bq. So, Greg, to clarify, random picks, or picking people who you think are active, mature, loyal, dedicated to kong, and are smart and would work hard?
While it's clear that we all want to get picked so we can play the card game, that isn't necessarily the best way to decide who should be a beta tester. Love of the game/desire to play a game accounts for something, but Beta testing isn’t just about playing; it’s more about a sort of “proactive” playing where you focus on not only optimising your immediate experience (ie. so you can win), but also the game as a whole (ie. reporting bugs, offering feedback and suggestions, etc).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*It all depends on the type of feedback Kong want*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That said, the criteria Kong use really depends on the type of feedback Kong want. Are they doing very specific testing like the God of War team did where they have people fill out questionnaires and have their play experience video taped and studied, or are they doing more general "play our game and report anything that doesn't look right" testing like Guild Wars did?
I've no idea, but the type of people they select will depend on what feedback they want and the type of audience they want giving feedback on the game and having the potential to influence the development of the game via that feedback.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*David Sirlin: the answer to everything*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I honestly think speaking to David Sirlin (the guy who designed the game) would be Kong's best bet for this. He has lots of experience with competitive games (good ones, too), so he'll know what's important and what Kong should focus on.
You may argue that Kongai isn’t a competitive game and is instead a collectible card game, but I’d say it’s both. At the core, the game is a set of rules that promote player interaction via competition. The collectable element of the game may be designed into the game, but the game would hold up just as well without it (well, so we hope). By making cards collectable instead of giving everyone equal and instant access to all the resources needed to play the game Kongregate are kind milking the system and various addiction methods to help create an interesting system/business model, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing (although it can be, but Kong seem to be doing it the non-bad way, which is good).
And yes, I know I say “go talk to Sirlin” a lot, but he is (A) actively involved in this project, and (B) pretty damn knowledgeable and good at doing things *well* (such that they will last for years instead of months, offer value to lots of people, and make statements that positively influence users) as opposed to “the way that sells, but gets old after a few months when the next best-selling trend comes out and doesn’t really offer anything of lasting value”. Heck, it even says this on Sirlin’s "about page":http://www.sirlin.net/about:
_“I try my best to make quality products, which has earned me a reputation as a troublemaker. For some reason, it's a constant battle against mediocrity because apparently mediocrity sells. It doesn't last though, or build long-term value, so it's not worth getting out of bed for.”_
Also, if anyone was interested in why we should listen to Sirlin when it comes to competitive games and not someone else, here are some good reasons from "this site":http://blog.capcom.com/archives/627:
_“David Sirlin has competed in Street Fighter tournaments for 16 years, and for 11 years he has helped organize and run the tournament series that started as B3 and has now become the international Evolution Championships. He represented the United States in SSF2T in Japan’s Super Battle Opera tournament, wrote the competitive gaming book Playing to Win, and provided narration for Bang the Machine, a documentary film about the Street Fighter community. He’s now overseeing the design and gameplay on Super Street Fighter 2: HD Remix.”_
From what I know, most of the game mechanics in Kongai are literally based on concepts that were introduced to Sirlin by Street Fighter, so suffice to say Sirlin knows his stuff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*Based on what Kong has said, what can we surmise?*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So far (from what the Kong team have said so far), it seems they’re getting a big database of beta test applications, and then they’ll start processing them. This is similar to what people do with job applications. It’s a form of leverage, and it also gives you an idea of what you are working with before you make any decision that will probably take time and resources to make.
I would bet that Kong have ways of sorting the application data (such as by level, by amount of time spent playing games, and other such numbers/values), and they’ll probably induct a few people in based on a criteria, see how that goes, and optimise/tweak as needed (or not... I’m just speculating).
I was going to write an article on beta testing and share some ideas with Kong (ie. things I've read about, things I've learnt through my experience, etc), and I still might (it may use a few ideas from here, but it’d be much better written, more detailed, less wordy, and more polished). In the meantime, I’d suggest either (A) talking to Sirlin, and/or (B) doing something similar to what Guild Wars did.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*Learning from the testing methods ArenaNet used with Guild Wars*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What Guild Wars did was have a public Alpha team that they hand picked to help test the game with the developers (the Alpha team did lots of specific testing involving specific scenarios that needed testing). Then as they got closer to release, they had (A) a world preview event where virtually anyone come in, play the game, and get a taste for it, and (B) a series of limited duration, limited-access-but-still-public beta weekends that were open to players who pre-ordered the game.
This was a clever move, as the world preview event got people interested/hooked, and requiring pre-ordering for (limited) beta test access each month got lots of people to commit to buying the game by placing down a pre-order (which was gave ArenaNet, the devs of Guild Wars an idea of demand, and also a showed retailers that the game was indeed popular, and that it made sense for them to stock lots of copies of the game at release).
During the beta tests ArenaNet collected lots of data from the players (just from them playing the game), and also encouraged people to submit any bugs or feedback they had either in-game with the report feature or via the various fansite forums. ArenaNet also selectively invited certain beta testers and members of the public to come join their Alpha test.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*The selection criterion ArenaNet used for selecting testers*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha testers had access to the game most of the time, but they were also required to test specific things requested by ArenaNet in regular gatherings called “all calls”.
Those who got selected to participate in the Alpha test where either (A) involved in the fansite program somehow, (B) members of top PvP guilds or PvE/PvM guilds that had a big following in the community or did something unique that other guilds didn’t, or (C) somehow actively involved in the community or the beta tests and had good contacts with those who where either already in the beta test or the developers of the game.
As an example of ArenaNet recruiting help from the game community, the NCsoft European community relations manager for ArenaNet was initially someone who co-founded a simple Guild Wars fansite. His name was Alex Weekes (aka “Ghost Raptor”), and he is now, ironically, the CR manager for the game ‘Fury’.
Basically, those who got Alpha access stood out from the rest, and I think that’s an intelligent way of testing a game: Help market your game and get rid of your simple, most obvious bugs/issue by giving people a taste of it with a open public beta test that is only available for a few days (say, a weekend, like Anet did with Guild Wars), and then have more limited beta tests that give access to those who are signed up for beta testing (we can’t exactly pre-order Kongai, but Kong already has a beta sign-up feature which helps limit access to a degree, so it’s all good) and let those testers test the game in a series of beta events (Anet only allowed access to Guild Wars beta events for 1 weekend each month).
This lets you (A) get lots of feedback from a variety of different players (hardcore, casual, PvP/competitive players, more casual PvE-type players, etc), (B) generate hype about your game without running into issues of “letting the cat out of the bag early”, showing people your game, and having them get tired or bored with it, and (C) it also lets the dev team work on the game between beta weekends while they test anything that needs testing with their tight-knit group of Alpha testers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*My experiences with Guild Wars and their testing methods*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I was actually a beta tester for Guild Wars (I was interested in the Alpha test and probably could have got in but they only allowed US residents, so no luck for me), and I also attended the World Preview Event (the big, public beta test weekend I mentioned), so if anyone from the Kong team has any questions, feel free to ask me and I’ll help out where I can.
I’ll also note that I also own all of the Guild Wars games, not because I particularly like Guild Wars (I don’t! haha), but because I was more interested in observing and studying the game as a business/design case study, so I’ve been involved long enough to develop fairly interesting insights. I don’t propose Kongregate should model Guild Wars, but learning from their example/ideas sure can’t hurt. And hey, Guild Wars seemed to sell ok (and still does!).
In terms of the hype generated by limited access beta events, I can certainly vouch for how much I anticipated participating in those beta weekend events, and while I mainly played the game, I also submitted my fair share of bug and feedback reports as well. Overall, I think Guild Wars used a good system that worked very well and helped ArenaNet release what was a very polished, very solid game (even if they did alienate their entire PvP community by doing lots of last minute unexpected stuff, but I digress).
Now I bet someone is going to say, _"yep, that Bruce sure is trying hard to get into the Kong beta"_, haha. I'd honestly be lying if I said I didn't want to play the game, and I'd also be very keen/willing to beta test the game and actually help Kong out, but while I desire to play Kongai, I also desire that Kong make the best game they can, so I'm quite happy to share my ideas and experiences, even if I don’t have beta access.
I may make the Kong team (and the forum community in general) wish that my hands would fall off with my long, detailed posts, but hopefully there are some good ideas or, at least, a bit of uplifting support and encouragement in my monstrous verbiage. ;)
- Bruce
bq. So, Greg, to clarify, random picks, or picking people who you think are active, mature, loyal, dedicated to kong, and are smart and would work hard?
While it's clear that we all want to get picked so we can play the card game, that isn't necessarily the best way to decide who should be a beta tester. Love of the game/desire to play a game accounts for something, but Beta testing isn’t just about playing; it’s more about a sort of “proactive” playing where you focus on not only optimising your immediate experience (ie. so you can win), but also the game as a whole (ie. reporting bugs, offering feedback and suggestions, etc).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*It all depends on the type of feedback Kong want*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That said, the criteria Kong use really depends on the type of feedback Kong want. Are they doing very specific testing like the God of War team did where they have people fill out questionnaires and have their play experience video taped and studied, or are they doing more general "play our game and report anything that doesn't look right" testing like Guild Wars did?
I've no idea, but the type of people they select will depend on what feedback they want and the type of audience they want giving feedback on the game and having the potential to influence the development of the game via that feedback.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*David Sirlin: the answer to everything*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I honestly think speaking to David Sirlin (the guy who designed the game) would be Kong's best bet for this. He has lots of experience with competitive games (good ones, too), so he'll know what's important and what Kong should focus on.
You may argue that Kongai isn’t a competitive game and is instead a collectible card game, but I’d say it’s both. At the core, the game is a set of rules that promote player interaction via competition. The collectable element of the game may be designed into the game, but the game would hold up just as well without it (well, so we hope). By making cards collectable instead of giving everyone equal and instant access to all the resources needed to play the game Kongregate are kind milking the system and various addiction methods to help create an interesting system/business model, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing (although it can be, but Kong seem to be doing it the non-bad way, which is good).
And yes, I know I say “go talk to Sirlin” a lot, but he is (A) actively involved in this project, and (B) pretty damn knowledgeable and good at doing things *well* (such that they will last for years instead of months, offer value to lots of people, and make statements that positively influence users) as opposed to “the way that sells, but gets old after a few months when the next best-selling trend comes out and doesn’t really offer anything of lasting value”. Heck, it even says this on Sirlin’s "about page":<a href="http://www.sirlin.net/about">http://www.sirlin.net/about</a>:
_“I try my best to make quality products, which has earned me a reputation as a troublemaker. For some reason, it's a constant battle against mediocrity because apparently mediocrity sells. It doesn't last though, or build long-term value, so it's not worth getting out of bed for.”_
Also, if anyone was interested in why we should listen to Sirlin when it comes to competitive games and not someone else, here are some good reasons from "this site":<a href="http://blog.capcom.com/archives/627">http://blog.capcom.com/archives/627</a>:
_“David Sirlin has competed in Street Fighter tournaments for 16 years, and for 11 years he has helped organize and run the tournament series that started as B3 and has now become the international Evolution Championships. He represented the United States in SSF2T in Japan’s Super Battle Opera tournament, wrote the competitive gaming book Playing to Win, and provided narration for Bang the Machine, a documentary film about the Street Fighter community. He’s now overseeing the design and gameplay on Super Street Fighter 2: HD Remix.”_
From what I know, most of the game mechanics in Kongai are literally based on concepts that were introduced to Sirlin by Street Fighter, so suffice to say Sirlin knows his stuff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*Based on what Kong has said, what can we surmise?*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So far (from what the Kong team have said so far), it seems they’re getting a big database of beta test applications, and then they’ll start processing them. This is similar to what people do with job applications. It’s a form of leverage, and it also gives you an idea of what you are working with before you make any decision that will probably take time and resources to make.
I would bet that Kong have ways of sorting the application data (such as by level, by amount of time spent playing games, and other such numbers/values), and they’ll probably induct a few people in based on a criteria, see how that goes, and optimise/tweak as needed (or not... I’m just speculating).
I was going to write an article on beta testing and share some ideas with Kong (ie. things I've read about, things I've learnt through my experience, etc), and I still might (it may use a few ideas from here, but it’d be much better written, more detailed, less wordy, and more polished). In the meantime, I’d suggest either (A) talking to Sirlin, and/or (B) doing something similar to what Guild Wars did.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*Learning from the testing methods ArenaNet used with Guild Wars*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What Guild Wars did was have a public Alpha team that they hand picked to help test the game with the developers (the Alpha team did lots of specific testing involving specific scenarios that needed testing). Then as they got closer to release, they had (A) a world preview event where virtually anyone come in, play the game, and get a taste for it, and (B) a series of limited duration, limited-access-but-still-public beta weekends that were open to players who pre-ordered the game.
This was a clever move, as the world preview event got people interested/hooked, and requiring pre-ordering for (limited) beta test access each month got lots of people to commit to buying the game by placing down a pre-order (which was gave ArenaNet, the devs of Guild Wars an idea of demand, and also a showed retailers that the game was indeed popular, and that it made sense for them to stock lots of copies of the game at release).
During the beta tests ArenaNet collected lots of data from the players (just from them playing the game), and also encouraged people to submit any bugs or feedback they had either in-game with the report feature or via the various fansite forums. ArenaNet also selectively invited certain beta testers and members of the public to come join their Alpha test.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*The selection criterion ArenaNet used for selecting testers*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha testers had access to the game most of the time, but they were also required to test specific things requested by ArenaNet in regular gatherings called “all calls”.
Those who got selected to participate in the Alpha test where either (A) involved in the fansite program somehow, (B) members of top PvP guilds or PvE/PvM guilds that had a big following in the community or did something unique that other guilds didn’t, or (C) somehow actively involved in the community or the beta tests and had good contacts with those who where either already in the beta test or the developers of the game.
As an example of ArenaNet recruiting help from the game community, the NCsoft European community relations manager for ArenaNet was initially someone who co-founded a simple Guild Wars fansite. His name was Alex Weekes (aka “Ghost Raptor”), and he is now, ironically, the CR manager for the game ‘Fury’.
Basically, those who got Alpha access stood out from the rest, and I think that’s an intelligent way of testing a game: Help market your game and get rid of your simple, most obvious bugs/issue by giving people a taste of it with a open public beta test that is only available for a few days (say, a weekend, like Anet did with Guild Wars), and then have more limited beta tests that give access to those who are signed up for beta testing (we can’t exactly pre-order Kongai, but Kong already has a beta sign-up feature which helps limit access to a degree, so it’s all good) and let those testers test the game in a series of beta events (Anet only allowed access to Guild Wars beta events for 1 weekend each month).
This lets you (A) get lots of feedback from a variety of different players (hardcore, casual, PvP/competitive players, more casual PvE-type players, etc), (B) generate hype about your game without running into issues of “letting the cat out of the bag early”, showing people your game, and having them get tired or bored with it, and (C) it also lets the dev team work on the game between beta weekends while they test anything that needs testing with their tight-knit group of Alpha testers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*My experiences with Guild Wars and their testing methods*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I was actually a beta tester for Guild Wars (I was interested in the Alpha test and probably could have got in but they only allowed US residents, so no luck for me), and I also attended the World Preview Event (the big, public beta test weekend I mentioned), so if anyone from the Kong team has any questions, feel free to ask me and I’ll help out where I can.
I’ll also note that I also own all of the Guild Wars games, not because I particularly like Guild Wars (I don’t! haha), but because I was more interested in observing and studying the game as a business/design case study, so I’ve been involved long enough to develop fairly interesting insights. I don’t propose Kongregate should model Guild Wars, but learning from their example/ideas sure can’t hurt. And hey, Guild Wars seemed to sell ok (and still does!).
In terms of the hype generated by limited access beta events, I can certainly vouch for how much I anticipated participating in those beta weekend events, and while I mainly played the game, I also submitted my fair share of bug and feedback reports as well. Overall, I think Guild Wars used a good system that worked very well and helped ArenaNet release what was a very polished, very solid game (even if they did alienate their entire PvP community by doing lots of last minute unexpected stuff, but I digress).
Now I bet someone is going to say, _"yep, that Bruce sure is trying hard to get into the Kong beta"_, haha. I'd honestly be lying if I said I didn't want to play the game, and I'd also be very keen/willing to beta test the game and actually help Kong out, but while I desire to play Kongai, I also desire that Kong make the best game they can, so I'm quite happy to share my ideas and experiences, even if I don’t have beta access.
I may make the Kong team (and the forum community in general) wish that my hands would fall off with my long, detailed posts, but hopefully there are some good ideas or, at least, a bit of uplifting support and encouragement in my monstrous verbiage. ;)
- Bruce
2007-12-08T09:54:29-08:00
0
true
18
60207
46
3859
2009-09-16T23:27:49-07:00
66241
bq. I have greatest idea ever! How about instead of those stupid “this-game-needs-a-badge” tags, we should have the name of the game for a tag, like “Evanator” for the game Evenator. I am amazed at how little this actually happens, I am currently doing this to every game I play. Review: The scenario is you encounter dolphin olympics, what you do is you Tag it as “Dolphin Olympics 2”! yay!
Wow, great work on pointing that out, Henry. (I'm being serious; sorry if that sounds sarcastic.)
Having to do this really shows that the system needs fixing, but Kong obviously know their search sucks (Greg said so himself!), so raising awareness about how the search system works is a great idea. It didn't occur to me that the search uses tags (seems kind of obvious now, heh), so I'll be sure to start giving games tags that include their names to make everyone's life a bit easier.
I suggest others do the same. It's win/win!
<blockquote>
<p>I have greatest idea ever! How about instead of those stupid “this-game-needs-a-badge” tags, we should have the name of the game for a tag, like “Evanator” for the game Evenator. I am amazed at how little this actually happens, I am currently doing this to every game I play. Review: The scenario is you encounter dolphin olympics, what you do is you Tag it as “Dolphin Olympics 2”! yay!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wow, great work on pointing that out, Henry. (I’m being serious; sorry if that sounds sarcastic.)</p>
<p>Having to do this really shows that the system needs fixing, but Kong obviously know their search sucks (Greg said so himself!), so raising awareness about how the search system works is a great idea. It didn’t occur to me that the search uses tags (seems kind of obvious now, heh), so I’ll be sure to start giving games tags that include their names to make everyone’s life a bit easier.</p>
<p>I suggest others do the same. It’s win/win!</p>
2007-12-08T08:23:33-08:00
0
true
1
60174
14
3785
2009-09-16T23:26:58-07:00
66241
I think Symmepaint is a great game, and an important one, too.
You can find it here:
http://www.kongregate.com/games/sniegas/symmepaint
It's games like these that will help expand the gaming industry beyond where it's been before. Imagine, for example, if the film industry only had action movies. I personally wouldn’t mind “too” much, but there are a lot of other people that would. And it’d be a shame not being able to go watch a comedy, or watch a movie that makes a statement, something romantic, something that just makes you feel good, etc.
Not all games are supposed to have an end goal. That flies in the face of what gamers have come to know and love, but there will always be those types of games, so it's nice to see some 'other' games being made for people who aren't necessarily "gamers".
People like your grandmother who likes to paint, your sister who likes a virtual pet on her Nintendo DS, or the businessman who likes keeping his brain fresh with some Brain Training (also on DS).
Imagine that, instead of doing work at school, we played interactive games that were both educational AND fun. I don’t think games will ever replace the current forms of learning, but I think they could augment it very, very well as a skill-building tool. Some people think it can’t be done, but I disagree. It’s the people who are willing to experiment that will succeed in making such a game, and the future generations will thank them for it!
As an aside, here’s a link to an interesting article. It’s very much in the same vein of what I’ve been talking about:
http://www.sirlin.net/?p=162
Once again, great game: 5/5.
- Bruce
<p>I think Symmepaint is a great game, and an important one, too.</p>
<p>You can find it here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.kongregate.com/games/sniegas/symmepaint">http://www.kongregate.com/games/sniegas/symmepaint</a></p>
<p>It’s games like these that will help expand the gaming industry beyond where it’s been before. Imagine, for example, if the film industry only had action movies. I personally wouldn’t mind “too” much, but there are a lot of other people that would. And it’d be a shame not being able to go watch a comedy, or watch a movie that makes a statement, something romantic, something that just makes you feel good, etc.</p>
<p>Not all games are supposed to have an end goal. That flies in the face of what gamers have come to know and love, but there will always be those types of games, so it’s nice to see some ‘other’ games being made for people who aren’t necessarily “gamers”.</p>
<p>People like your grandmother who likes to paint, your sister who likes a virtual pet on her Nintendo DS, or the businessman who likes keeping his brain fresh with some Brain Training (also on DS).</p>
<p>Imagine that, instead of doing work at school, we played interactive games that were both educational <span class="caps">AND</span> fun. I don’t think games will ever replace the current forms of learning, but I think they could augment it very, very well as a skill-building tool. Some people think it can’t be done, but I disagree. It’s the people who are willing to experiment that will succeed in making such a game, and the future generations will thank them for it!</p>
<p>As an aside, here’s a link to an interesting article. It’s very much in the same vein of what I’ve been talking about:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sirlin.net/?p=162">http://www.sirlin.net/?p=162</a></p>
<p>Once again, great game: 5/5.</p>
<p>- Bruce</p>
2007-12-03T04:28:05-08:00
0
true
3
58039
1
3800
2009-09-16T23:27:00-07:00
66241
bq. People should not behave because a mod is in the chat, they should behave because its the rules and its considerate. Accommodating them by visually screaming ‘theres a mod in here..behave!’ is unnecessary.
(Note: This isn’t a direct response to Arcane Coder; his quote just gives some context to my post. Also, a lot of what I’m saying here doesn’t directly apply to Kongregate; most of it’s just a general statement.)
I wholeheartedly agree, Arcane. I was going to mention that users should behave well because it is reasonable, not because they’ve been “motivated” by fear, but my other post was long enough.
----------------------------------------------------------
*Freedom to reasonably to explore*
---------------------------------------------------------
That said, I think users should be given enough leeway to “explore” the edges of the forum rules, so long as they aren’t doing so maliciously.
Eg. If a user is just doing something that violates “the spirit of the chat” or “the spirit of the forum” (people often allude to me doing that since I don’t follow general conventions), unless they are directly violating a forum rule, they should be left alone.
An example of something that some might say violates the “spirit of the forum” would be my long forum posts. Fortunately for me my long posts actually have legitimate content in them and are not, as far as I know, violating any rules. Not everyone likes them; some people really like them. It’s all a matter of perspective, and so long as people don’t try to control conditions and impose conditions on others using their preferences as a guide, it’s all good.
A lot of moderators (from various systems, not just Kongregate) use a sort of “warning” system to curtail actions that aren’t direct violations of behaviour guidelines and to eventually goad users into violation of the rules when they ignore a moderator, but I think that’s poor form and a way to avoid facing the fact that your system rules aren’t very good. Avoid silly games like that and create better rules (or influence the creation of better rules) instead.
People may not like users who skate along edges of the rules, but if you want to circumvent such behaviour, a request should be made to change the behaviour guidelines. Most rule sets have a, “it doesn’t matter what you’re doing, if you’re being malicious, you get dealt with”, and I think that’s reasonable (Kong also has such a rule). Overall though, I think that it’s always important that moderators (or any person in a position of authority) enforce the pre-defined rules, not their own preferences.
If anybody would like further reading on the topic of “good” vs “evil” and what should/should not be allowed, I highly recommend this article by David Sirlin:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/elite-players-guide/using-your-power/
----------------------------------------------------------
*A few clarifications about my last post*
---------------------------------------------------------
I do think if a mod is speaking to you or contacting you in an “official” manner, you should know who you’re speaking to (ie. are you speaking to a regular user, or a mod? Is it clear that instructions are coming from a mod?), but I’ve already talked about that. It’s not necessary to scream who the mods are, only to distinguish mods from regular members when they go about their duties.
The point I made about entrapment was mainly a response to the idea of mods intentionally creating accounts to "catch" users (ie. "undercover mods"). Then I went on to speak about why that's not such a good idea (ie. you're not out to ban people, but rather, to maintain a good environment, etc).
I think it’s completely reasonable for a mod to use another account (for many of the reasons stated), and if you happen to catch a user doing something that breaches the behaviour guidelines, there’s no point in trying to pretend you didn’t hear it just because you weren’t on your moderator account. The goal is to maintain a good environment, not ban or punish people, so taking action, regardless of the account you were using at the time you encountered something, is completely reasonable.
If it had been reported that a user was breaching the behaviour guidelines and a moderator used another account to suss it out, I think that’s ok too, providing the moderator approaches it with the right mindset. If the moderator has a healthy mindset, they will keep their ego out of it and deal with the manner in a “matter of fact” way. Things simply “are”, and you respond to events accordingly.
On the other hand, if the moderator deals with it using a dysfunctional mindset, their ego will enter into it and “maintaining a healthy atmosphere” turns into a personal vendetta against a certain user or type of user(s). Nobody is perfect, including myself, but the aim is to do your best with the resources you have available, not be perfect. Forgiveness and acceptance of mistakes and even failures are important values; they help us learn and improve.
----------------------------------------------------------
*What do I think of the Kongregate mod team?*
---------------------------------------------------------
Generally, Kong seems to have a good moderation team, and almost all of them have clearly displayed to me that they have a good understanding of various important concepts.
As for the rest of the mods, either (A) I haven’t had much interaction with them and can’t come to any conclusions, or (B) I’ve seen them do some things that I don’t really agree with.
That said, if I thought there was an issue, I’d bring it up with someone from the Kongregate staff. Honestly though, I think a lot of what I’ve seen just comes down to style and the fact that not all moderators are going to put emphasis on the same values that I do. There’s nothing wrong with that, and really, it’s up to Kong to decide who they want representing their site.
If a moderator goes off on a tangent (I’ve seen it happen at the forums I moderate), it’s usually pretty noticeable and gets dealt with by admin quickly, so I don’t think it’s necessary to try to deal with every little thing you see as there are usually a lot of influencing factors that aren’t immediately obvious. A great thing I’ve seen with social groups, regardless of the function they perform, is that those who don’t really “fit” tend to work themselves out over time, one way or another.
- Bruce
bq. People should not behave because a mod is in the chat, they should behave because its the rules and its considerate. Accommodating them by visually screaming ‘theres a mod in here..behave!’ is unnecessary.
(Note: This isn’t a direct response to Arcane Coder; his quote just gives some context to my post. Also, a lot of what I’m saying here doesn’t directly apply to Kongregate; most of it’s just a general statement.)
I wholeheartedly agree, Arcane. I was going to mention that users should behave well because it is reasonable, not because they’ve been “motivated” by fear, but my other post was long enough.
----------------------------------------------------------
*Freedom to reasonably to explore*
---------------------------------------------------------
That said, I think users should be given enough leeway to “explore” the edges of the forum rules, so long as they aren’t doing so maliciously.
Eg. If a user is just doing something that violates “the spirit of the chat” or “the spirit of the forum” (people often allude to me doing that since I don’t follow general conventions), unless they are directly violating a forum rule, they should be left alone.
An example of something that some might say violates the “spirit of the forum” would be my long forum posts. Fortunately for me my long posts actually have legitimate content in them and are not, as far as I know, violating any rules. Not everyone likes them; some people really like them. It’s all a matter of perspective, and so long as people don’t try to control conditions and impose conditions on others using their preferences as a guide, it’s all good.
A lot of moderators (from various systems, not just Kongregate) use a sort of “warning” system to curtail actions that aren’t direct violations of behaviour guidelines and to eventually goad users into violation of the rules when they ignore a moderator, but I think that’s poor form and a way to avoid facing the fact that your system rules aren’t very good. Avoid silly games like that and create better rules (or influence the creation of better rules) instead.
People may not like users who skate along edges of the rules, but if you want to circumvent such behaviour, a request should be made to change the behaviour guidelines. Most rule sets have a, “it doesn’t matter what you’re doing, if you’re being malicious, you get dealt with”, and I think that’s reasonable (Kong also has such a rule). Overall though, I think that it’s always important that moderators (or any person in a position of authority) enforce the pre-defined rules, not their own preferences.
If anybody would like further reading on the topic of “good” vs “evil” and what should/should not be allowed, I highly recommend this article by David Sirlin:
<a href="http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/elite-players-guide/using-your-power/">http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/elite-players-guide/using-your-power/</a>
----------------------------------------------------------
*A few clarifications about my last post*
---------------------------------------------------------
I do think if a mod is speaking to you or contacting you in an “official” manner, you should know who you’re speaking to (ie. are you speaking to a regular user, or a mod? Is it clear that instructions are coming from a mod?), but I’ve already talked about that. It’s not necessary to scream who the mods are, only to distinguish mods from regular members when they go about their duties.
The point I made about entrapment was mainly a response to the idea of mods intentionally creating accounts to "catch" users (ie. "undercover mods"). Then I went on to speak about why that's not such a good idea (ie. you're not out to ban people, but rather, to maintain a good environment, etc).
I think it’s completely reasonable for a mod to use another account (for many of the reasons stated), and if you happen to catch a user doing something that breaches the behaviour guidelines, there’s no point in trying to pretend you didn’t hear it just because you weren’t on your moderator account. The goal is to maintain a good environment, not ban or punish people, so taking action, regardless of the account you were using at the time you encountered something, is completely reasonable.
If it had been reported that a user was breaching the behaviour guidelines and a moderator used another account to suss it out, I think that’s ok too, providing the moderator approaches it with the right mindset. If the moderator has a healthy mindset, they will keep their ego out of it and deal with the manner in a “matter of fact” way. Things simply “are”, and you respond to events accordingly.
On the other hand, if the moderator deals with it using a dysfunctional mindset, their ego will enter into it and “maintaining a healthy atmosphere” turns into a personal vendetta against a certain user or type of user(s). Nobody is perfect, including myself, but the aim is to do your best with the resources you have available, not be perfect. Forgiveness and acceptance of mistakes and even failures are important values; they help us learn and improve.
----------------------------------------------------------
*What do I think of the Kongregate mod team?*
---------------------------------------------------------
Generally, Kong seems to have a good moderation team, and almost all of them have clearly displayed to me that they have a good understanding of various important concepts.
As for the rest of the mods, either (A) I haven’t had much interaction with them and can’t come to any conclusions, or (B) I’ve seen them do some things that I don’t really agree with.
That said, if I thought there was an issue, I’d bring it up with someone from the Kongregate staff. Honestly though, I think a lot of what I’ve seen just comes down to style and the fact that not all moderators are going to put emphasis on the same values that I do. There’s nothing wrong with that, and really, it’s up to Kong to decide who they want representing their site.
If a moderator goes off on a tangent (I’ve seen it happen at the forums I moderate), it’s usually pretty noticeable and gets dealt with by admin quickly, so I don’t think it’s necessary to try to deal with every little thing you see as there are usually a lot of influencing factors that aren’t immediately obvious. A great thing I’ve seen with social groups, regardless of the function they perform, is that those who don’t really “fit” tend to work themselves out over time, one way or another.
- Bruce
2007-12-02T22:01:55-08:00
0
true
1
58000
28
3764
2009-09-16T23:26:51-07:00
66241
bq. FRAG, I would love to do that, I just don’t really have access to that information. Badge changes? Yes. Badge picture changes? No. But for a while, and probably forever, we won’t have badge pages, but badge descriptions/history within the game article.
@ the badge images issue:
This is why it helps to have official support from Kongregate. That said, it's easy enough to shoot off an email to someone on the Kong team and ask them if they'll let you use their badge images for the wiki. They might even give you access to their old images. It depends on the licence you use for the wiki and various other legalities. Worth checking out either way.
<blockquote>
<p><span class="caps">FRAG</span>, I would love to do that, I just don’t really have access to that information. Badge changes? Yes. Badge picture changes? No. But for a while, and probably forever, we won’t have badge pages, but badge descriptions/history within the game article.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>@ the badge images issue:</p>
<p>This is why it helps to have official support from Kongregate. That said, it’s easy enough to shoot off an email to someone on the Kong team and ask them if they’ll let you use their badge images for the wiki. They might even give you access to their old images. It depends on the licence you use for the wiki and various other legalities. Worth checking out either way.</p>
2007-12-02T08:41:12-08:00
0
true
1
57793
149
3587
2009-09-16T23:26:29-07:00
66241
bq. I’m kinda considering signing up for this. I’m usually not too comfortable editing wikis with all the crazy guidelines you have to follow, but I guess with this being a more relaxed wiki, I wouldn’t mind chipping in.
I think Wikipedia has the best idea when it comes to "fear of editing". In their guidelines they have the _"if it means you're going to be breaking the rules to contribute something of value, break the rules"_ guideline.
So long as you have a decent way of reporting issues with articles and enough regular users who (A) know the rules, (B) contribute, I think the above guideline works a treat.
<blockquote>
<p>I’m kinda considering signing up for this. I’m usually not too comfortable editing wikis with all the crazy guidelines you have to follow, but I guess with this being a more relaxed wiki, I wouldn’t mind chipping in.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think Wikipedia has the best idea when it comes to “fear of editing”. In their guidelines they have the <em>“if it means you’re going to be breaking the rules to contribute something of value, break the rules”</em> guideline.</p>
<p>So long as you have a decent way of reporting issues with articles and enough regular users who (A) know the rules, (B) contribute, I think the above guideline works a treat.</p>
2007-12-02T08:34:32-08:00
0
true
1
57790
148
3587
2009-09-16T23:26:29-07:00
66241
*A brief disclaimer*
------------------------------------------------------------
Before I go on, I want to say that a lot of people tend to get bent out of shape when I talk about certain topics. This tends to happen when you talk about (A) topics that tend to highly polarise people, and/or (B) topics that people usually have a lot of personal identification with.
I’m also very direct and honest when I express myself, and since this generally isn’t the norm, people often misinterpret what I’m saying as if it is somehow malicious and take it way out of context.
So, if you read this post, please don’t take what I say too seriously as if it’s some sort of personal affront. I’m simply expressing my thoughts/ideas with the intention of trying to help out where I can, and if you disagree/dislike what I’m saying, I’m ok with that. You don’t have to agree with me, nor like my ideas. It all comes down to perspective, anyway. I will, of course, do my best to ensure that I adhere to the Kongregate Behaviour Guidelines.
------------------------------------------------------------
*Banning as a punishment = bad idea*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think trying to bait people into behaving badly just so you can ban them is a bad idea (also known as "entrapment", which is illegal for a reason; whether or not it still occurs in the real world is not relevant to this topic).
_"A beaten dog may fear you, but as soon as you turn your back it’s going to strike."
~ Def Jam, Fight for NY_
In other words, negativity and resistance tend to only breed further negativity and resistance. Likewise, positivity tends to generate further positivity, and I’m sure everyone will agree that positivity is preferable over negativity.
------------------------------------------------------------
*Investigating bans*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In my experience, bans work as a pattern interrupt, or in the case of a persistent user or someone who is blatantly breaking the rules (ie. by spamming, excessive and consistent personal attacks, etc), a way to send that particular user along their way to places where their behaviour is more appropriate.
Bans can also act as good feedback and a potential catalyst for improvement, essentially sending the message “that behaviour was not appropriate” to a user who may have known no better.
Overall, bans are there to help people (even if it's indirect help that isn't always obvious), not to punish them.
It's very reassuring to hear Malachi say:
bq. Mods are told to be lenient with bans, and not use bans as discipline. We are here to keep the chat orderly, not become stealth-Nazis that ban out of nowhere.
The “M” makes everyone in the room cautious about their actions, and keeps the chat clean.
In my opinion, the only major flaw with the current mod system is that it's sometimes unclear who is a mod and who isn't.
While mods in the chat have M’s next to their name in the user list, (A), there’s nothing that denotes them as moderators beside their chat text, and (B) it’s unclear what “M” stands for in the first place (is it a game-related title? Is it some sort of title that everyone can earn? Etc).
Also, there are no forum user groups, so it’s difficult to tell who is a moderator, who is an admin, who is a user, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
*The importance of clearly labeling/identifying users who have authority*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it important to make such things clear? Impersonation.
When there is no way to tell the difference between users or when the difference is non-obvious or unclear, you open yourself up to abuse in the form of impersonation, which can quickly get out of hand and lead to chaos.
A good moderation team should be able to effectively deal with impersonation, but moderators can’t be everywhere or online all the time, and damage via impersonation can be done very quickly (what sort of damage? Think along the lines of “identity theft” and “revealing of sensitive information to malicious parties”... yes, I’m using extreme examples, but I think “hope for the best, prepare for the worst” applies in this case).
It’s much easier to not have to worry about impersonation in the first place by clearly denoting the level of authority a particular user has, or rather, their function on the website. It’s not about superiority or status, but about effective communication.
------------------------------------------------------------
*Reasons for and against clearly labeling/identifying users who have authority*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could argue that, when it comes to the chat, if a user is told to do something they could look at the user list to see if they should take notice of this user or not, but I think that’s awfully clunky (ie. there’s no good reason to do things like that, and there are plenty of good reasons to do things differently), especially if whatever denotes a moderator as a moderator is not clear/obvious. The current letter M isn’t too bad, but it’d be better, usability-wise, if there was some sort of key, such as mouse-over text, or something similar.
You could also argue that, when it comes to the forums, people will eventually get an idea of who the admin are, who the moderators are, etc, but there are simply more effective and reasonable ways to go about it. Also, admin often post contests and similar sorts of things on the forums, and I think that leaves the door wide open to abuse -- abuse that could be easily stopped by a hard coded system without the need for any specific action on behalf of a moderator.
The <name>, <title> convention has stood the test of time, and for good reason – it works! Police use it in two ways: by flashing their lights when they want you to pull over, and by having vehicles that are clearly marked as police cars.
People are familiar with this convention, and while you can deviate from it in certain circumstances, usually there’s no good reason to, especially when the alternatives leave you, your system, and the users of your system open to abuse.
Putting blame on abusive users may seem like a good course of action, but it’s much more effective to allow such users to point out the weaknesses in your system and deal with them appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------
*Another partially related issue*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside, one other thing I’ve seen moderators do that could probably be indirectly improved is the instruction they give to users. Most mods I’ve seen tend to say, “don’t do X”, but they don’t give a reason for why X is not appropriate. As moderators are also users of the website, it can then become difficult to know when they are speaking as a user or when they are speaking as a moderator who is enforcing the behaviour guidelines.
A simple solution is to make the Behaviour Guidelines easily visible/accessible and to require users accept a user agreement upon sign-up that states that they will adhere to the posted Behaviour Guidelines when using Kongregate.
- Bruce
*A brief disclaimer*
------------------------------------------------------------
Before I go on, I want to say that a lot of people tend to get bent out of shape when I talk about certain topics. This tends to happen when you talk about (A) topics that tend to highly polarise people, and/or (B) topics that people usually have a lot of personal identification with.
I’m also very direct and honest when I express myself, and since this generally isn’t the norm, people often misinterpret what I’m saying as if it is somehow malicious and take it way out of context.
So, if you read this post, please don’t take what I say too seriously as if it’s some sort of personal affront. I’m simply expressing my thoughts/ideas with the intention of trying to help out where I can, and if you disagree/dislike what I’m saying, I’m ok with that. You don’t have to agree with me, nor like my ideas. It all comes down to perspective, anyway. I will, of course, do my best to ensure that I adhere to the Kongregate Behaviour Guidelines.
------------------------------------------------------------
*Banning as a punishment = bad idea*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think trying to bait people into behaving badly just so you can ban them is a bad idea (also known as "entrapment", which is illegal for a reason; whether or not it still occurs in the real world is not relevant to this topic).
_"A beaten dog may fear you, but as soon as you turn your back it’s going to strike."
~ Def Jam, Fight for NY_
In other words, negativity and resistance tend to only breed further negativity and resistance. Likewise, positivity tends to generate further positivity, and I’m sure everyone will agree that positivity is preferable over negativity.
------------------------------------------------------------
*Investigating bans*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In my experience, bans work as a pattern interrupt, or in the case of a persistent user or someone who is blatantly breaking the rules (ie. by spamming, excessive and consistent personal attacks, etc), a way to send that particular user along their way to places where their behaviour is more appropriate.
Bans can also act as good feedback and a potential catalyst for improvement, essentially sending the message “that behaviour was not appropriate” to a user who may have known no better.
Overall, bans are there to help people (even if it's indirect help that isn't always obvious), not to punish them.
It's very reassuring to hear Malachi say:
bq. Mods are told to be lenient with bans, and not use bans as discipline. We are here to keep the chat orderly, not become stealth-Nazis that ban out of nowhere.
The “M” makes everyone in the room cautious about their actions, and keeps the chat clean.
In my opinion, the only major flaw with the current mod system is that it's sometimes unclear who is a mod and who isn't.
While mods in the chat have M’s next to their name in the user list, (A), there’s nothing that denotes them as moderators beside their chat text, and (B) it’s unclear what “M” stands for in the first place (is it a game-related title? Is it some sort of title that everyone can earn? Etc).
Also, there are no forum user groups, so it’s difficult to tell who is a moderator, who is an admin, who is a user, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
*The importance of clearly labeling/identifying users who have authority*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it important to make such things clear? Impersonation.
When there is no way to tell the difference between users or when the difference is non-obvious or unclear, you open yourself up to abuse in the form of impersonation, which can quickly get out of hand and lead to chaos.
A good moderation team should be able to effectively deal with impersonation, but moderators can’t be everywhere or online all the time, and damage via impersonation can be done very quickly (what sort of damage? Think along the lines of “identity theft” and “revealing of sensitive information to malicious parties”... yes, I’m using extreme examples, but I think “hope for the best, prepare for the worst” applies in this case).
It’s much easier to not have to worry about impersonation in the first place by clearly denoting the level of authority a particular user has, or rather, their function on the website. It’s not about superiority or status, but about effective communication.
------------------------------------------------------------
*Reasons for and against clearly labeling/identifying users who have authority*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could argue that, when it comes to the chat, if a user is told to do something they could look at the user list to see if they should take notice of this user or not, but I think that’s awfully clunky (ie. there’s no good reason to do things like that, and there are plenty of good reasons to do things differently), especially if whatever denotes a moderator as a moderator is not clear/obvious. The current letter M isn’t too bad, but it’d be better, usability-wise, if there was some sort of key, such as mouse-over text, or something similar.
You could also argue that, when it comes to the forums, people will eventually get an idea of who the admin are, who the moderators are, etc, but there are simply more effective and reasonable ways to go about it. Also, admin often post contests and similar sorts of things on the forums, and I think that leaves the door wide open to abuse -- abuse that could be easily stopped by a hard coded system without the need for any specific action on behalf of a moderator.
The <name>, <title> convention has stood the test of time, and for good reason – it works! Police use it in two ways: by flashing their lights when they want you to pull over, and by having vehicles that are clearly marked as police cars.
People are familiar with this convention, and while you can deviate from it in certain circumstances, usually there’s no good reason to, especially when the alternatives leave you, your system, and the users of your system open to abuse.
Putting blame on abusive users may seem like a good course of action, but it’s much more effective to allow such users to point out the weaknesses in your system and deal with them appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------
*Another partially related issue*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside, one other thing I’ve seen moderators do that could probably be indirectly improved is the instruction they give to users. Most mods I’ve seen tend to say, “don’t do X”, but they don’t give a reason for why X is not appropriate. As moderators are also users of the website, it can then become difficult to know when they are speaking as a user or when they are speaking as a moderator who is enforcing the behaviour guidelines.
A simple solution is to make the Behaviour Guidelines easily visible/accessible and to require users accept a user agreement upon sign-up that states that they will adhere to the posted Behaviour Guidelines when using Kongregate.
- Bruce
2007-12-02T08:28:50-08:00
0
true
1
57788
20
3764
2009-09-16T23:26:51-07:00
66241
*A brief disclaimer*
------------------------------------------------------------
Before I go on, I want to say that a lot of people tend to get bent out of shape when I talk about things like rules, rule design, fairness, etc. This tends to happen when you talk about (A) topics that tend to highly polarise people, and/or (B) topics that people usually have a lot of personal identification with.
I’m also very direct and honest when I express myself, and since this generally isn’t the norm, people often misinterpret what I’m saying as if it is somehow malicious and take it way out of context.
So, if you read this post, please don’t take what I say too seriously as if it’s some sort of personal affront. I’m simply expressing my thoughts/ideas with the intention of trying to help out where I can, and if you disagree/dislike what I’m saying, I’m ok with that. You don’t have to agree with me, nor like my ideas. It all comes down to perspective, anyway. I will, of course, do my best to ensure that I adhere to the Kongregate Behaviour Guidelines.
bq. I think that the front page should have a banner or something with a link in it with a message saying “Read our policy and figure out what you can and can’t do, take this as your first warning, you will be punished accordingly”. I also think we should have a code of conduct, with the crime a ”......” and then the punishment.
I don’t think rules/guidelines need to be *that* granular (ie. listing a “crime” and then “punishment” for that “crime”), however...
bq. I agree that at least somewhere there should be a link to the Behavior Guidelines
... I do agree that the ‘Behaviour Guidelines’ should more obvious. They are currently tucked away in a remote location that is not at all intuitive (ie. if I want to read the rules of the site, “Help” is the last place I’d look), and that’s not too good when you want people to follow your rules.
The fact that you have to click on two links to get to the behaviour guidelines is also kind of clunky, but Kong are probably aware of this, just busy working on other more important things such as parts of their system that are directly tied in with their business model/plan.
You could argue that rules don’t always need to be displayed clearly and that people should just behave as expected anyway, but I think that line of thinking leads down a very slippery slope, and when it comes to taking responsibly managing a system, I think it’s poor form.
Essentially, rules are there to ensure a reasonable atmosphere is maintained, and I believe if you expect the users of your system to be reasonable, you must be equally reasonable to them by doing things like making rules clear, fairly enforcing them, etc. I’m not saying Kong is lacking in any of these areas; I’m just stating what, to me, is “fair and reasonable” when it comes to rules/rule enforcement.
Despite a “hardened” outer appearance, most people are pretty reasonable, and when rules (A) make sense, and (B) don’t unnecessarily or unfairly limit people, they generally won’t have any problems following them. There are other influencing factors, but they are the exception, not the rule.
bq. I don’t think so, because this wouldn’t apply to many visitors without accounts, and the large, silent majority of Kongregate users who neither spam or chat normally. It’s only a very few users that do things against the rules, and they know it’s against the rules, they just want to annoy everyone.
Honestly, as a user, I like to be able to easily read the rules of a website and know where I stand. Not all rules are a matter of common sense. For example, some sites have special, non-obvious rules that may be there for a very good reason, but you just aren’t aware of.
You could say, “a user will find out if something is suitable soon enough when they try to do it”, but I’d say we (I’m not specifically referring to anyone when I say “we”) can do much better then that.
It’s bad enough having rules that aren’t directly enforced by a system, so when it comes to so called “squishy” rules that are placed on top of hard rules, you want them to be as clear as possible.
For those who don’t understand, an example of a rule directly enforced by a system (aka a “hard rule”) would be gravity. An example of a “squishy” rule (aka a “soft rule”) would be something like the laws of a country.
I’m not saying one type is better then the other, but hard rules are highly desirable because they don’t require enforcement and they are consistent. Eg. How often have you had to make sure you don’t float off into space? I’m guessing not too often. Gravity is shining example of good rule design.
bq. Also; it might scare away prospective users if they think “This site is too harsh, we can’t do anything” and leave, or similar.
I’m probably taking your response a bit out of context, but I think so long as your rules are fair and reasonable, there should be no problems with displaying them.
If rules aren’t fair and reasonable there’s a good chance that people will leave, but that’s just an indicator that change is needed, not a reason to hide rules in tricky fine print or vague, unclear language just to give users a false sense of security (I’m not saying Kong does this, I’m just making a general point).
bq. http://www.kongregate.com/pages/conduct
What I do think would be good is if the specific rules listed in the Kongregate Behavior Guidelines (that I linked to above) were a little more specific.
Currently a few of the rules are kind of cutesy, and while that style may be targeted at a younger audience or intended to make the rules a little more interesting/humourous (I like humour as much as the next guy), I think there are probably better places to be express such values.
That said, a lot of the rules are very clear and get two thumbs up from me. The great thing about rules is that you can evolve them over time as you acid test them in a real-world environment. So long as you take a proactive approach and learn from your mistakes, you’ve got nothing to worry about.
(The below points don’t specifically apply to Kongregate.)
I think you’ve succeeded at creating a good rules list if a user has a good sense of what is expected of them after reading it and isn’t expected to make assumptions about what is expected.
From what I’ve seen, vague rules are usually vague for the purpose of covering the lack of fair and reasonable rules in the first place, which is quite the slippery slope. If you want to rule with an iron fist, don’t pretend that you’re trying to do otherwise. Make your intentions clear, whether people like them or not, and go about your business.
On the other hand, if you ARE trying to be fair/reasonable, do your very best. Creating a system that involves others bestows a certain level of responsibility to you. You can only do your best, but it’s important to remain vigilant and ensure you are doing your best and not denying your power/influence.
- Bruce
*A brief disclaimer*
------------------------------------------------------------
Before I go on, I want to say that a lot of people tend to get bent out of shape when I talk about things like rules, rule design, fairness, etc. This tends to happen when you talk about (A) topics that tend to highly polarise people, and/or (B) topics that people usually have a lot of personal identification with.
I’m also very direct and honest when I express myself, and since this generally isn’t the norm, people often misinterpret what I’m saying as if it is somehow malicious and take it way out of context.
So, if you read this post, please don’t take what I say too seriously as if it’s some sort of personal affront. I’m simply expressing my thoughts/ideas with the intention of trying to help out where I can, and if you disagree/dislike what I’m saying, I’m ok with that. You don’t have to agree with me, nor like my ideas. It all comes down to perspective, anyway. I will, of course, do my best to ensure that I adhere to the Kongregate Behaviour Guidelines.
bq. I think that the front page should have a banner or something with a link in it with a message saying “Read our policy and figure out what you can and can’t do, take this as your first warning, you will be punished accordingly”. I also think we should have a code of conduct, with the crime a ”......” and then the punishment.
I don’t think rules/guidelines need to be *that* granular (ie. listing a “crime” and then “punishment” for that “crime”), however...
bq. I agree that at least somewhere there should be a link to the Behavior Guidelines
... I do agree that the ‘Behaviour Guidelines’ should more obvious. They are currently tucked away in a remote location that is not at all intuitive (ie. if I want to read the rules of the site, “Help” is the last place I’d look), and that’s not too good when you want people to follow your rules.
The fact that you have to click on two links to get to the behaviour guidelines is also kind of clunky, but Kong are probably aware of this, just busy working on other more important things such as parts of their system that are directly tied in with their business model/plan.
You could argue that rules don’t always need to be displayed clearly and that people should just behave as expected anyway, but I think that line of thinking leads down a very slippery slope, and when it comes to taking responsibly managing a system, I think it’s poor form.
Essentially, rules are there to ensure a reasonable atmosphere is maintained, and I believe if you expect the users of your system to be reasonable, you must be equally reasonable to them by doing things like making rules clear, fairly enforcing them, etc. I’m not saying Kong is lacking in any of these areas; I’m just stating what, to me, is “fair and reasonable” when it comes to rules/rule enforcement.
Despite a “hardened” outer appearance, most people are pretty reasonable, and when rules (A) make sense, and (B) don’t unnecessarily or unfairly limit people, they generally won’t have any problems following them. There are other influencing factors, but they are the exception, not the rule.
bq. I don’t think so, because this wouldn’t apply to many visitors without accounts, and the large, silent majority of Kongregate users who neither spam or chat normally. It’s only a very few users that do things against the rules, and they know it’s against the rules, they just want to annoy everyone.
Honestly, as a user, I like to be able to easily read the rules of a website and know where I stand. Not all rules are a matter of common sense. For example, some sites have special, non-obvious rules that may be there for a very good reason, but you just aren’t aware of.
You could say, “a user will find out if something is suitable soon enough when they try to do it”, but I’d say we (I’m not specifically referring to anyone when I say “we”) can do much better then that.
It’s bad enough having rules that aren’t directly enforced by a system, so when it comes to so called “squishy” rules that are placed on top of hard rules, you want them to be as clear as possible.
For those who don’t understand, an example of a rule directly enforced by a system (aka a “hard rule”) would be gravity. An example of a “squishy” rule (aka a “soft rule”) would be something like the laws of a country.
I’m not saying one type is better then the other, but hard rules are highly desirable because they don’t require enforcement and they are consistent. Eg. How often have you had to make sure you don’t float off into space? I’m guessing not too often. Gravity is shining example of good rule design.
bq. Also; it might scare away prospective users if they think “This site is too harsh, we can’t do anything” and leave, or similar.
I’m probably taking your response a bit out of context, but I think so long as your rules are fair and reasonable, there should be no problems with displaying them.
If rules aren’t fair and reasonable there’s a good chance that people will leave, but that’s just an indicator that change is needed, not a reason to hide rules in tricky fine print or vague, unclear language just to give users a false sense of security (I’m not saying Kong does this, I’m just making a general point).
bq. <a href="http://www.kongregate.com/pages/conduct">http://www.kongregate.com/pages/conduct</a>
What I do think would be good is if the specific rules listed in the Kongregate Behavior Guidelines (that I linked to above) were a little more specific.
Currently a few of the rules are kind of cutesy, and while that style may be targeted at a younger audience or intended to make the rules a little more interesting/humourous (I like humour as much as the next guy), I think there are probably better places to be express such values.
That said, a lot of the rules are very clear and get two thumbs up from me. The great thing about rules is that you can evolve them over time as you acid test them in a real-world environment. So long as you take a proactive approach and learn from your mistakes, you’ve got nothing to worry about.
(The below points don’t specifically apply to Kongregate.)
I think you’ve succeeded at creating a good rules list if a user has a good sense of what is expected of them after reading it and isn’t expected to make assumptions about what is expected.
From what I’ve seen, vague rules are usually vague for the purpose of covering the lack of fair and reasonable rules in the first place, which is quite the slippery slope. If you want to rule with an iron fist, don’t pretend that you’re trying to do otherwise. Make your intentions clear, whether people like them or not, and go about your business.
On the other hand, if you ARE trying to be fair/reasonable, do your very best. Creating a system that involves others bestows a certain level of responsibility to you. You can only do your best, but it’s important to remain vigilant and ensure you are doing your best and not denying your power/influence.
- Bruce
2007-12-02T07:03:00-08:00
0
true
1
57765
6
3765
2009-09-16T23:26:52-07:00
66241
One more thing:
If you're looking for decent Wiki software, MediaWiki seems to be the best (or one of the best) out there. MediaWiki is free and used on just about every wiki I've seen (including Wikipedia).
Also, a benefit of Wiki software that is actively being used by other projects is that it will keep getting updated and it's very likely that there will be good support/documentation available should you need it.
You can find it here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
This, of course, requires that you have a server to install it on (and I think you'd need a domain name as well, although I could be wrong.)
<p>One more thing:</p>
<p>If you’re looking for decent Wiki software, MediaWiki seems to be the best (or one of the best) out there. MediaWiki is free and used on just about every wiki I’ve seen (including Wikipedia).</p>
<p>Also, a benefit of Wiki software that is actively being used by other projects is that it will keep getting updated and it’s very likely that there will be good support/documentation available should you need it.</p>
<p>You can find it here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki">http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki</a></p>
<p>This, of course, requires that you have a server to install it on (and I think you’d need a domain name as well, although I could be wrong.)</p>
2007-11-28T21:06:37-08:00
0
true
1
56755
59
3587
2009-09-16T23:26:27-07:00
66241
*@ smigbob:*
Here's something you may want to read when considering what licence to use for the wiki you're working on:
---------------------------------------------------------------
*If ArenaNet hosts a site, will it be any different than the existing GuildWiki site?*
There are a few minor things that need to be different in order to support our vision of using the public wiki as our primary source of documentation, and the long term vision of integrating wiki access into the game.
First, we are proposing to use the GNU Free Document License. GuildWiki uses a different license called Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, which places some restrictions on how GuildWiki content can be used. Especially important is that the license GuildWiki uses precludes its content from being used for commercial purposes. This could be interpreted to preclude ArenaNet from hosting the site's content or integrating it into our games, since we are a commercial enterprise that makes money from selling games.
Second, we are proposing to host the content in an ad-free environment. Because ArenaNet opposes the sale of gold for cash, we can't be in the position of directing people to a web site that advertises the sale of gold for cash.
Third, we will host the site on more powerful servers with more bandwidth, so that we can direct huge numbers of users to the site without overwhelming its hosting capacity.
These are important considerations but they're all behind-the-scenes type considerations. The fundamental structure, organization, and look and feel of an ArenaNet-hosted wiki site don’t need to be any different from what the community has already been generating with sites like GuildWiki. We think the existing wiki site administrators and community have been doing a fantastic job. We're not asking anyone to change what they're doing. We're just offering to provide free hosting, and asking to use the Free Document License instead of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.
~ Source: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki:About
---------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest that you liberally use the official and unofficial Guild Wars wiki as an example when working on your wiki project. The goal is not to steal their content, but to use them as an example that can help guide you in creating a good wiki (since their wiki is already established and relatively successful).
What are some other reasons you should use already existing projects to assist you?
* Ideas can’t be copyrighted (only tangible expressions of those ideas).
* If you and I each have an apple, and we trade the apples, we still only have 1 apple each. If you and I both have ideas and trade ideas, we are both left with 2 ideas.
* Just like it’s intelligent to make use of say, a diet plan or an exercise plan if you’re looking to get fit, it also makes sense to look at what others have figured out before you and use that info where appropriate. It saves a lot of time and effort and helps you get the result you want more efficiently. It's also the reason why people pay each other for services. Ie. If you are sick and need medical advice, it's more efficient to go to a doctor and pay them for access to their knowledge/experience. You could alternatively go get your own medical degree and then treat yourself, but the former solution is far more efficient. Suffice to say it's a form of leverage.
If you're interested, here are the links to the un-official/official Guild Wars wiki sites:
* Official wiki: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page
* Unofficial wiki: http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page
Oh and for the record, the reason I reference Guild Wars so much is because it's an example that I know of that can illustrate my point. I could not use an example, but then I'd have to explain things a lot more which means I have to write more and people have to read more. I think we can both agree nobody wants either of those things. ;)
*@ smigbob:*
Here's something you may want to read when considering what licence to use for the wiki you're working on:
---------------------------------------------------------------
*If ArenaNet hosts a site, will it be any different than the existing GuildWiki site?*
There are a few minor things that need to be different in order to support our vision of using the public wiki as our primary source of documentation, and the long term vision of integrating wiki access into the game.
First, we are proposing to use the GNU Free Document License. GuildWiki uses a different license called Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, which places some restrictions on how GuildWiki content can be used. Especially important is that the license GuildWiki uses precludes its content from being used for commercial purposes. This could be interpreted to preclude ArenaNet from hosting the site's content or integrating it into our games, since we are a commercial enterprise that makes money from selling games.
Second, we are proposing to host the content in an ad-free environment. Because ArenaNet opposes the sale of gold for cash, we can't be in the position of directing people to a web site that advertises the sale of gold for cash.
Third, we will host the site on more powerful servers with more bandwidth, so that we can direct huge numbers of users to the site without overwhelming its hosting capacity.
These are important considerations but they're all behind-the-scenes type considerations. The fundamental structure, organization, and look and feel of an ArenaNet-hosted wiki site don’t need to be any different from what the community has already been generating with sites like GuildWiki. We think the existing wiki site administrators and community have been doing a fantastic job. We're not asking anyone to change what they're doing. We're just offering to provide free hosting, and asking to use the Free Document License instead of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.
~ Source: <a href="http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki:About">http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki:About</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest that you liberally use the official and unofficial Guild Wars wiki as an example when working on your wiki project. The goal is not to steal their content, but to use them as an example that can help guide you in creating a good wiki (since their wiki is already established and relatively successful).
What are some other reasons you should use already existing projects to assist you?
* Ideas can’t be copyrighted (only tangible expressions of those ideas).
* If you and I each have an apple, and we trade the apples, we still only have 1 apple each. If you and I both have ideas and trade ideas, we are both left with 2 ideas.
* Just like it’s intelligent to make use of say, a diet plan or an exercise plan if you’re looking to get fit, it also makes sense to look at what others have figured out before you and use that info where appropriate. It saves a lot of time and effort and helps you get the result you want more efficiently. It's also the reason why people pay each other for services. Ie. If you are sick and need medical advice, it's more efficient to go to a doctor and pay them for access to their knowledge/experience. You could alternatively go get your own medical degree and then treat yourself, but the former solution is far more efficient. Suffice to say it's a form of leverage.
If you're interested, here are the links to the un-official/official Guild Wars wiki sites:
* Official wiki: <a href="http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page">http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page</a>
* Unofficial wiki: <a href="http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page">http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page</a>
Oh and for the record, the reason I reference Guild Wars so much is because it's an example that I know of that can illustrate my point. I could not use an example, but then I'd have to explain things a lot more which means I have to write more and people have to read more. I think we can both agree nobody wants either of those things. ;)
2007-11-28T20:56:32-08:00
0
true
1
56752
58
3587
2009-09-16T23:26:27-07:00
66241
Ok, I don't have much time for responses at the moment, but I'll try cover any important points that have been brought up.
*@ Trotim:*
What made me write this article?
Well, I think Kongregate is an interesting project, and I like to support interesting projects where I can. Primarily, though, the article is just me doing what I love to do.
Hidden underneath the words of the article, the particular medium I used to express them, and the specifics of the ideas/information I provided lies my passion (it's a bit too complicated to fully describe), and that's what fuels me to do things such as this article.
*@ ThemePark*
The great thing is that there's room for both unofficial as well as official projects. Both have their pros and cons, and in the article I wrote, I explained how an unofficial and official wiki somehow managed to co-exist and actually cover different needs as opposed to the one making the other redundant.
*@ Emily Greer*
Emily knows where it's at and "gets it" when it comes to what I was talking about (I'm not saying other people don't, just that it's good that Emily - someone who is in a position of influence - does get it).
Emily also highlights the advantages of official projects that leverage the community. Such projects can be actively included in the system they are supporting.
For example, the official Guild Wars wiki I talked about can be accessed inside the game itself. They tried to do this with the already existing unofficial wiki, but due to the lisence they used, they were unable to due to legal red tape. That's the advantage of having something that is officially supported -- usually things like that are taken into account, so if an opportunity to expand the project arises, it can be done without any wasted effort.
*@ FRAGM3NT:*
Keep up the great work, FRAGM3NT. People like you are valuable assets to both the community as well as game/system that you help support, and it's quite possible that your efforts may be rewarded at some point. Eg. As a result of their display of dedication, many people involved in the Guild Wars community websites got asked if they'd like to work at ArenaNet. I'm not saying Kong will do this or that you should exclusively aim at this goal, but it is definitely something companies take note of.
*@ Greg:*
As you suggest, it's a great idea to use the ready-fire-aim approach (as opposed to the ready-aim-fire approach) when it comes to a project such as a Wiki. What I mean by that is before you make any solid commitment you simply get moving first and see how successful/useful the potential project is. Then, if it shows potential, the data that has already been collected can be factored into any further expansion.
*@ milskidasith:*
Yeah, I agree with you. I definitely wasn't proposing that a wiki should replace COCAK or anything like that. I prefer to think in terms of AND, not either/or.
Also, "premium fansite funding" would be an interesting thing to do. I don't know how feasible it would be, but it sure would be nice to have a series of fansites that are of the same quality of the premium Kongregate games. Fansites that cover things like badges (walkthroughs, info, etc), the card game, etc.
<p>Ok, I don’t have much time for responses at the moment, but I’ll try cover any important points that have been brought up.</p>
<p><strong>@ Trotim:</strong></p>
<p>What made me write this article?</p>
<p>Well, I think Kongregate is an interesting project, and I like to support interesting projects where I can. Primarily, though, the article is just me doing what I love to do.</p>
<p>Hidden underneath the words of the article, the particular medium I used to express them, and the specifics of the ideas/information I provided lies my passion (it’s a bit too complicated to fully describe), and that’s what fuels me to do things such as this article.</p>
<p><strong>@ ThemePark</strong></p>
<p>The great thing is that there’s room for both unofficial as well as official projects. Both have their pros and cons, and in the article I wrote, I explained how an unofficial and official wiki somehow managed to co-exist and actually cover different needs as opposed to the one making the other redundant.</p>
<p><strong>@ Emily Greer</strong></p>
<p>Emily knows where it’s at and “gets it” when it comes to what I was talking about (I’m not saying other people don’t, just that it’s good that Emily – someone who is in a position of influence – does get it).</p>
<p>Emily also highlights the advantages of official projects that leverage the community. Such projects can be actively included in the system they are supporting.</p>
<p>For example, the official Guild Wars wiki I talked about can be accessed inside the game itself. They tried to do this with the already existing unofficial wiki, but due to the lisence they used, they were unable to due to legal red tape. That’s the advantage of having something that is officially supported — usually things like that are taken into account, so if an opportunity to expand the project arises, it can be done without any wasted effort.</p>
<p><strong>@ FRAGM3NT:</strong></p>
<p>Keep up the great work, FRAGM3NT. People like you are valuable assets to both the community as well as game/system that you help support, and it’s quite possible that your efforts may be rewarded at some point. Eg. As a result of their display of dedication, many people involved in the Guild Wars community websites got asked if they’d like to work at ArenaNet. I’m not saying Kong will do this or that you should exclusively aim at this goal, but it is definitely something companies take note of.</p>
<p><strong>@ Greg:</strong></p>
<p>As you suggest, it’s a great idea to use the ready-fire-aim approach (as opposed to the ready-aim-fire approach) when it comes to a project such as a Wiki. What I mean by that is before you make any solid commitment you simply get moving first and see how successful/useful the potential project is. Then, if it shows potential, the data that has already been collected can be factored into any further expansion.</p>
<p><strong>@ milskidasith:</strong></p>
<p>Yeah, I agree with you. I definitely wasn’t proposing that a wiki should replace <span class="caps">COCAK</span> or anything like that. I prefer to think in terms of <span class="caps">AND</span>, not either/or.</p>
<p>Also, “premium fansite funding” would be an interesting thing to do. I don’t know how feasible it would be, but it sure would be nice to have a series of fansites that are of the same quality of the premium Kongregate games. Fansites that cover things like badges (walkthroughs, info, etc), the card game, etc.</p>
2007-11-28T20:39:03-08:00
0
true
1
56749
20
3582
2009-09-16T23:26:25-07:00
66241
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Intro*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll try my hardest to keep this post as brief as possible. This post is mainly addressed to Greg + the general Kongregate team, but other people may find it interesting as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*What this post is about – First, some background info*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently Greg made the following reply to a post on COCAK, a blog run by members of the Kongregate community that provides news and information about Kongregate and the games on the site:
_“You guys rock way more than I do. I gave you a link in today's news post.”_
His reply was made to a post that detailed the changes made to the Kongregate website (it even had example graphics and crazy internet acronyms!).
Now here’s what Greg said in the Nov. 27, 2007 news update on Kongregate:
_“major props to COCAK for making an official news update regarding these changes before Kongregate's own lazy community manager could get around to it.”_
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*What this post is about – Getting to the point*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, to sum up and explain what I’m rambling about: The loyal, overzealous Kongregate fans over at COCAK (who, as far as I know, don’t get paid to do what they do) beat Greg, Kongregate’s own community manager (who, as far as I know, does get paid to do what he does), to posting about the new update made to Kongregate.
Now that isn’t a jab at Greg or anything like that, but rather, me pointing out an important and sometimes overlooked quality that I would call “the love of the game”, or in the case of Kongregate, “the love of the system”.
Suffice to say that, as hard as paid employees of a company may try, it’s often pretty difficult to beat the efforts a hoard of loyal users (who love the heck out of your game/system). Whether this is because of the high amounts of users or the degree they “love” the game/system isn’t important. What is important is observing this phenomena.
But this isn’t the only place I’ve seen this pattern...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Enter Guild Wars and their Wiki project*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I describe above is an example of a pattern ArenaNet, the team that made the Guild Wars series, started to notice whenever they made a change to their game. (I know this because I read one of the co-founders of ArenaNet say, in essence, exactly that. I’d provide a source, but I can’t remember where to find it and I don’t want to spend hours searching for it.)
Before ArenaNet could even update their official website, fans had posted full, highly detailed updates to a popular community wiki -- updates that often rivalled the quality of the updates ArenaNet made on their own official site.
So ArenaNet went with the flow and decided to create an official wiki for the game that would be available online as well as in their Guild Wars games.
Unfortunately, due to the licence the popular wiki I mentioned above used and various legailities, ArenaNet was unable to use the already existing wiki and had to create one of their own.
Interestingly, both the official and non-official wiki’s are both thriving, and instead of one of them making the other redundant, they both went in different directions and each offer unique content, even though they’re both essentially covering the same series of games.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Leveraging the community for the benefit of everyone*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, my point here is that leveraging a community who is already more then willing to support and spread the word about a game/system that they love is good for both the community associated with that game/system as well as those who developed the game/system.
But what’s even better is when those who developed the game/system empower their community my offering them tools and resources to appropriately channel their love of the game constructively. This creates a positive feedback cycle that tends to create a win/win situation for both players/users and developers.
On the dev side, it out sources a lot of work to what are essentially free volunteers (which lets the devs focus more on things that only they can do, such as providing specific information/resources to the community as well as improving their game/system), it helps to spread the word about their system/game, and it also helps to improve the relationship the devs have with their community.
On the player side, players are able to put their love of the game to use in a way that positively benefits both the dev team as well as the rest of the community, they indirectly support the developers of the game which can improve the system/game that they love so much, and they get to do something that they love/enjoy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Empowering the community with resources that let them contribute*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArenaNet empower their community in two ways:
(1) Providing a fansite program + fansite resources (such as game art and other content useful for making a website) for those interested in creating websites related to the game.
(2) Offering an official wiki that both players as well as the ArenaNet team can contribute to, the end result being a whole that is greater then the sum of its parts (ie. the devs play to their strengths with content only they have access to, and the players use their large numbers/love of the game to cover more content then ArenaNet are able to with their smaller team).
Ultimately though, it’s about re-channelling what’s already out there into an appropriate medium and providing the resources necessary to do that. Short term such projects may involve some costs/time investment, but long term they tend to support themselves and expand of their own accord.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*How this applies to Kongregate*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I think a fansite program and an official wiki would be excellent additions to Kongregate (ie. wouldn't it be great if the COCAK site effort got turned into a wiki that everyone could easily contribute to?), I’m not necessarily suggesting that Kongregate must go down that route.
Rather, as with pretty much anything I post/talk about, I intend this post to raise awareness and offer ideas that may act as a catalyst for positive improvement/expansion.
So take from this post the aspects/ideas that sound good to you, and leave the rest behind. Some of the points may have been obvious, but I see so few development teams/companies doing this, so I thought it couldn’t hurt to make it a bit more obvious.
Thanks for reading!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Resources*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some examples can’t hurt, so below I’ll share some of the specific resources I mentioned above.
* Official Guild Wars wiki:
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page
* Unofficial Guild Wars wiki:
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page
* Guild Wars fansite program:
http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/program/
* Guild Wars fansite FAQ:
http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/faq/
* Guild Wars fansite resources:
http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/kit/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Sources*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://cocak.blogspot.com/2007/11/kong-redesign-v-11.html
http://www.kongregate.com/announcements/site-updates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Intro*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll try my hardest to keep this post as brief as possible. This post is mainly addressed to Greg + the general Kongregate team, but other people may find it interesting as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*What this post is about – First, some background info*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently Greg made the following reply to a post on COCAK, a blog run by members of the Kongregate community that provides news and information about Kongregate and the games on the site:
_“You guys rock way more than I do. I gave you a link in today's news post.”_
His reply was made to a post that detailed the changes made to the Kongregate website (it even had example graphics and crazy internet acronyms!).
Now here’s what Greg said in the Nov. 27, 2007 news update on Kongregate:
_“major props to COCAK for making an official news update regarding these changes before Kongregate's own lazy community manager could get around to it.”_
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*What this post is about – Getting to the point*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, to sum up and explain what I’m rambling about: The loyal, overzealous Kongregate fans over at COCAK (who, as far as I know, don’t get paid to do what they do) beat Greg, Kongregate’s own community manager (who, as far as I know, does get paid to do what he does), to posting about the new update made to Kongregate.
Now that isn’t a jab at Greg or anything like that, but rather, me pointing out an important and sometimes overlooked quality that I would call “the love of the game”, or in the case of Kongregate, “the love of the system”.
Suffice to say that, as hard as paid employees of a company may try, it’s often pretty difficult to beat the efforts a hoard of loyal users (who love the heck out of your game/system). Whether this is because of the high amounts of users or the degree they “love” the game/system isn’t important. What is important is observing this phenomena.
But this isn’t the only place I’ve seen this pattern...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Enter Guild Wars and their Wiki project*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I describe above is an example of a pattern ArenaNet, the team that made the Guild Wars series, started to notice whenever they made a change to their game. (I know this because I read one of the co-founders of ArenaNet say, in essence, exactly that. I’d provide a source, but I can’t remember where to find it and I don’t want to spend hours searching for it.)
Before ArenaNet could even update their official website, fans had posted full, highly detailed updates to a popular community wiki -- updates that often rivalled the quality of the updates ArenaNet made on their own official site.
So ArenaNet went with the flow and decided to create an official wiki for the game that would be available online as well as in their Guild Wars games.
Unfortunately, due to the licence the popular wiki I mentioned above used and various legailities, ArenaNet was unable to use the already existing wiki and had to create one of their own.
Interestingly, both the official and non-official wiki’s are both thriving, and instead of one of them making the other redundant, they both went in different directions and each offer unique content, even though they’re both essentially covering the same series of games.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Leveraging the community for the benefit of everyone*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, my point here is that leveraging a community who is already more then willing to support and spread the word about a game/system that they love is good for both the community associated with that game/system as well as those who developed the game/system.
But what’s even better is when those who developed the game/system empower their community my offering them tools and resources to appropriately channel their love of the game constructively. This creates a positive feedback cycle that tends to create a win/win situation for both players/users and developers.
On the dev side, it out sources a lot of work to what are essentially free volunteers (which lets the devs focus more on things that only they can do, such as providing specific information/resources to the community as well as improving their game/system), it helps to spread the word about their system/game, and it also helps to improve the relationship the devs have with their community.
On the player side, players are able to put their love of the game to use in a way that positively benefits both the dev team as well as the rest of the community, they indirectly support the developers of the game which can improve the system/game that they love so much, and they get to do something that they love/enjoy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Empowering the community with resources that let them contribute*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArenaNet empower their community in two ways:
(1) Providing a fansite program + fansite resources (such as game art and other content useful for making a website) for those interested in creating websites related to the game.
(2) Offering an official wiki that both players as well as the ArenaNet team can contribute to, the end result being a whole that is greater then the sum of its parts (ie. the devs play to their strengths with content only they have access to, and the players use their large numbers/love of the game to cover more content then ArenaNet are able to with their smaller team).
Ultimately though, it’s about re-channelling what’s already out there into an appropriate medium and providing the resources necessary to do that. Short term such projects may involve some costs/time investment, but long term they tend to support themselves and expand of their own accord.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*How this applies to Kongregate*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I think a fansite program and an official wiki would be excellent additions to Kongregate (ie. wouldn't it be great if the COCAK site effort got turned into a wiki that everyone could easily contribute to?), I’m not necessarily suggesting that Kongregate must go down that route.
Rather, as with pretty much anything I post/talk about, I intend this post to raise awareness and offer ideas that may act as a catalyst for positive improvement/expansion.
So take from this post the aspects/ideas that sound good to you, and leave the rest behind. Some of the points may have been obvious, but I see so few development teams/companies doing this, so I thought it couldn’t hurt to make it a bit more obvious.
Thanks for reading!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Resources*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some examples can’t hurt, so below I’ll share some of the specific resources I mentioned above.
* Official Guild Wars wiki:
<a href="http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page">http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page</a>
* Unofficial Guild Wars wiki:
<a href="http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page">http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page</a>
* Guild Wars fansite program:
<a href="http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/program/">http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/program/</a>
* Guild Wars fansite FAQ:
<a href="http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/faq/">http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/faq/</a>
* Guild Wars fansite resources:
<a href="http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/kit/">http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/kit/</a>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Sources*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<a href="http://cocak.blogspot.com/2007/11/kong-redesign-v-11.html">http://cocak.blogspot.com/2007/11/kong-redesign-v-11.html</a>
<a href="http://www.kongregate.com/announcements/site-updates">http://www.kongregate.com/announcements/site-updates</a>
2007-11-28T06:40:25-08:00
0
true
1
56427
1
3582
2009-09-16T23:26:24-07:00
66241
bq. say, run two challenges at the same time. One for the old card, and one for the new? And maybe, bring back the EXACT same challenges!
bq. I have to say, I really like this idea. The same challenges for the old version of the card, and a new challenge, perhaps on a new game, that is also easier than the original challenge, to get the new card.
So if you don’t care how your card looks, it won’t be so hard to get it, but if you’re in it for collecting cards too, you’ll have to do a bit of work.
I concur.
As a gamer, I fall under the "I don't give a damn about pretty items and effects, I just want to play the game and have equal/fair/reasonable access to the tools needed to do that".
I also care much more about the underlying gameplay then I do about "side" type content such as achievements and other things to do with status (ie. items, levels, etc).
I understand that some people enjoy those type of things, and I think they should be offered to those people, but not at the expense of gameplay or as an excuse to unnecessarily extend the life of the game. It's like watching season 2 and 3 of Prison Break. After you've seen them both, you just wish they ended at season one (or at least, season 2) instead of dragging it on and diluting the quality of something that was once very special. (Note: I'm refering to Kong when I say this, just making a point.)
That said, I do enjoy “side” content when it is relevant/meaningful. For example, if there was a card that I liked the art for, there’s a good chance I’d play through whatever challenge I needed to do in order to get it. Ditto with event cards that have exclusive art tied to the event.
I guess you could say have something in common with those who like “side” content and things like status, but I put more emphasis on the quality of gameplay then I do the side content. (And yes, “side content” is my own term. If you don’t like the term, feel free to substitute it for a term you like. A suggestion would be “1337 items and status effects that Bruce doesn’t have because he’s a n00b”. ;) )
So, what I’m trying to say here is that it’d be great if the way you earned cards was tailored to the different player types (as much as possible). Ie. Those who want cards for functionality as well as pretty art + status, those who want cards just to play and don’t care about anything else, and those who just want to play but might occasionally dabble in unlocking something that they like (such as a card with nice art, etc).
Overall, when it comes to design, think “inclusively, not exclusivity”. But at the same time, also think “give people options, but not so many that people are overwhelmed and confused about what the point of whatever it is they’re doing”.
- Bruce
<blockquote>
<p>say, run two challenges at the same time. One for the old card, and one for the new? And maybe, bring back the <span class="caps">EXACT</span> same challenges!</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>I have to say, I really like this idea. The same challenges for the old version of the card, and a new challenge, perhaps on a new game, that is also easier than the original challenge, to get the new card.<br />
So if you don’t care how your card looks, it won’t be so hard to get it, but if you’re in it for collecting cards too, you’ll have to do a bit of work.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I concur.</p>
<p>As a gamer, I fall under the “I don’t give a damn about pretty items and effects, I just want to play the game and have equal/fair/reasonable access to the tools needed to do that”.</p>
<p>I also care much more about the underlying gameplay then I do about “side” type content such as achievements and other things to do with status (ie. items, levels, etc).</p>
<p>I understand that some people enjoy those type of things, and I think they should be offered to those people, but not at the expense of gameplay or as an excuse to unnecessarily extend the life of the game. It’s like watching season 2 and 3 of Prison Break. After you’ve seen them both, you just wish they ended at season one (or at least, season 2) instead of dragging it on and diluting the quality of something that was once very special. (Note: I’m refering to Kong when I say this, just making a point.)</p>
<p>That said, I do enjoy “side” content when it is relevant/meaningful. For example, if there was a card that I liked the art for, there’s a good chance I’d play through whatever challenge I needed to do in order to get it. Ditto with event cards that have exclusive art tied to the event.</p>
<p>I guess you could say have something in common with those who like “side” content and things like status, but I put more emphasis on the quality of gameplay then I do the side content. (And yes, “side content” is my own term. If you don’t like the term, feel free to substitute it for a term you like. A suggestion would be “1337 items and status effects that Bruce doesn’t have because he’s a n00b”. ;) )</p>
<p>So, what I’m trying to say here is that it’d be great if the way you earned cards was tailored to the different player types (as much as possible). Ie. Those who want cards for functionality as well as pretty art + status, those who want cards just to play and don’t care about anything else, and those who just want to play but might occasionally dabble in unlocking something that they like (such as a card with nice art, etc).</p>
<p>Overall, when it comes to design, think “inclusively, not exclusivity”. But at the same time, also think “give people options, but not so many that people are overwhelmed and confused about what the point of whatever it is they’re doing”.</p>
<p>- Bruce</p>
2007-11-28T05:45:56-08:00
0
true
1
56413
87
2505
2009-09-16T23:17:07-07:00
66241
Wow, thanks for your kind words, ThemePark. =)
Reading responses like yours is very rewarding. I don’t expect everybody to like/agree with what I say, but knowing that it helps/resonates with at least some people is all that matters to me.
That reminds me of a good quote:
_What matters to me — what is real to me — is inspiring and helping people. Directly or indirectly, whenever I’m able to help someone solve a really tough problem or to motivate someone to finally push past a big obstacle, that is something I find tremendously fulfilling. And the fulfillment I get from doing this is so great that it trumps all the external stuff. It doesn’t matter how much money I make. It doesn’t matter if people reject my ideas or poke fun at what I enjoy doing. This blog entry may be read by over 1000 people, but it may be such that the ideas within are only able to help one person in a very small way. The other 999 may conclude I’m nuts and unsubscribe. And that’s fine. It’s that one person I’m writing for._
_~ Steve Pavlina,_ http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/01/dont-die-with-your-music-still-in-you/
bq. These are, IMO, HUGE improvements that, if Kongregate could somehow implement them, it would boost your value as a website (not financially), at least 100 %.
Ah, but that's the great thing about providing value. When you provide value to people, they can't help but want to show appreciation for it. Whether it comes in the form of word of mouth, subscriptions to premium games, or a user simply clicking on an ad because they want to help out Kongregate, appreciation generated by offering of value is a very powerful force indeed.
One could even say that the amount of value you offer is an exact measure of how much financial compensation you stand to enjoy.
Note: When I say “value”, I mean a contribution that fills a need. I’m not talking about contributions which don’t fill and need and, while the contributor may have worked hard on his/her contribution, don’t offer any real value. The good news is in those cases it’s usually more so a matter of “how” you express your value, not “what” you express – unless the “what” you express is some sort of scam or something that is more so a drain then a contribution.
<p>Wow, thanks for your kind words, ThemePark. =)</p>
<p>Reading responses like yours is very rewarding. I don’t expect everybody to like/agree with what I say, but knowing that it helps/resonates with at least some people is all that matters to me.</p>
<p>That reminds me of a good quote:</p>
<p><em>What matters to me — what is real to me — is inspiring and helping people. Directly or indirectly, whenever I’m able to help someone solve a really tough problem or to motivate someone to finally push past a big obstacle, that is something I find tremendously fulfilling. And the fulfillment I get from doing this is so great that it trumps all the external stuff. It doesn’t matter how much money I make. It doesn’t matter if people reject my ideas or poke fun at what I enjoy doing. This blog entry may be read by over 1000 people, but it may be such that the ideas within are only able to help one person in a very small way. The other 999 may conclude I’m nuts and unsubscribe. And that’s fine. It’s that one person I’m writing for.</em><br />
<em>~ Steve Pavlina,</em> <a href="http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/01/dont-die-with-your-music-still-in-you/">http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/01/dont-die-with-your-music-still-in-you/</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>These are, <span class="caps">IMO</span>, <span class="caps">HUGE</span> improvements that, if Kongregate could somehow implement them, it would boost your value as a website (not financially), at least 100 %.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ah, but that’s the great thing about providing value. When you provide value to people, they can’t help but want to show appreciation for it. Whether it comes in the form of word of mouth, subscriptions to premium games, or a user simply clicking on an ad because they want to help out Kongregate, appreciation generated by offering of value is a very powerful force indeed.</p>
<p>One could even say that the amount of value you offer is an exact measure of how much financial compensation you stand to enjoy.</p>
<p>Note: When I say “value”, I mean a contribution that fills a need. I’m not talking about contributions which don’t fill and need and, while the contributor may have worked hard on his/her contribution, don’t offer any real value. The good news is in those cases it’s usually more so a matter of “how” you express your value, not “what” you express – unless the “what” you express is some sort of scam or something that is more so a drain then a contribution.</p>
2007-11-28T05:27:43-08:00
0
true
1
56409
70
3460
2009-09-16T23:25:40-07:00
66241
bq. If every user on Kongregate paid us $50 to be on the site, we could probably do something like this too. The simple fact is that, if the site is to be successful, what little official moderation we have is going to have to be stretched extremely thin, and we’re going to have to rely on players more heavily than something like Guild Wars, as Kongregate will always be free to use.
I can understand that. In that case, I'd opt for building a team of high quality volunteer moderators. You'll still need someone from the Kong team to watch over them and make sure they do things well enough, but if you have the right systems in place and select good moderators, you can have a solid team.
------------------------------------------------------
*An example from a high traffic website*
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Pavlina did what I described above when he launched a discussion forum for his highly popular personal development website, www.StevePavlina.com (over 1 million visitors per month... I think it’s 1.4 million, but it’s probably gone up since he last posted a traffic update).
When he decided he wanted to launch a discussion forum it was obvious he’d need help with moderation since he was already getting a crazy amount of traffic and, of course, he didn’t want to spend all his time doing it by himself.
So what he did was put out a request for moderators, asking anyone with interest to send specific details to him (provided they met his criteria). If you’d like to see the post me made for that, you can see it here (it’s pretty informative if you like the idea of moderator applications): http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/09/forum-moderators-wanted/
Anyway, long story short, Steve received 80 applications, and from that, he selected 30 moderators. I was one of the people selected (I tell you this not to impress you, but to let you know what perspective I’m speaking from.) From that, we are left with 20 moderators (the others decided to retire because they were too busy, and one got banned for going on a racial tangent and breaching the forum rules after being warned once already). FYI, that number includes the administrators of the website. The admin are, at the moment, Steve and his wife Erin.
------------------------------------------------------
*How well does a team of 20 people moderate a popular forum?*
------------------------------------------------------
Well, firstly, let me give you some forum stats to give you an idea of forum traffic, conditions, ete. As of a few minutes ago, here’s what the forum stats told me:
Threads: 11,945
Posts: 129,807
Members: 10,172
Guests online: 527
So, to answer my question: Pretty damn well.
Spam usually lasts no longer then a day (most doesn’t even last hours), and other more sticky issues such as attacks, etc, are virtually non-existent. That doesn’t mean that such issues don’t occur, but it usually takes us no longer then a few days to effectively sort out a thread or a series of posts that aren’t appropriate. Any delays are caused by us taking the time to carefully deal with things. If we were more strict and less reasonable, we could easily deal with things within a day or less. I’ll mention that it helps that the audience Steve’s website attracts is pretty mature already (and vastly different to the audience Kong will attract), but that means we just get less “low level” inappropriate stuff. Our inappropriate stuff comes in the guise of intelligent debate, subtle trolling, and self promotion that aren’t always easy to spot (nor is anything really ever black and white... there’s lots of grey area).
------------------------------------------------------
*To sum up*
------------------------------------------------------
It’s possible to have an effective volunteer moderation team. Paid moderators/GMs aren’t really needed (unless you need them for legal reasons, business reputation reasons, or something like that).
bq. Really? World of Warcraft has the most fragmented chat system known to mankind. [Plus the other WoW stuff you pointed out]
Ok, you do bring up some good points with WoW (I didn't really play it long enough to learn that much about everything), but I think you're still a little too focused on specific methods of implementation when you would probably get more out of focusing on what are the good aspects of the various systems that are out there and then finding a way to implement those elements in a way that suits the various goals of Kongregate as a site.
When I gave the example of WoW, I was mainly refering to the fact that the different chat channels all show up in the main window (if you set it up that way). You don't have to go to one different chat window to go talk to your guild, or another to go talk to all chat (again, unless you have it set up like that) -- it all goes in the same window.
------------------------------------------------------
*Taking a lesson from tags and blogging software*
------------------------------------------------------
It kind of reminds me of adding tags to websites in terms of functionality (or "categories" that are used in blogs). Ie. Instead of having things listed in some sort of category heriarchy, you apply category "tags" to individual items (such as websites, or say, posts on a blog) and then if you click on a category, all articles with that tag are displayed. Tags let you display the same post/article under many different categories without requing that you make a duplicate of an article/post or make some sort of dummy post/article linking to the specific article/post that you want under more then one category.
You following me so far? (Ha, probably not. I'm doing a terrible job of explaining this, but bear with me.)
So, like a tags system, instead of having different "categories" of chat that require you to either be in one category (ie. chat room) using an EITHER/OR model, I'm proposing you have some sort of AND system where you can be entered in multiple "chat rooms" (ie. recieve messages/chat from many different chat "channels") and have whatever you recieve from those "chat rooms" be displayed in one chat window.
------------------------------------------------------
*An example what I'm trying (but probably failing) to explain*
------------------------------------------------------
A good example of this system is the Guild Wars chat. Note how you can get chat input from different “channels” (eg. All chat, team chat, guild chat, alliance chat, etc), but it all appears in the same chat window. You can also turn off specific chat “channels” if you so wish, and you no longer see chat from that channel. Turn it back on, though, and you see everything that you missed when you had it turned off.
I think it’d be great if Kong had that sort of functionality. I was thinking you could have a system where you “join” specific chat “channels” and be able to see chat from the channels you select, but I guess the Guild Wars “tick box” system works better. Although, due to the amount of chat rooms Kong is likely to have (which I think is fine), you may want to have it function as “if you tick a box, it means you will receive chat from it” and have most chat boxes un-ticked until the user decides he wants to tick them.
How would a user chat to a specific chat “channel”? Just like WoW or Guild Wars do. You select the channel you want your message to go to, type it, and send it. You could use slash commands like WoW (I can’t remember the specific commands, but you use a forward slash + a letter or something that represents whatever chat channel you want to type to), but the Guild Wars system of “hold down shift + click a shortcut key” works very nicely and is very intuitive. You can, of course, also click on the “chat panel” you want to type in instead of using a shortcut key, but I’ve no idea how you’d do that in terms of user interface.
Of course, the end goal with all of this is to (A) create a better, more user-friendly, more enjoyable system (B) create a more inclusive system, and (C) make it easier for people to connect with each other.
------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, again, these are just ideas. What I mean by that is: (A) you shouldn’t just listen to what I say; listen to all ideas and (B) take what is useful from the ideas you hear and use it to design a system that meets your needs/desires while still remaining technically feasible. I suggest thinking in terms of aspects that you like/that are good and then combining them rather then choosing one specific idea and then running with only that.
Most stuff is feasible, you just need good enough programmers to do it (and, of course, time/money for those programmers... I understand implementation isn’t a magical process that happens instantly).
- Bruce
bq. If every user on Kongregate paid us $50 to be on the site, we could probably do something like this too. The simple fact is that, if the site is to be successful, what little official moderation we have is going to have to be stretched extremely thin, and we’re going to have to rely on players more heavily than something like Guild Wars, as Kongregate will always be free to use.
I can understand that. In that case, I'd opt for building a team of high quality volunteer moderators. You'll still need someone from the Kong team to watch over them and make sure they do things well enough, but if you have the right systems in place and select good moderators, you can have a solid team.
------------------------------------------------------
*An example from a high traffic website*
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Pavlina did what I described above when he launched a discussion forum for his highly popular personal development website, <a href="http://www.StevePavlina.com">www.StevePavlina.com</a> (over 1 million visitors per month... I think it’s 1.4 million, but it’s probably gone up since he last posted a traffic update).
When he decided he wanted to launch a discussion forum it was obvious he’d need help with moderation since he was already getting a crazy amount of traffic and, of course, he didn’t want to spend all his time doing it by himself.
So what he did was put out a request for moderators, asking anyone with interest to send specific details to him (provided they met his criteria). If you’d like to see the post me made for that, you can see it here (it’s pretty informative if you like the idea of moderator applications): <a href="http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/09/forum-moderators-wanted/">http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/09/forum-moderators-wanted/</a>
Anyway, long story short, Steve received 80 applications, and from that, he selected 30 moderators. I was one of the people selected (I tell you this not to impress you, but to let you know what perspective I’m speaking from.) From that, we are left with 20 moderators (the others decided to retire because they were too busy, and one got banned for going on a racial tangent and breaching the forum rules after being warned once already). FYI, that number includes the administrators of the website. The admin are, at the moment, Steve and his wife Erin.
------------------------------------------------------
*How well does a team of 20 people moderate a popular forum?*
------------------------------------------------------
Well, firstly, let me give you some forum stats to give you an idea of forum traffic, conditions, ete. As of a few minutes ago, here’s what the forum stats told me:
Threads: 11,945
Posts: 129,807
Members: 10,172
Guests online: 527
So, to answer my question: Pretty damn well.
Spam usually lasts no longer then a day (most doesn’t even last hours), and other more sticky issues such as attacks, etc, are virtually non-existent. That doesn’t mean that such issues don’t occur, but it usually takes us no longer then a few days to effectively sort out a thread or a series of posts that aren’t appropriate. Any delays are caused by us taking the time to carefully deal with things. If we were more strict and less reasonable, we could easily deal with things within a day or less. I’ll mention that it helps that the audience Steve’s website attracts is pretty mature already (and vastly different to the audience Kong will attract), but that means we just get less “low level” inappropriate stuff. Our inappropriate stuff comes in the guise of intelligent debate, subtle trolling, and self promotion that aren’t always easy to spot (nor is anything really ever black and white... there’s lots of grey area).
------------------------------------------------------
*To sum up*
------------------------------------------------------
It’s possible to have an effective volunteer moderation team. Paid moderators/GMs aren’t really needed (unless you need them for legal reasons, business reputation reasons, or something like that).
bq. Really? World of Warcraft has the most fragmented chat system known to mankind. [Plus the other WoW stuff you pointed out]
Ok, you do bring up some good points with WoW (I didn't really play it long enough to learn that much about everything), but I think you're still a little too focused on specific methods of implementation when you would probably get more out of focusing on what are the good aspects of the various systems that are out there and then finding a way to implement those elements in a way that suits the various goals of Kongregate as a site.
When I gave the example of WoW, I was mainly refering to the fact that the different chat channels all show up in the main window (if you set it up that way). You don't have to go to one different chat window to go talk to your guild, or another to go talk to all chat (again, unless you have it set up like that) -- it all goes in the same window.
------------------------------------------------------
*Taking a lesson from tags and blogging software*
------------------------------------------------------
It kind of reminds me of adding tags to websites in terms of functionality (or "categories" that are used in blogs). Ie. Instead of having things listed in some sort of category heriarchy, you apply category "tags" to individual items (such as websites, or say, posts on a blog) and then if you click on a category, all articles with that tag are displayed. Tags let you display the same post/article under many different categories without requing that you make a duplicate of an article/post or make some sort of dummy post/article linking to the specific article/post that you want under more then one category.
You following me so far? (Ha, probably not. I'm doing a terrible job of explaining this, but bear with me.)
So, like a tags system, instead of having different "categories" of chat that require you to either be in one category (ie. chat room) using an EITHER/OR model, I'm proposing you have some sort of AND system where you can be entered in multiple "chat rooms" (ie. recieve messages/chat from many different chat "channels") and have whatever you recieve from those "chat rooms" be displayed in one chat window.
------------------------------------------------------
*An example what I'm trying (but probably failing) to explain*
------------------------------------------------------
A good example of this system is the Guild Wars chat. Note how you can get chat input from different “channels” (eg. All chat, team chat, guild chat, alliance chat, etc), but it all appears in the same chat window. You can also turn off specific chat “channels” if you so wish, and you no longer see chat from that channel. Turn it back on, though, and you see everything that you missed when you had it turned off.
I think it’d be great if Kong had that sort of functionality. I was thinking you could have a system where you “join” specific chat “channels” and be able to see chat from the channels you select, but I guess the Guild Wars “tick box” system works better. Although, due to the amount of chat rooms Kong is likely to have (which I think is fine), you may want to have it function as “if you tick a box, it means you will receive chat from it” and have most chat boxes un-ticked until the user decides he wants to tick them.
How would a user chat to a specific chat “channel”? Just like WoW or Guild Wars do. You select the channel you want your message to go to, type it, and send it. You could use slash commands like WoW (I can’t remember the specific commands, but you use a forward slash + a letter or something that represents whatever chat channel you want to type to), but the Guild Wars system of “hold down shift + click a shortcut key” works very nicely and is very intuitive. You can, of course, also click on the “chat panel” you want to type in instead of using a shortcut key, but I’ve no idea how you’d do that in terms of user interface.
Of course, the end goal with all of this is to (A) create a better, more user-friendly, more enjoyable system (B) create a more inclusive system, and (C) make it easier for people to connect with each other.
------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, again, these are just ideas. What I mean by that is: (A) you shouldn’t just listen to what I say; listen to all ideas and (B) take what is useful from the ideas you hear and use it to design a system that meets your needs/desires while still remaining technically feasible. I suggest thinking in terms of aspects that you like/that are good and then combining them rather then choosing one specific idea and then running with only that.
Most stuff is feasible, you just need good enough programmers to do it (and, of course, time/money for those programmers... I understand implementation isn’t a magical process that happens instantly).
- Bruce
2007-11-27T20:12:06-08:00
0
true
1
56365
68
3460
2009-09-16T23:25:40-07:00
66241
Making money from flash games seems a lot like making money from blogging.
There are people (such as Steve Pavlina of StevePavlina.com) who make well over six figures per year with blogging. There are others (such as the hoard of random bloggers on the net) that bring in maybe a few dollars from blogging (or maybe less!).
I think that if you want to make money from flash games, like blogging, you have to be providing something of value. You can't just make another game that is like the thousands of others that are out there. Frankly, nobody cares, and you won't make squat because of it.
This isn’t a new trend, either. There are TONS of examples of this everywhere. Examples of people trying to make money doing something but failing because they aren’t really doing something that is suited to their strengths or they simply are trying to effectively give the ocean more water (ie. give people something they are already swimming in). The ocean doesn’t need more water – it has enough!
To make money you need to make the God of War 2 of flash games. Games like that will draw an income if you manage them intelligently (ie. effective marketing, monetising, etc).
Unfortunately out of all the flash games I've seen so far, none of them are really very good. They aren't bad, but none of them feel like they've had a decent amount of work put in. And by a decent amount, I mean perhaps months spent on working on the design of the game to make sure it's damn good.
I have a theory that too many flash devs focus on process (ie. making the game in flash, etc) instead of design. Design is effectively what makes a game. You can get everything else wrong, but if the design is solid, you'll still probably do ok (of course, it still helps to get other aspects right).
- Bruce
<p>Making money from flash games seems a lot like making money from blogging.</p>
<p>There are people (such as Steve Pavlina of StevePavlina.com) who make well over six figures per year with blogging. There are others (such as the hoard of random bloggers on the net) that bring in maybe a few dollars from blogging (or maybe less!).</p>
<p>I think that if you want to make money from flash games, like blogging, you have to be providing something of value. You can’t just make another game that is like the thousands of others that are out there. Frankly, nobody cares, and you won’t make squat because of it.</p>
<p>This isn’t a new trend, either. There are <span class="caps">TONS</span> of examples of this everywhere. Examples of people trying to make money doing something but failing because they aren’t really doing something that is suited to their strengths or they simply are trying to effectively give the ocean more water (ie. give people something they are already swimming in). The ocean doesn’t need more water – it has enough!</p>
<p>To make money you need to make the God of War 2 of flash games. Games like that will draw an income if you manage them intelligently (ie. effective marketing, monetising, etc).</p>
<p>Unfortunately out of all the flash games I’ve seen so far, none of them are really very good. They aren’t bad, but none of them feel like they’ve had a decent amount of work put in. And by a decent amount, I mean perhaps months spent on working on the design of the game to make sure it’s damn good.</p>
<p>I have a theory that too many flash devs focus on process (ie. making the game in flash, etc) instead of design. Design is effectively what makes a game. You can get everything else wrong, but if the design is solid, you’ll still probably do ok (of course, it still helps to get other aspects right).</p>
<p>- Bruce</p>
2007-11-24T22:50:59-08:00
0
true
1
55426
25
3512
2009-09-16T23:25:51-07:00
66241
bq. Here is a slight problem greg: In any given chat, even if you talk about everything you could possibly hope to stir up conversation, you would be lucky, in some chats, to get more than 4 people talking. Which is kind of hard on the voting system. Plus not many people are level 10+, but W/E.
I think that's a highly undesirable side effect to excessive fragmenting of the Kongregate community by chat rooms. I personally think that it'd be better to have, say, a few different chat rooms that actually have a purpose behind their name/existance (the current chat rooms seem very random; I don't know what each of them represent, if anything at all), and game-specific chat rooms.
That said, there could be a better combo that I'm not aware of, and/or my idea could flop real bad. Either way, I still think the fragmenting of the community with chat rooms is not good for the community. Guild Wars did this, and Guild Wars learnt that, while instancing can be useful, people really like the sense of community as an option and excessive instances and "shards" in an online community tend to hurt it more then help.
To quote James Phinney (I think he's the lead game designer at ArenaNet, the guys who made Guild Wars) from an article where he talks about Gw2:
bq. For the team at ArenaNet, the idea of making Guild Wars 2 started with a single conversation about all the things we wanted to do in the next Guild Wars® campaign. Very quickly it became clear that we could move the game forward by leaps and bounds... but only if we were willing to rebuild it from the ground up. Here's what we thought we could accomplish:
<b>Allow players to encounter each other in common, persistent areas. The instancing of Guild Wars gave us a ton of story-telling and gameplay advantages over our competitors, but instanced areas and persistent areas each have their strengths and weaknesses. We want to give players the best of both worlds.</b> ~ http://www.plaync.com/us/news/2007/10/dev_corner_imag.html
I think if you want the ultimate chat model, model World of Warcraft. You can choose which chat channels you see in your "chat", which means you can effectively see them all, but speak in different channels at the same time. It's also nice having a global chat, IMO. It'd probably take a bit of tweaking to get it to work well with Kongregate, but I think Kong can learn a lot from WoW, especially since Kong (the website) is very much using the same sort of base system (badges, points, levels, etc) that WoW uses.
But these are just ideas. Take from them what you will.
<blockquote>
<p>Here is a slight problem greg: In any given chat, even if you talk about everything you could possibly hope to stir up conversation, you would be lucky, in some chats, to get more than 4 people talking. Which is kind of hard on the voting system. Plus not many people are level 10+, but W/E.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think that’s a highly undesirable side effect to excessive fragmenting of the Kongregate community by chat rooms. I personally think that it’d be better to have, say, a few different chat rooms that actually have a purpose behind their name/existance (the current chat rooms seem very random; I don’t know what each of them represent, if anything at all), and game-specific chat rooms.</p>
<p>That said, there could be a better combo that I’m not aware of, and/or my idea could flop real bad. Either way, I still think the fragmenting of the community with chat rooms is not good for the community. Guild Wars did this, and Guild Wars learnt that, while instancing can be useful, people really like the sense of community as an option and excessive instances and “shards” in an online community tend to hurt it more then help.</p>
<p>To quote James Phinney (I think he’s the lead game designer at ArenaNet, the guys who made Guild Wars) from an article where he talks about Gw2:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For the team at ArenaNet, the idea of making Guild Wars 2 started with a single conversation about all the things we wanted to do in the next Guild Wars® campaign. Very quickly it became clear that we could move the game forward by leaps and bounds… but only if we were willing to rebuild it from the ground up. Here’s what we thought we could accomplish: <br />
<b>Allow players to encounter each other in common, persistent areas. The instancing of Guild Wars gave us a ton of story-telling and gameplay advantages over our competitors, but instanced areas and persistent areas each have their strengths and weaknesses. We want to give players the best of both worlds.</b> ~ <a href="http://www.plaync.com/us/news/2007/10/dev_corner_imag.html">http://www.plaync.com/us/news/2007/10/dev_corner_imag.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think if you want the ultimate chat model, model World of Warcraft. You can choose which chat channels you see in your “chat”, which means you can effectively see them all, but speak in different channels at the same time. It’s also nice having a global chat, <span class="caps">IMO</span>. It’d probably take a bit of tweaking to get it to work well with Kongregate, but I think Kong can learn a lot from WoW, especially since Kong (the website) is very much using the same sort of base system (badges, points, levels, etc) that WoW uses.</p>
<p>But these are just ideas. Take from them what you will.</p>
2007-11-24T10:43:55-08:00
0
true
1
55244
60
3460
2009-09-16T23:25:40-07:00
66241
I propose that Kongregate (ie. the team) use all of the (good) avatars that people make as opposed to only selecting a select few (not saying that's what you were going to do, but I digress).
I'd be interesting to have different avatars rather then seeing the same ones crop up all the time. It'd also be nice if you could choose your Kongregate avatar (ie. the ones offered by Kong, not the one you upload yourself). Not sure if you can do this, but if you can't, it'd be a nice option.
I also propose that Kongregate ignore the fact that not everyone likes Draonball Z (blasphemy!) and exclusively offer Dragonball Z avatars, and ONLY Dragonball Z avatars. No, I'm not kidding (well, I am, but it's fun to pretend I'm not).
Man Dragonball Z rocks...
- Bruce
<p>I propose that Kongregate (ie. the team) use all of the (good) avatars that people make as opposed to only selecting a select few (not saying that’s what you were going to do, but I digress).</p>
<p>I’d be interesting to have different avatars rather then seeing the same ones crop up all the time. It’d also be nice if you could choose your Kongregate avatar (ie. the ones offered by Kong, not the one you upload yourself). Not sure if you can do this, but if you can’t, it’d be a nice option.</p>
<p>I also propose that Kongregate ignore the fact that not everyone likes Draonball Z (blasphemy!) and exclusively offer Dragonball Z avatars, and <span class="caps">ONLY</span> Dragonball Z avatars. No, I’m not kidding (well, I am, but it’s fun to pretend I’m not).</p>
<p>Man Dragonball Z rocks…</p>
<p>- Bruce</p>
2007-11-24T09:20:27-08:00
0
true
1
55228
198
2877
2009-09-16T23:19:17-07:00
66241
bq. Yeah, that’s why we’d need a lot of safeguards to protect people. Ultimately, though, it’s impossible for an automated system to really tell the difference between a user being “picked on” and a user pissing everyone off.
You could do what Guild Wars do. What they do is that once players get enough "strikes" against them, instead of the system dealing with them, a GM (or in Kong's case, a moderator) looks into the situation via things like chat logs. If the reports have validity to them, the player is dealt with somehow. If the reports are the result of people "picking on someone", the tables are turned, and the players who submitted the false strikes get dealt with somehow.
Basically, when it comes to any system where you give a lot of power to the people, you'll usually need a governing body to make sure the people don't abuse their power for their own gain. Of course, this isn't ideal, and you should just instead design a system that can't be abused, but that's easier said then done.
Why don't you speak to David Sirlin about this? This type of system (rule design, theory of laws in virtual worlds, etc) is right up his alley (or so I believe), and he'd probably be able to give you some high quality feedback or ideas (he may want you to pay him for it, though, since he seems pretty busy... I guess it depends on the relationship you have with Sirlin – I’d assume it’s good, since he did design your card game!).
<blockquote>
<p>Yeah, that’s why we’d need a lot of safeguards to protect people. Ultimately, though, it’s impossible for an automated system to really tell the difference between a user being “picked on” and a user pissing everyone off.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You could do what Guild Wars do. What they do is that once players get enough “strikes” against them, instead of the system dealing with them, a GM (or in Kong’s case, a moderator) looks into the situation via things like chat logs. If the reports have validity to them, the player is dealt with somehow. If the reports are the result of people “picking on someone”, the tables are turned, and the players who submitted the false strikes get dealt with somehow.</p>
<p>Basically, when it comes to any system where you give a lot of power to the people, you’ll usually need a governing body to make sure the people don’t abuse their power for their own gain. Of course, this isn’t ideal, and you should just instead design a system that can’t be abused, but that’s easier said then done.</p>
<p>Why don’t you speak to David Sirlin about this? This type of system (rule design, theory of laws in virtual worlds, etc) is right up his alley (or so I believe), and he’d probably be able to give you some high quality feedback or ideas (he may want you to pay him for it, though, since he seems pretty busy… I guess it depends on the relationship you have with Sirlin – I’d assume it’s good, since he did design your card game!).</p>
2007-11-23T20:26:38-08:00
0
true
1
55121
59
3460
2009-09-16T23:25:40-07:00
66241
bq. Sometimes I wish that this mythical card game gets delayed even more because I feel like 99% of the staffs and members attention will be directed towards it once it comes out…therefore less badges, challenges and discussions about other games!
They may do that short term, but they won’t do it long term. Why? Because it doesn't mesh with their business model.
Kong get cash when players click on ads displayed in games and use the badges system to encourage people to play games (I’m personally immune to the effects of "I have a little graphic that says I did something", but I digress). The card game is also part of this system -- they encourage you to play games by giving you a good incentive to do so (you get cards which let you play the card game, or at least, make it more interesting to play).
Premium games will be another system they will monetise. Essentially, they have many different systems targeted at many different audiences, but primarily, they base their systems on an MMO model (badges = items, points = experience, levels = err... levels, grind = having to do boring challenges to earn cards... just kidding, Greg!).
Soooo, if a large part of their audience plays the games (and in turn, clicks on ads in said games) only because they want badges, it’s in Kong’s best interest to support that audience (if they want this little project of theirs to be financially feasible that is).
To sum up: Relax, you'll still be able to collect your little graphics that say that you did something. ;)
<blockquote>
<p>Sometimes I wish that this mythical card game gets delayed even more because I feel like 99% of the staffs and members attention will be directed towards it once it comes out…therefore less badges, challenges and discussions about other games!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They may do that short term, but they won’t do it long term. Why? Because it doesn’t mesh with their business model.</p>
<p>Kong get cash when players click on ads displayed in games and use the badges system to encourage people to play games (I’m personally immune to the effects of “I have a little graphic that says I did something”, but I digress). The card game is also part of this system — they encourage you to play games by giving you a good incentive to do so (you get cards which let you play the card game, or at least, make it more interesting to play).</p>
<p>Premium games will be another system they will monetise. Essentially, they have many different systems targeted at many different audiences, but primarily, they base their systems on an <span class="caps">MMO</span> model (badges = items, points = experience, levels = err… levels, grind = having to do boring challenges to earn cards… just kidding, Greg!).</p>
<p>Soooo, if a large part of their audience plays the games (and in turn, clicks on ads in said games) only because they want badges, it’s in Kong’s best interest to support that audience (if they want this little project of theirs to be financially feasible that is).</p>
<p>To sum up: Relax, you’ll still be able to collect your little graphics that say that you did something. ;)</p>
2007-11-23T20:20:13-08:00
0
true
1
55119
73
2505
2009-09-16T23:17:07-07:00
66241
bq. Hell no, that would be a horrible idea.
Not to mention that there are no “powerehouses” or “card x is in every way better than card y” (or that seems to be the plan, at least)
Hitaro, thank you for maintaining sanity and telling the non-Street Fighter/competitive game players what is and is not madness/sparta. ;)
<blockquote>
<p>Hell no, that would be a horrible idea.<br />
Not to mention that there are no “powerehouses” or “card x is in every way better than card y” (or that seems to be the plan, at least)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hitaro, thank you for maintaining sanity and telling the non-Street Fighter/competitive game players what is and is not madness/sparta. ;)</p>
2007-11-23T20:12:18-08:00
0
true
1
55117
237
1644
2009-09-16T23:11:43-07:00
66241
I had trouble finding the card list on COCAK, so I'll give you a link to a website that has a card list that I found easier to find:
http://kongccg.blogspot.com/
Simply look to the "Cards" heading on the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll see a link to the different card sets. KCCG (the website I linked to) isn't updated as quickly as COCAK, but it's still a decent resource.
<p>I had trouble finding the card list on <span class="caps">COCAK</span>, so I’ll give you a link to a website that has a card list that I found easier to find:</p>
<p><a href="http://kongccg.blogspot.com/">http://kongccg.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p>Simply look to the “Cards” heading on the sidebar on the right of the screen and you’ll see a link to the different card sets. <span class="caps">KCCG</span> (the website I linked to) isn’t updated as quickly as <span class="caps">COCAK</span>, but it’s still a decent resource.</p>
2007-11-10T22:53:00-08:00
0
true
1
51028
7
3129
2009-09-16T23:23:47-07:00
66241
bq.
Well, sometimes I give a rating that is worse or better then what I actually think in order to influence the overall score. For example if I think a game is scored low unfairly I’ll give it 5 stars to boost it’s score… not that interesting a point really, oh well.
It's a fair point to make, and a legit way to influence a score. It's called "reviewers tilt" and allows you to influence the score of a game that has, say, one or two elements that are excellent but other specific elements (such as graphics, gameplay, etc) that aren’t too great.
This is the criteria Gamespot.com use for their "tilt" score:
bq. Reviewer’s Tilt (Tilt). While this component is not intended to be directly representative of our overall experience with a game, we use it to influence the overall rating one way or another, based on our overall experience. For instance, a technically impressive game that’s highly unoriginal may be tilted low, while a game with a truly outstanding story but an unremarkable presentation may be tilted high.
I wrote more about a decent review/feedback system "here":http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/2508?page=4#posts-39671. Not sure if Kong have any plans for improvement in this regard. From what I've seen though, it seems they think the current system is ok, if only slightly flawed. I disagree, but oh well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*"But Kongregate is still in Beta!"*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Kong is still in Beta and I’m sure they’re busy working on things, but hmmm, I’ve seen the same sort of things from the game _Guild Wars_, which, while it had enormous potential when it first released, is now but a shadow of it’s former self, ready to be replaced by a sequel that fixes the mistakes of the first game.
I hope Kong doesn’t follow the same path.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*The difference between "good" and "the best"*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In competitive games and even in business, there are certain traits that separate “the best” players/companies from those that fall into the lower echelons. While still damn good, those in the lower echelons lack certain vital qualities, and the position of “the best” is reserved only for the unique few who possess said qualities.
When you look at any system in contrast to what else is available, it suddenly becomes clear as to what you’re dealing with. Those who are “the best” seem to display these vital qualities very early on, even if they’re still in the early development stage. There is a certain standard of excellence that creates a sort of divide between those systems that are merely “good” and those who are “the best”.
Speaking honestly, when I look at Konregate as a whole, strip it down to the base elements, and compare those qualities to other systems that have been greatly successful and extremely good at what they do, I don’t see the vital qualities I speak of.
I don’t say this to attack Kongregate or those who work on it, but rather, to share my unique perspective. Different perspectives yield different data, so if you don’t agree with me, realise that you’re merely comparing your own perspective to my own. Just as you’ll disagree with me if I stand in Australia and say “it’s very warm” when you’re standing in Antartica and it’s freezing cold, you’ll disagree with me if you mistake your perceptions of reality for reality and try to compare your perceptions to my perceptions. It’s all a matter of perspective.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*“The best” as characterised by certain properties, not a position in time*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I’m sure people will say to me, “but not everyone can make the perfect game/system the first time round”, but then I look at games like God of War and I have to disagree. Granted, God of War may be a completely different game, but one thing remains constant — God of War set out to do something, and it did it damn well. World of Warcraft falls under the same “they did it damn well” umbrella.
I sadly can’t say the same thing about Guild Wars. As for Konregate, I’ll reserve judgement until it is out of beta. The system will no-doubt continue to evolve, but once they’re officially out of development, you’ll get a pretty good idea of what to expect from the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*What we can do*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As users, the best thing we can do is to use the system and prove to them that it’s broken/in need of improvement. That doesn’t mean we need to intentionally misuse it, just that eventually, through normal use, enough evidence will stack up that makes it obvious that the system is lacking (or it won’t, and I’ll be proven wrong... either way is good).
- Bruce
bq.
Well, sometimes I give a rating that is worse or better then what I actually think in order to influence the overall score. For example if I think a game is scored low unfairly I’ll give it 5 stars to boost it’s score… not that interesting a point really, oh well.
It's a fair point to make, and a legit way to influence a score. It's called "reviewers tilt" and allows you to influence the score of a game that has, say, one or two elements that are excellent but other specific elements (such as graphics, gameplay, etc) that aren’t too great.
This is the criteria Gamespot.com use for their "tilt" score:
bq. Reviewer’s Tilt (Tilt). While this component is not intended to be directly representative of our overall experience with a game, we use it to influence the overall rating one way or another, based on our overall experience. For instance, a technically impressive game that’s highly unoriginal may be tilted low, while a game with a truly outstanding story but an unremarkable presentation may be tilted high.
I wrote more about a decent review/feedback system "here":<a href="http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/2508?page=4#posts-39671">http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/2508?page=4#posts-39671</a>. Not sure if Kong have any plans for improvement in this regard. From what I've seen though, it seems they think the current system is ok, if only slightly flawed. I disagree, but oh well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*"But Kongregate is still in Beta!"*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Kong is still in Beta and I’m sure they’re busy working on things, but hmmm, I’ve seen the same sort of things from the game _Guild Wars_, which, while it had enormous potential when it first released, is now but a shadow of it’s former self, ready to be replaced by a sequel that fixes the mistakes of the first game.
I hope Kong doesn’t follow the same path.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*The difference between "good" and "the best"*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In competitive games and even in business, there are certain traits that separate “the best” players/companies from those that fall into the lower echelons. While still damn good, those in the lower echelons lack certain vital qualities, and the position of “the best” is reserved only for the unique few who possess said qualities.
When you look at any system in contrast to what else is available, it suddenly becomes clear as to what you’re dealing with. Those who are “the best” seem to display these vital qualities very early on, even if they’re still in the early development stage. There is a certain standard of excellence that creates a sort of divide between those systems that are merely “good” and those who are “the best”.
Speaking honestly, when I look at Konregate as a whole, strip it down to the base elements, and compare those qualities to other systems that have been greatly successful and extremely good at what they do, I don’t see the vital qualities I speak of.
I don’t say this to attack Kongregate or those who work on it, but rather, to share my unique perspective. Different perspectives yield different data, so if you don’t agree with me, realise that you’re merely comparing your own perspective to my own. Just as you’ll disagree with me if I stand in Australia and say “it’s very warm” when you’re standing in Antartica and it’s freezing cold, you’ll disagree with me if you mistake your perceptions of reality for reality and try to compare your perceptions to my perceptions. It’s all a matter of perspective.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*“The best” as characterised by certain properties, not a position in time*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I’m sure people will say to me, “but not everyone can make the perfect game/system the first time round”, but then I look at games like God of War and I have to disagree. Granted, God of War may be a completely different game, but one thing remains constant — God of War set out to do something, and it did it damn well. World of Warcraft falls under the same “they did it damn well” umbrella.
I sadly can’t say the same thing about Guild Wars. As for Konregate, I’ll reserve judgement until it is out of beta. The system will no-doubt continue to evolve, but once they’re officially out of development, you’ll get a pretty good idea of what to expect from the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*What we can do*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As users, the best thing we can do is to use the system and prove to them that it’s broken/in need of improvement. That doesn’t mean we need to intentionally misuse it, just that eventually, through normal use, enough evidence will stack up that makes it obvious that the system is lacking (or it won’t, and I’ll be proven wrong... either way is good).
- Bruce
2007-11-10T22:14:04-08:00
0
true
1
51015
13
412
2009-09-16T23:04:48-07:00
66241
I've a motto suggestion:
_Kongregate: Release the card game and nobody gets hurt!_
;)
Seriously though, I think "Kongregate" is a pretty good motto in itself. It's essentially a brand, but it is both a name and a verb. If anything, I think Kongregate needs some sort of symbol or icon to represent the “Kongregation”, kind of like Pepsi has the two circle things, and Coke has the font they use for their name (and to a lesser extent, the image of the class bottle).
<p>I’ve a motto suggestion:</p>
<p><em>Kongregate: Release the card game and nobody gets hurt!</em></p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>Seriously though, I think “Kongregate” is a pretty good motto in itself. It’s essentially a brand, but it is both a name and a verb. If anything, I think Kongregate needs some sort of symbol or icon to represent the “Kongregation”, kind of like Pepsi has the two circle things, and Coke has the font they use for their name (and to a lesser extent, the image of the class bottle).</p>
2007-11-10T21:54:29-08:00
0
true
1
51013
32
3264
2009-09-16T23:24:34-07:00
66241
*Greg --*
I've already made a post about this topic in another thread. To quote (a relevant) part of it:
bq. As far as I see it, the rating system encourages people to give ratings without much thought. There is no standard to help users give more consistent ratings (ie. nobody knows what defines a 1 star game any better what defines a 5 star game… is a 1 star game “the worst game ever”, or is it “you should never play this game”, or is it “this game could use a lot of improvement”? Who knows?), and on top of that, users are rewarded with points—something the Kong system portrays as desirable.
bq. Also, another side effect of the rating system is that when people have played a game that they don’t consider to be very good, they will likely want to express this frustration. They had expectations that were not met, and so to vent this negative energy they’ve accumulated as a result of an emotional response, they let it flow into the rating they give the game. Perhaps they even leave a less then constructive comment, too. And so, the game that didn’t meet their expectations is now seen as “less good” or “bad”, and they feel better.
bq. This is human psychology in its most basic form, and while I agree that it is completely insane and dysfunctional, trying to resist it is not the solution. If you remove the rating system, users who are frustrated will find another way to vent it somehow, whether it is via comments, the forums, the chat, or in other places within their life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The “rate the game poorly because I don’t like the challenge” mentality*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To go into the psychology aspect of it as it pertains to the situation with _Breach_, for a lot of people it comes down to wanting something (ie. a card). They play the challenge only to get the card, and if the challenge prevents them from getting what they want or if it doesn’t meet a particular expectation they have, they feel the need to attack whatever _appears_ to be the cause of their frustration, regardless of whether or not it is reasonable or intelligent to do so.
Attacking things in this way serves to boost their sense of self (or “ego”, to put it another way) and/or diminish the apparent cause of their frustration, and it leaves them with a feeling of superiority and satisfaction.
You may be able to design a system around this dysfunction, but at the core, you’re still fighting a losing battle against a mindset that is completely prevalent in today’s society so much so that it’s considered “normal”.
Anyway, you won't have much luck dealing with that, so lets focus on what you can do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Soft rules vs hard rules*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, in asking players to "please stop rating games based on challenges/achievements", you're trying to get people to follow a so-called "soft rule". A soft rule is a rule that you’d like someone to follow (for whatever reason) but isn’t enforced by any system and cannot be reasonably or effectively enforced without great difficulty. This isn’t a slight on you or anything; it’s just a reality to accept.
The opposite to a "soft rule" is a "hard rule", which is something enforced by a system. An example of that would be, say, signing up before you can post on the forums. That’s something enforced by the system, and whether you agree to follow it or not, there’s no getting around it. You sign up, or you can’t post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The solution may be upstream*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sympathise with your situation because after reading your post, I can see you really are trying to do your best, but I don’t think you’ll be able to solve the problem directly. Instead, I think you should solve it indirectly. How?
Well, if you’d like some ideas/suggestions, I’ve already gone into a lot of detail in a post I made in another thread. You can "find the post here":http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/2508?page=4#posts-39671.
Basically my ideas are similar to what "Fragment mentioned above":http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/3088?page=2#posts-47326, expect I go into a lot of detail and give specific examples.
Additionally, I really like the “rate game, rate challenge” idea "ArcaneCoder suggests":http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/3088?page=2#posts-47350, but I believe that would only be useful to the degree you actually tracked the stats of the various challenges/achievements so you could see the community response. The idea is definitely within the right line of thinking, though. Perhaps the real solution will be only different by a matter of degree, not essence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Creating a solution: Ready, fire, aim*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is really a matter of effectively creating a system that “goes with the flow” and adapts to the community (ie. the users of the system) rather then trying to get them to adapt (which is somewhat of an impossible task, unless you want to start banning people, which is not ideal or really fair, either).
I’m sure it’s possible to come up with a win/win solution (ie. one where you get good feedback about what you’re doing, the games get “fairly” rated based on the games and not other elements such as challenges, and users/players get a good system to channel their feedback into), but I think it’ll take a bit of playing around. My advice would be to perhaps discuss these things with the rest of the Kong team and then just test some ideas using the read-fire-aim method (ie. try something out, see how it performs, and make modifications as necessary).
-------------------------------------------------------------
On another (semi-related) note, I’m curious as to what criteria you use to decide what games are used for card challenges.
I’ll also note that my experience with the _Breach_ card challenge was vastly different to the one you describe in your first post in this thread (I may make a thread about it if I get the chance), and I think there’s a good chance that there’s some truth in the negative reaction to this particular challenge. Perhaps something to think about.
- Bruce
*PS.* Greg -- is forum communication like this good, or would you prefer me to email feedback to you directly?
*Greg --*
I've already made a post about this topic in another thread. To quote (a relevant) part of it:
bq. As far as I see it, the rating system encourages people to give ratings without much thought. There is no standard to help users give more consistent ratings (ie. nobody knows what defines a 1 star game any better what defines a 5 star game… is a 1 star game “the worst game ever”, or is it “you should never play this game”, or is it “this game could use a lot of improvement”? Who knows?), and on top of that, users are rewarded with points—something the Kong system portrays as desirable.
bq. Also, another side effect of the rating system is that when people have played a game that they don’t consider to be very good, they will likely want to express this frustration. They had expectations that were not met, and so to vent this negative energy they’ve accumulated as a result of an emotional response, they let it flow into the rating they give the game. Perhaps they even leave a less then constructive comment, too. And so, the game that didn’t meet their expectations is now seen as “less good” or “bad”, and they feel better.
bq. This is human psychology in its most basic form, and while I agree that it is completely insane and dysfunctional, trying to resist it is not the solution. If you remove the rating system, users who are frustrated will find another way to vent it somehow, whether it is via comments, the forums, the chat, or in other places within their life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The “rate the game poorly because I don’t like the challenge” mentality*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To go into the psychology aspect of it as it pertains to the situation with _Breach_, for a lot of people it comes down to wanting something (ie. a card). They play the challenge only to get the card, and if the challenge prevents them from getting what they want or if it doesn’t meet a particular expectation they have, they feel the need to attack whatever _appears_ to be the cause of their frustration, regardless of whether or not it is reasonable or intelligent to do so.
Attacking things in this way serves to boost their sense of self (or “ego”, to put it another way) and/or diminish the apparent cause of their frustration, and it leaves them with a feeling of superiority and satisfaction.
You may be able to design a system around this dysfunction, but at the core, you’re still fighting a losing battle against a mindset that is completely prevalent in today’s society so much so that it’s considered “normal”.
Anyway, you won't have much luck dealing with that, so lets focus on what you can do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Soft rules vs hard rules*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, in asking players to "please stop rating games based on challenges/achievements", you're trying to get people to follow a so-called "soft rule". A soft rule is a rule that you’d like someone to follow (for whatever reason) but isn’t enforced by any system and cannot be reasonably or effectively enforced without great difficulty. This isn’t a slight on you or anything; it’s just a reality to accept.
The opposite to a "soft rule" is a "hard rule", which is something enforced by a system. An example of that would be, say, signing up before you can post on the forums. That’s something enforced by the system, and whether you agree to follow it or not, there’s no getting around it. You sign up, or you can’t post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The solution may be upstream*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sympathise with your situation because after reading your post, I can see you really are trying to do your best, but I don’t think you’ll be able to solve the problem directly. Instead, I think you should solve it indirectly. How?
Well, if you’d like some ideas/suggestions, I’ve already gone into a lot of detail in a post I made in another thread. You can "find the post here":<a href="http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/2508?page=4#posts-39671">http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/2508?page=4#posts-39671</a>.
Basically my ideas are similar to what "Fragment mentioned above":<a href="http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/3088?page=2#posts-47326">http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/3088?page=2#posts-47326</a>, expect I go into a lot of detail and give specific examples.
Additionally, I really like the “rate game, rate challenge” idea "ArcaneCoder suggests":<a href="http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/3088?page=2#posts-47350">http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/3088?page=2#posts-47350</a>, but I believe that would only be useful to the degree you actually tracked the stats of the various challenges/achievements so you could see the community response. The idea is definitely within the right line of thinking, though. Perhaps the real solution will be only different by a matter of degree, not essence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Creating a solution: Ready, fire, aim*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is really a matter of effectively creating a system that “goes with the flow” and adapts to the community (ie. the users of the system) rather then trying to get them to adapt (which is somewhat of an impossible task, unless you want to start banning people, which is not ideal or really fair, either).
I’m sure it’s possible to come up with a win/win solution (ie. one where you get good feedback about what you’re doing, the games get “fairly” rated based on the games and not other elements such as challenges, and users/players get a good system to channel their feedback into), but I think it’ll take a bit of playing around. My advice would be to perhaps discuss these things with the rest of the Kong team and then just test some ideas using the read-fire-aim method (ie. try something out, see how it performs, and make modifications as necessary).
-------------------------------------------------------------
On another (semi-related) note, I’m curious as to what criteria you use to decide what games are used for card challenges.
I’ll also note that my experience with the _Breach_ card challenge was vastly different to the one you describe in your first post in this thread (I may make a thread about it if I get the chance), and I think there’s a good chance that there’s some truth in the negative reaction to this particular challenge. Perhaps something to think about.
- Bruce
*PS.* Greg -- is forum communication like this good, or would you prefer me to email feedback to you directly?
2007-11-02T12:33:42-07:00
0
true
1
47375
36
3088
2009-09-16T23:23:33-07:00
66241