems is far more respectful than lying or beating around the bush.

The reason this was suggested by me and other(s) is because a small number of grunts were confusing newer and older players alike by enforcing their own opinions, interpretations and standards; examples of this were telling people to change English spellings to US English spellings, or, as mentioned before, telling (not suggesting) people to change things that did not need changing for whatever reason. This behaviour was harmful and also quite new, which is probably what caused the rushed and premature public ruling to be made so quickly after it was asked for. I'd complained about these posts for a while, but it turned from "this is a problem" to "no posting" in a matter of days.

I'm aware that grunts posting in profiles is one of the best ways to get noticed and promoted to forum helper - I did my best to do this to show I could, as well. The only real problem we had was players enforcing stuff that shouldn't be enforced, and I think amending the rule to simply disallow non-FHs from enforcing changes would make it far better. Lots of players know more about various facets of the lore than the staff do, and I pretty often consult a few when I'm unsure on the finer details and can't find anything on wikis.

Thoradin, Rensin: there's no ulterior motive to this. We're really not trying to stifle your opinions because we want to enforce our standards and only our standards on the server. Honestly. I imagine Rensin can probably attest to the amount of disagreement and discussion that goes on in the FH chats alone. I know you've had bad experiences with PD, but there is often the case when you're actually just in the minority about something and have to accept it, rather than the entire staff team ganging up on you. It happens to me too, I can assure you that.

P.S. I'm definitely in favour of tagging threads as "closed for comment" if need be. Sometimes things are under discussion over a long period of time.
[Image: RtK7PiZ.png]
[-] The following 2 users Like Zhaei's post:
  • CappnRob, Cassius
The people who'd know our policies well enough to tag their profiles appropriately would already know to ignore frivolous suggestions from grunts if they wanted to. The best way to do it would be to tag profiles as 'open for comment'. People who choose that tag option will (presumably) know what they're getting when they ask for it.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Cataclysm Profiles Kretol 39 4,297 04-22-2013, 06:09 AM
Last Post: Krilari
  Changes to Special Profiles Loxmardin 14 2,591 10-26-2012, 07:25 AM
Last Post: Caravan
  Incomplete and Bad Character Profiles Grakor456 7 1,434 01-21-2011, 01:33 PM
Last Post: Miah
  "Profiles to Wikify" Board Grakor456 4 913 09-22-2010, 03:10 PM
Last Post: PiesOfNub
  Commenting on profiles Piroska 15 2,739 08-15-2010, 04:29 AM
Last Post: BountyHunter

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

This forum uses Lukasz Tkacz MyBB addons.