 
|
Page 6 of 21 |
[ 310 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 21 Next |
?
?
| primarch |
|
|||||
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am Posts: 27069 Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA |
Which goes to the point I always make that if GW is not willing to allocate resources to this game, then its a self defeating purpose. NO GW game can survive unless the big GW marketing machine backs it up. This board should have had a GW moderator from the get go, no excuses. Jervis can't do it alone, regardless of how many "internet" input and help he may receive. To name a moderator on basis of "attendance" is ludricrous and gives that person no real authority to actually accomplish the functions of a moderator. Any moderator needs to first gain the respect and trust of those he wishes to "oversee' before he can really "moderate. Primarch |
| primarch |
|
|||||
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am Posts: 27069 Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA |
While we can define "fanboy" in a myriad of ways, the simple one is: "A person who cannot see the value of a contrary (dissenting) opinion or the shortcomings of his own opinions." I think that you and everyome else who posts regularly to this forum is excluded. So NO, you're not a fanboy! Primarch. |
| dafrca |
|
|||||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm Posts: 10956 Location: Burbank, CA, USA |
|
|||||||
| Top | |
|||||||
|
||||||||
| primarch |
|
||||
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am Posts: 27069 Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA |
I hate to break it to you Neal, but you are not a "fanboy." Firstly, because I like talking with you and exchanging thoughts, even though we are on opposite ends on what we like for Epic. But, in fact, I learn more from such conversation because you can point out things to me in new light about versions I may not fancy. There is a problem with both. As a member, it becomes difficult to separate the "member's" opinion from the "as-moderator" opinion, both for the general population and for the moderator. As an anonymous entity, it can be easy to objectify the moderator. In PG's case, he is abrasive. He knows he is abrasive. We've discussed it before. As a result, when he was asked to moderate, he figured that people would have a hard time differentiating between his "mix-it-up," argumentative style and his job as moderator. He was right. |
- Then, to be frank, he should step down. How can you moderate well when you're abrasive? Firm, certainly, abrasive no. That makes it personal and then no one can take his actions seriously becasue they will assume (rightly so) that it IS personal.
- Speaking from someone who has moderated in the very active sense for more than 6 years. You just HAVE to be very self-effacing and have a LOT of patience. Almost to the point of having no opinons of your own. When I post my own opinion on the NetEpic list I do it in excruciatingly polite and non-forceful manner, just to emphasize what "I" think from what the "moderator" does. I am infinitely more careful what I say on my own list than what say this forum, because here I only represent my own view. On the NetEpic list I have to watch out to make sure I give a fair shake to EVERYONE'S view whether I think it stinks or not.
You don't magically get respect or trust by slapping on a "moderator" moniker. You must EARN it, but before you do so, you must know if you have the patience to actually do such a task well.
It's a hard job to do, so I would never advise someone to get into it lightly.
Primarch.
| primarch |
|
|||||
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am Posts: 27069 Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA |
I know what you mean. There may be worse things to be called, but right now I can't think of any...  Primarch. |
| Athmos |
|
||||
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 1:06 pm Posts: 358 Location: France |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Gandalf the Grey |
|
|||||
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:23 pm Posts: 789 Location: Tampa, Florida |
|
|||||
| Top | |
|||||
|
||||||
| Jimbo |
|
|||||||
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:01 pm Posts: 3495 Location: Wessex |
- I got the feeling that the focus of the boards became number of posts rather than constructive criticism. - Note: Number of posts is not important, quality over quantity every time. |
| nealhunt |
|
|||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA |
I'm not so sure that it's "rightly so." I understand it is very hard not to take it personally, but that doesn't make it right. I know I write things that get taken completely differently from how they are intended, and I worked as a business writer for almost 4 years. Gandalf: What did Hoplite owe you regarding the # of formations? |
As far as the split fire, I saw several reasons posted which you rejected. ?In fact, I posted a reason in response to Swords, and no, it wasn't "cuz Jervis said."
_________________
Neal
| dafrca |
|
|||||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm Posts: 10956 Location: Burbank, CA, USA |
|
|||||||
| Top | |
|||||||
|
||||||||
| nealhunt |
|
||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| dafrca |
|
|||||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm Posts: 10956 Location: Burbank, CA, USA |
|
|||||||
| Top | |
|||||||
|
||||||||
| primarch |
|
|||||
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am Posts: 27069 Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA |
Well you pretty much summed up my position as well. If he wanted feedback on "his" way of doing this and then was questioned/challenged on it and his only answer is "because I dont want to", then IMO, why ask for feedback at all? In that case just design the rules like GW always does and release when your done. If you ask for an opinion you must be prepared for a positive response or a negative one. If you are only willing to hear positive ones and dismiss the negative, then you aren't "really" asking for an opinion, just agreement with your original premise. Primarch |
| primarch |
|
||||
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am Posts: 27069 Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA |
Would anyone be shocked if I said I agreed with this statement fully? It would be odd that the coordinator of net epic, by definition a rules system BUILT by committee would agree with this, but Jimbo is absolutely right. Game design by committe is not only flawed but a NIGHTMARE. It has been well known to me that net epic would run smoother, easier and save LOADS of work if I eliminated direct particiaption and have a small group do all the designing and playtesting and just present the finished product. Of course that would take the "net" out of net epic. I have even mentioned this openly on the list. But the truth is net epic member seem pleased with the results of design by committee and thus it shall remain. But for Epic A this approach should NOT have been used and I said as much when it was clear that would be the format. In may be great in the "perceptions" realm, of being open and caring of players opinions, but its a logistical nightmare. I felt that Jervis did indeed do this in the way he said these are my rules and I not interested in changing the basic crux of the rules just check that they work well. Some people mis-interpreted the fact that a forum meant they could support the development of the rules - I don't believe that this was the case! |
Again I agree, this is why I I never bothered to contribute or let my opinions known on epic A on those forums. He stated in the epic magazine that the new epic game would start from the "basic" design of epic40k and that according to his philosophy he would add things which made the game go in a direction he envisioned. Therefore from the very beginning he was clear on where the rules were started and where he was going. So accordingly I ignore epic A because I DONT agree with that premise, but its incorrect to say Jervis didn't state it up front.
I got the feeling that the focus of the boards became number of posts rather than constructive criticism
I beleive this to be a truth that cannot be easily refuted.
Primarch
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
|
|
Page 6 of 21 |
[ 310 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 21 Next |