Concise description:
For BIG changes only do either of the following or a combination:
1. A poll placed directly in "My Games", rather than "buried" in the forum
2. Select a representative group of people to review and work on modifying changes.
Specifics:
First, this would only apply to CHANGES that could negatively affect the community. In general, I don't think people really care how many additions you make. But, change what exists or eliminate something and people will care!
Specifically:
1. When Idea is "set", or narrowed down to a few choices, put in place a poll linked directly from the "my games" page, as was done with the Classic Risk (albiet after the change was made). Or, if the change is specific to only one map, you could perhaps place the link as a "pop up" when someone goes to play that map. Run the poll for at least 2 weeks, or until a "good" percentage of players have responded. (the percentage,too might vary depending on the issue. For small changes a few might be OK, but for really big changes, you probably want something close to an active, current game playing, majority)
2. Create focus groups by some representative selection process. I would prefer some kind of stratified random ... (that is, break folks into pertinent groups and then sample within each group because. When you can actually define, to some extent what makes people's opinions differ (age, etc.) and sample proportional to the whole, it improves the data significantly.
One group, for example, might be mods/creators. Another might be "problem children" (???? -- or maybe you just want to skip them) who would be given very explicite and limited "rules" to follow if their participation is to be accepted. Another group might be "mature" or, ranks Or, perhaps people who concentrate on one style of play .... etc. The actual groupings might change depending on teh issue. IF the change is to a particular map, for example you would want to concentrate on those who play that map. You might want 1-2 who don't, maybe to find out if the changes might encourage more people to play or just to see how easy the change will be for the "unfamiliar" to figure out. Also, though I said "representative", that does not mean the group has to match the overall community. It might very well be appropriate to have more mod/creator involvement because they know more about some things. BUT, you have to have enough other people that you are getting an opinion reasonably like the community.
These selected people will be notified by PM. Naturally, a few will refuse, so you will have to pick more people than you think you will need. (though you don't have to notify the "extras" initially)
Because these will not necessarily be straight volunteers, maybe "sweeten" the chance by offering a special medal/ribbon or a membership extension -- maybe 2 months for smaller, shorter involvement groups, a year for anything requiring a significant amount of time. This aspect would NOT necessarily be advertised if "open recruiting" is used, because that would bias who will decide to "show up", but will definitely be mentioned in any invitation issued.
3. a combination. In some cases, you might want to issue a quick poll FIRST. For example, just to see if a change is wanted. (e.g. the Classic Risk color change)
In those cases, you might actually pick at least some of the folks from those who respond in the thread, in addition to a smattering of folks who don't.
In other cases, you will want a group to pretty well "shake out" the ideas before a poll, then present the options to the community. It might be just 2 options, or you might start with several and then narrow it down. Whenever a change is not absolutely required, "keep it as is" should always be an option.
In some cases, where there is no clear consensus or if the issue is just very complicated, you might want to go back to another focus group and do another poll after the first round.
ETC. ... modifications/tweaks as needed to match situations.
As I already said, there might be very good reasons to specifically include mods and/or creators, but that is a specific, intentional exception ... To find out how a change will "go over", you need a diverse group that represents the whole as much as possible.
The first part, the "shaking out" and formulating ideas, is where you often do need real expertise, though I would suggest you can avoid a lot of problems later if you include at least a smattering of representative community members. Why? because when you are really busy making maps, moderating issues and so forth, you get a very different perspective than the average community member. BOTH types of input need to come together.
BUT, then when it comes to the "will this idea fly with the community" part .. THEN you want to get as many people, at least as many of the people concerned, as possible.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Right now, most of the polls, focus groups, etc. have been stratight volunteers from folks who visit the forums. This is just not representative of the site as a whole. When you ask for focus group volunteers, for example, you are far more likely to get folks who don't like the current [whatever it is]. People who are basically happy with things "as is" are much more likely to say "why bother?". The exceptions are a few like myself who just like to talk/debate/think up stuff AND those I will call "highly invested" in the site itself (but not necessarily game playing, such as the creators and mods). None is represenative.
This "mismatch" between those who think up and decide upon changes and the group as a whole are why changes are so often met with criticism and even anger. Even going through this process, you will still get some people who will complain. That's life. BUT, this way you will go a long way to make sure that those who do complain are, well ... the complainers and that they don't really represent the community as a whole.
The real problem is not that you might get tons of complaints in the forums. The real problem is that if you keep making changes that people don't like, folks will just stop coming. However, for a lot of reasons ... the length of games, the fact that a subscription is a year... the sheer number of changes (making picking out cause and effect of one difficult), the sheer number of new people coming, I don't think you can really and truly see any direct results. But, even if you have a hard time seeing that this change or that caused people to leave, the result is still there.
Besides, when you put so much effort into any change (as you folks obviously do), it is a shame to then subject yourselfs to preventable ridicule and complaints. (again, not all complaints can be prevented, but this will stop a lot of them ... or at the very least tone them down sonsiderably).
Thank you for your consideration. I know this was a long post, but I think the issue is important
