Pre-approved suggestions only?

Recent events have got me thinking. Have we reached a stage now that only suggestions which have been “pre-approved” can be discussed?


I started a thread yesterday which held some suggestions about how it might be possible to improve the forums.


Seems some individuals took umbrage at the idea that the forums could be improved, or that it might be nice to have forums available for potential gamers (i.e. not current game members boards – or as I called them “open”), or the forum polls. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough. Some people did take the time to produce a thought out reply to the points I raised, so thanks for your replies.


Yes, I have also been fighting the fight over the issues (real or imaged) of declining server populations, server-less environments, and a server transfer tool for EU>US. Not going to go into these again (see the other threads for details).


So I may have picked up on “inflammatory” subjects, however they way some people have reacted as surprised me. Some reactions could be classed as “knee-jerk”, while others seem to point towards the poster having a persecution complex. I’ve even seen one post where the poster seems to think they are a board moderator when there not. I’m sure our board moderators have better things to do then read through posts from people who should know better. No this thread is not an attack on those forum users.


All of these begs the question (to me anyway) of if the “suggestions” board needs “pre-approved” topics for discussion.


I could almost believe the board moderators feel this is the way to go given the fact they started a “quality of life” topic themselves.


So the topic here becomes, do we limit what can and cannot be discussed here. FFM pointed out that these are private boards, so the moderators have final control (sorry I can’t seem them as metatron’s all wings and halos). For example:

Topic: Servers – closed
Topic: Powers – open
Topic: New zones: closed
Topic: Costumes – open
Etc…


Surly this would be of benefit to the moderators.


Topics they want to avoid, such as server merges, or DXP events, could be avoided saving them massive amounts of time reviewing “pointless” threads. While at the same time it allows them to focus our collective creativeness in the direction that they want us to look at, new zones, new powers, etc.


Personally I believe that any attempt to limit the topics in the forums would be a mistake.


But I do stand by my comments that the forums could do with improving/updating, e,g,
• Poll based threads
• Non-member board


So what’s the point of this thread? Well, to get people thinking. The changes I’ve suggested above (around topic only threads) could easily be implemented by the CoX team if they wished. If we can’t discuss options to improve all aspects of the game (yes that includes server transfers / merges) in a sensible manner, we could find ourselves with limited boards in the future. True this is all guess work, I’ve no idea what our moderators and the development team have in mind for the forums, but I know the back-end software running these boards is capable of limiting topics.


So, no to pre-approved topics. But this doesn’t mean that I am going to stop picking up the subjects that forum users and the moderators would rather be left alone.

You REALLY don't like it that people disagree with you, do you?

[ QUOTE ]
You REALLY don't like it that people disagree with you, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Off-topic post & Personal attack

What are your views on Pre-approved suggestions for the forum?

Off topic, yes? Personal attack? Not in the slightest. It was an observation and a question.

As to your suggestion, I'd have thought my opinion was clear in my first reply. Pre-approved suggestions is an incredibly silly idea and very very much /unsigned.

Thank you for your thought(s).

[ QUOTE ]
Topics they want to avoid, such as server merges, or DXP events, could be avoided saving them massive amounts of time reviewing “pointless” threads. While at the same time it allows them to focus our collective creativeness in the direction that they want us to look at, new zones, new powers, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Could just be me, but this is all already occuring.

The topics that Red Names would rather people let die down, they step into and tell you (kinda like GR's post about there being no plans for EU > US Transfers or server merges) and that's pretty much that issue solved.

The subjects they actively want people to discuss more they tend to create a thread for. Jay's cossie thread and the QoL features thread, both kinda big, serve nicely to back that up.

Locking off topics entirely serves no useful purpose, while it would cancel out all the repeated demands and cries for things which have been refused (usually with a sound explanation) it would also prevent any future new possible changes which had previously not been put forward.

[ QUOTE ]
Locking off topics entirely serves no useful purpose, while it would cancel out all the repeated demands and cries for things which have been refused (usually with a sound explanation) it would also prevent any future new possible changes which had previously not been put forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your comments.

Apologies - it seeams I may not have been clear. My proposal was that threads on topics that the mods don't want a discussion on would be created with the OP being a mod explaining the case why it's not open for discussion. The thread would then be locked.

If the situation changes the thread could be unlocked and the discussion commenced.

If a forum member has a request for a discussion on the subject they could always go to the mods and ask them to unlock the thread. That way if the mod feel it's worth exploring it can be done so, if the mod thinks it's likely to start an unwanted thread they can politely refuse.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Locking off topics entirely serves no useful purpose, while it would cancel out all the repeated demands and cries for things which have been refused (usually with a sound explanation) it would also prevent any future new possible changes which had previously not been put forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your comments.

Apologies - it seeams I may not have been clear. My proposal was that threads on topics that the mods don't want a discussion on would be created with the OP being a mod explaining the case why it's not open for discussion. The thread would then be locked.

If the situation changes the thread could be unlocked and the discussion commenced.

If a forum member has a request for a discussion on the subject they could always go to the mods and ask them to unlock the thread. That way if the mod feel it's worth exploring it can be done so, if the mod thinks it's likely to start an unwanted thread they can politely refuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is a similiar system already in place with the "Frequent Suggestions". No-one really reads it though, people just start their own threads anyway to discuss things we've discussed loads of times already.

I don't think the mods want to start deciding what we can and cannot discuss as well, as long as its reasonable debate and not a flame-fest

[ QUOTE ]
There is a similiar system already in place with the "Frequent Suggestions". No-one really reads it though, people just start their own threads anyway to discuss things we've discussed loads of times already.

I don't think the mods want to start deciding what we can and cannot discuss as well, as long as its reasonable debate and not a flame-fest

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your comments.

My suggestion was to put in place a more structured systems, one that allows the mods a greater degree of control, while still allowing expression.

However I take your point on board. Given that the post in question is over two years old, might not now be a good time to update it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a similiar system already in place with the "Frequent Suggestions". No-one really reads it though, people just start their own threads anyway to discuss things we've discussed loads of times already.

I don't think the mods want to start deciding what we can and cannot discuss as well, as long as its reasonable debate and not a flame-fest

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your comments.

My suggestion was to put in place a more structured systems, one that allows the mods a greater degree of control, while still allowing expression.

However I take your point on board. Given that the post in question is over two years old, might not now be a good time to update it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure the mods want a greater degree of control.

As for adding to the frequent suggestions if you read the post it says PM Ghost Raptor, who has been updating it, with any ideas and he'll add them if they're suitable. So if you think it should be updated let him know.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure the mods want a greater degree of control.

As for adding to the frequent suggestions if you read the post it says PM Ghost Raptor, who has been updating it, with any ideas and he'll add them if they're suitable. So if you think it should be updated let him know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your reply.

I'm not going to go into that other people may or may not want.

My post was intented to convey the potential benefits that the suggestion had.

I have noted your commnets on the post being updated.

However my point may have been missed. I read that post when I first came to the forum, but I've not looked at it since, because the last post post was by someone who hasn't been around for some time.

Maybe one of our moderators could remove the post, and re-post it under their own name?

[ QUOTE ]
The topics that Red Names would rather people let die down, they step into and tell you (kinda like GR's post about there being no plans for EU > US Transfers or server merges) and that's pretty much that issue solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or lock the thread; by saying people have reported the comments in the thread as attacks or abusive, which makes me think is it the same people reporting the comments, who don't like the thread in the first place..