If the updates are important enough, they can post a new ad.
That's unnecessary clutter and micromanagement when you can just post an update to an existing ad thread. Direct criticism to separate threads, and have admins clean threads or split threads as necessary.
@paris Everything falls down the page if you only go by whats new. Hopefully someone who is looking for a game will have the patience and skill to find the advertisement section and read with an eye towards what is "recent" enough to likely be valid still.
I would like to see ads updated if new areas of play open, or areas are closed (spheres, splats, new coded areas like commerces etc), when there is a new cycle of activity coming, such as a reset on non persistent games like Greatest Generation and that horror game i can't remember the name of, opening sin limited areas, or major changes in leadership of staff, or closure.
Having the ad link to a keen wiki where the ad can be more easily updated etc would also be cool, hint hint Arkandel and wiki divinities.
That's another decent idea. Forums are for conversation. If you don't want a conversation, have an ads section on the eventually-arriving wiki.
@misadventure TBH, games come and go with enough frequency that I would consider anything on the second or third page to be questionable. Really what would be most convenient is locking ad threads to the person who made it, but then again sometimes it's helpful to have your staff update when something's happened to you.
So I'm against locking ad threads to one post. As both from a staffer and from a player perspective, and just to my own preference, I find that too strict a solution.
@caryatid said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:
On another forum I visited regularly before it died, they had an advertisement section, with ads locked only to the person who posted the ad, and then a reviews section, where people could throw up posts about their experience on games. It was not a no holds barred section of the forum, there were still civil rules of engagement expected, but you could bring in the positive and the negative there.
It might be a decent option.
If it's the forum I think it was (hi Pern), that review forum pretty much never got used. (Granted, the entire forum never got used for several years, but...)
I don't care much for the idea of locking ads once they're posted. I like seeing bumps, and have bumped ads myself if I play somewhere.
As for the "absolutely no negativity" caveat... I think there maybe ought to be a "then no posts saying how awesome the place is, either." The ads should be just that: ads. No "I LOVE IT HERE, TOO!!" from players. Game-runners can post ads, bump their own threads with updates, etc., and all discussion goes elsewhere.
Otherwise, it's absolutely just an echo chamber.
@faraday said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:
I don't understand why we can't just lock the ad threads once they're posted. Preferably to the owner so they can update it as needed, but even making them post a new thread each time would be better than this constant bickering we've had for the past year. Either way, having a policy that isn't even slightly enforced is just invitation to ignore other policies too.
I would also prefer this solution, tbh. 'Constructive criticism' is impossible to quantify, and 'praise only' creates misleading threads and hides valuable information.
@krmbm said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:
Otherwise, it's absolutely just an echo chamber.
An echo chamber crossed with a circle jerk.
And if you count the smoke being blown up game-runners' asses it's an echo chamber, a circle jerk, and a wind tunnel. Nasty, nasty combination.
To my memory, the reason for not locking the initial ad posts was so that people could ask game questions and have them answered. Which is not an endorsement or condemnation, but I think at least one person was like "I don't know why they don't just lock the threads." I believe that was the idea.
@roz Correct. Which I found was pretty helpful and convenient for everyone, so losing that would suck.
So why not have an owner locked ad posting, with a staff created link to a questions and answers thread, and a commentary thread?
I think we need less admin involvement, not more. Unless we can expect reliable and uniform application of the rule - whatever it turns out to be.
@roz said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:
To my memory, the reason for not locking the initial ad posts was so that people could ask game questions and have them answered. Which is not an endorsement or condemnation, but I think at least one person was like "I don't know why they don't just lock the threads." I believe that was the idea.
We have DMs. If it's a question that relevant to everyone (say, "is there a wiki link?"), you can DM that and then the author can edit to include that. I'm +1 for locked ads.
@misadventure It just seems unnecessary to me, for the reasons I have previously posted, one of which is being able to keep an ad thread current so folks know it's still active and being updated.
@paris "owner locked" means the advertiser can add to it, if I'm understanding correctly.
As @skew said, if someone has a question they can just DM the poster. Which probably will get better and more relevant than the peanut gallery anyway.
@tinuviel said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:
@paris said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:
If there are any important updates
If the updates are important enough, they can post a new ad.
I disagree on this one. Advertisements should absolutely include, "We're now including x!" This keeps the advertisement pure and the board clean.
@tinuviel said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:
@paris "owner locked" means the advertiser can add to it, if I'm understanding correctly.
I'd feel better about that if that's possible, but I'd be sad at losing the opportunity to Q&A.
@krmbm That's the one. I do remember it being used, at least at first. Maybe because a template was provided to slot in impressions of a game. But you're right it didn't last (partially due to the forum dying a slow death, I'm p sure).
For truly constructive criticism to take place, you have to provide things that can be improved. And yes, people often mistake that for rampant negativity against the thing they love, OR an excuse to be vicious.
There's a reason why how to properly provide constructive criticism is something that is taught in a number of different job fields. People are bad at that shit naturally.
@roz said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:
To my memory, the reason for not locking the initial ad posts was so that people could ask game questions and have them answered. Which is not an endorsement or condemnation, but I think at least one person was like "I don't know why they don't just lock the threads." I believe that was the idea.
I realize that was the idea. My observation is that it just doesn't work because people can't limit themselves to just Q&A. It swiftly becomes Q&A+commentary+random enthusiasm+criticism.
Of course we could make the ad threads be "anything about the game, good or bad" dumping ground, but that kinda seems to defeat the purpose of an ad to me. The other easy alternative is just having two threads - one that's just an ad & updates, the other that's game discussion if people want to discuss.
Nobody is saying there shouldn't be a place to discuss games and ask questions. The only thing at issue is where.
@faraday said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:
It swiftly becomes Q&A+commentary+random enthusiasm+criticism.
And when it does become such it is swiftly merged with the "you can't post that here" flailing (no, I won't stop going on about it it annoys me) for eventually @Arkandel to show up and sort of shrug about it.
He/Him
