Community management ideas
by Josh Williams · in Torque Game Builder · 04/22/2005 (12:16 pm) · 25 replies
Hello,
Our community grows bigger by the day, and when you get a bunch of people together, you have to start thinking about how to help them get along with each other. For some reason, it seems people are naturally drawn into conflict with each other. Of course, we're also drawn toward cooperation and helping each other out. With a large mix of people, it's inevitable you'll see many instances of both good and bad interactions.
This community in particular is very cool overall. It's great to see it flourishing, and when I step back and look at the number of helpful posts, collaborative problem solving, submitted tutorials, and actual code fixes and extensions that have been generated here... I'm totally amazed! This place is great, it's like a little 2D game programming solution machine: input a problem and most of the time a solution pops out the other end.
There are a few examples as well though of, basically, bickering going on. Again, some extent of this kind of stuff is pretty much inevitable. However, it seems to me it'd be to all of our benefit if we tried to figure out ways to minimize unhelpful posts, and maximize helpful ones.
I want this to be a friendly, helpful place. And it is. As we grow more and more, I think it'll be smart to help ourselves stay that way.
So, I've been thinking about community management practices a bit. There are a few ways to approach it. So far, we've tried letting things happen as they will and trying to talk through conflicts when they arrive. Alongside, we've got some guidelines on forum etiquette and how to address feedback posting. This has worked fairly well. But, we still see some poor interactions making it through, and quite honestly-- it seems too easy to spend far too much time trying to resolve those conflicts. Beside that, just talking through conflicts is essentially an error-prone process. It's too easy for people to get drawn in to the conflict, myself and everyone here included, and that usually just spirals down from there.
What I'm thinking now is that I'd prefer being more direct in resolving conflicts. I wanted to see what you all think about this idea:
What I'd propose is that we just clean up cruft that comes up in the future. For example, if there are personal insults being slung, or if people are just straight up bashing the community, T2D, or each other, I'd like to just have that stuff removed.
I do not propose removing the actual issues discussed in the middle of such conflicts. The point of this effort wouldn't be to lessen the kind of feedback we get. Far from it, it would be to focus the feedback, help us get to solutions more quickly, and keep the tone of this forum friendly and helpful. Essentially, we'd edit out insults and personal junk, leaving the feedback (obviously, no matter what problems it points out).
Our community grows bigger by the day, and when you get a bunch of people together, you have to start thinking about how to help them get along with each other. For some reason, it seems people are naturally drawn into conflict with each other. Of course, we're also drawn toward cooperation and helping each other out. With a large mix of people, it's inevitable you'll see many instances of both good and bad interactions.
This community in particular is very cool overall. It's great to see it flourishing, and when I step back and look at the number of helpful posts, collaborative problem solving, submitted tutorials, and actual code fixes and extensions that have been generated here... I'm totally amazed! This place is great, it's like a little 2D game programming solution machine: input a problem and most of the time a solution pops out the other end.
There are a few examples as well though of, basically, bickering going on. Again, some extent of this kind of stuff is pretty much inevitable. However, it seems to me it'd be to all of our benefit if we tried to figure out ways to minimize unhelpful posts, and maximize helpful ones.
I want this to be a friendly, helpful place. And it is. As we grow more and more, I think it'll be smart to help ourselves stay that way.
So, I've been thinking about community management practices a bit. There are a few ways to approach it. So far, we've tried letting things happen as they will and trying to talk through conflicts when they arrive. Alongside, we've got some guidelines on forum etiquette and how to address feedback posting. This has worked fairly well. But, we still see some poor interactions making it through, and quite honestly-- it seems too easy to spend far too much time trying to resolve those conflicts. Beside that, just talking through conflicts is essentially an error-prone process. It's too easy for people to get drawn in to the conflict, myself and everyone here included, and that usually just spirals down from there.
What I'm thinking now is that I'd prefer being more direct in resolving conflicts. I wanted to see what you all think about this idea:
What I'd propose is that we just clean up cruft that comes up in the future. For example, if there are personal insults being slung, or if people are just straight up bashing the community, T2D, or each other, I'd like to just have that stuff removed.
I do not propose removing the actual issues discussed in the middle of such conflicts. The point of this effort wouldn't be to lessen the kind of feedback we get. Far from it, it would be to focus the feedback, help us get to solutions more quickly, and keep the tone of this forum friendly and helpful. Essentially, we'd edit out insults and personal junk, leaving the feedback (obviously, no matter what problems it points out).
#22
Fortunately, I've learned to only argue in a professional setting about things which directly affect me (like say, someone owing me X amount of dollars and trying to get away with it). It took me getting banned from IRC for a day to realize how much I valued the things I was abusing. So I guess that's why I recommend limited banning - frankly, it worked for me. Of course, I still slip every now and again... but my recent shift of perspective seems to have made a lasting impact.
And it really does stress me to have to watch these GG people have to chase down fires in the forum when they really deserve to be doing things more enjoyable and fulfilling. If it takes a threat of a limited ban to deter that, then I would like to see that for sure.
Anywho, that's my perspective.
04/24/2005 (11:11 am)
Yeah, I agree Tomas, nothing on the T2D boards has warranted such measures... but the GG community is a lot more than what is on the T2D boards. I've been here for a couple years and have seen / instigated more than my share of nonsense.Fortunately, I've learned to only argue in a professional setting about things which directly affect me (like say, someone owing me X amount of dollars and trying to get away with it). It took me getting banned from IRC for a day to realize how much I valued the things I was abusing. So I guess that's why I recommend limited banning - frankly, it worked for me. Of course, I still slip every now and again... but my recent shift of perspective seems to have made a lasting impact.
And it really does stress me to have to watch these GG people have to chase down fires in the forum when they really deserve to be doing things more enjoyable and fulfilling. If it takes a threat of a limited ban to deter that, then I would like to see that for sure.
Anywho, that's my perspective.
#23
(Ok just kidding but it was a good example maybe?)
04/24/2005 (11:38 am)
What about that dude that posts spam .plans and claims he's 9 years old?(Ok just kidding but it was a good example maybe?)
#24
But in honesty, I don't think editing a person's post would solve too much. 1) You'll have to get there "in time" to try and keep people from feeling offended and 2) it won't do anything about miscommunication.
A lot of these heated debates seem to come from confusion about T2D currently is and what it currently isn't (or what it is and should be). I think a problem GG has here is that the software world has really abandoned any strict concept of alpha and beta releases. Almost all of us have used beta software (web browsers, games, etc) for years before they become 1.0 and I think we've grown accustomed to warnings (no matter how well worded) to be less severe than reality.
So before going straight to trying to manipulate posts, I'd say getting more FAQs and docs out there might be the solution - but I've gotten every indication that GG is aware of that fact. If you read that thread as starting from someone who doesn't have all the facts about just how T2D came about and what state it's in, much of the hubbub to get that laid out actually makes a lot of sense, and I don't think many edits would have sped up the process.
I would also make more information available in the public side of the arena, about what's currenltly working, what isn't, and what's coming up. While yes, saying it's an Early Adopter and admitting that large chunks are still unwritten is good - someone might still be surprised to see a specific subsection missing.
I'm sure the wiki will be able to solve a lot of this, especially if there are both public and private sections to it.
I mean, I think the fact that T2D is EA has to go a bit of both ways here. Developers will have to adjust to changes, missing features, potential bugs, lackluster documentation and GG will have to adjust to the confusion developers feel when they don't know if it's them or the engine they should be pointing fingers at. Which isn't a simple question. Yes, Harold offered an excellent script as a workaround - but I'm sure some people might make the decision to hold out for the "real" thing.
Until some more robust things occur, I'd say the forums should try to go ahead and organize what they can, as some members have already taken the steps for. Perhaps if the Getting Started had a "Welcome to Early Adoption" thread which provides an overview of the current state, a link to the FAQs and tutorials thread, and maybe even a bit of a who's who.
All in all though, these forums have been invaluable to me in even their current form. Course, I generally stay out of the debates :)
04/26/2005 (5:44 am)
The IGN boards allow moderators to edit user's posts in an attempt to bring down the flames, but it's generally only used in really extreme examples, basically breaking the EULA type posts. Course, those boards are designed for ranting and complaining about the last Buffy episode, and not getting answers and constructive thoughts, so we should keep that in mind as well.But in honesty, I don't think editing a person's post would solve too much. 1) You'll have to get there "in time" to try and keep people from feeling offended and 2) it won't do anything about miscommunication.
A lot of these heated debates seem to come from confusion about T2D currently is and what it currently isn't (or what it is and should be). I think a problem GG has here is that the software world has really abandoned any strict concept of alpha and beta releases. Almost all of us have used beta software (web browsers, games, etc) for years before they become 1.0 and I think we've grown accustomed to warnings (no matter how well worded) to be less severe than reality.
So before going straight to trying to manipulate posts, I'd say getting more FAQs and docs out there might be the solution - but I've gotten every indication that GG is aware of that fact. If you read that thread as starting from someone who doesn't have all the facts about just how T2D came about and what state it's in, much of the hubbub to get that laid out actually makes a lot of sense, and I don't think many edits would have sped up the process.
I would also make more information available in the public side of the arena, about what's currenltly working, what isn't, and what's coming up. While yes, saying it's an Early Adopter and admitting that large chunks are still unwritten is good - someone might still be surprised to see a specific subsection missing.
I'm sure the wiki will be able to solve a lot of this, especially if there are both public and private sections to it.
I mean, I think the fact that T2D is EA has to go a bit of both ways here. Developers will have to adjust to changes, missing features, potential bugs, lackluster documentation and GG will have to adjust to the confusion developers feel when they don't know if it's them or the engine they should be pointing fingers at. Which isn't a simple question. Yes, Harold offered an excellent script as a workaround - but I'm sure some people might make the decision to hold out for the "real" thing.
Until some more robust things occur, I'd say the forums should try to go ahead and organize what they can, as some members have already taken the steps for. Perhaps if the Getting Started had a "Welcome to Early Adoption" thread which provides an overview of the current state, a link to the FAQs and tutorials thread, and maybe even a bit of a who's who.
All in all though, these forums have been invaluable to me in even their current form. Course, I generally stay out of the debates :)
#25
04/26/2005 (6:45 am)
Well said, RegularX! 
Torque 3D Owner Stephen Zepp
As a discussion, things go back and forth, and they normally work out in the end. However, as a reference, a person wanting an answer to a solution doesn't want to dig through 20 iterations of "I think this/that/the other", "yes, but..", and other drama/debate/argument based posts when all they want is to know if/how the problem was solved.
The first doesn't need a lot of moderation in general, but for the second to be effective, any post at all that goes off track tends to require some editing, in some cases extensive.
Fine line, hehe. And yes, while no one that I am aware of in the T2D community has been asked not to post/outright banned from the forums, it has happened in the general GG community.