Conquer Club

notyou2 wrote:

jpcloet wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:For some future projects here at Conquer Club I am going to be in need of a "focus group" of sorts.

I think some are completely missing the point. My understanding of OPrime's request is that this is about projects, not about moderating the mods. So the question really is, who wants to help design/comment/suggest/help implement on future projects that can help the site?

Well he doesn't actually state that does he? The information given is very limited so perhaps my thought that it may be some sort of check and balance system is wrong. However, I strongly believe we need a check and balance system here.
Who's watching the police?

As far as I understood the original post this will be a group of people who give input on future projects/reorganizations on CC before they are effected. Presumably so as to minimize the risk of doing something that seemed like a good idea at the time but in retrospect turns out to be extremely stupid and unpopular with the forum population.
Moderators and the supervising of moderators aren't mentioned anywhere, so I strongly doubt this group will have any form of policing powers. I think its function will only be consultative.

notyou2 wrote:However, I strongly believe we need a check and balance system here.
Who's watching the police?

I strongly know you're wrong. If lackattack himself doesn't come down and stop something, that means he's okay with it. This is a company devoted to making money, not "the police" that need to be watched. Their choices are the company's choices; they are fully supported by it. This is a product; if you don't like the makers of the product and what they do, don't buy/support it.

Aka, buck up or leave.

MeDeFe wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

jpcloet wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:For some future projects here at Conquer Club I am going to be in need of a "focus group" of sorts.

I think some are completely missing the point. My understanding of OPrime's request is that this is about projects, not about moderating the mods. So the question really is, who wants to help design/comment/suggest/help implement on future projects that can help the site?

Well he doesn't actually state that does he? The information given is very limited so perhaps my thought that it may be some sort of check and balance system is wrong. However, I strongly believe we need a check and balance system here.
Who's watching the police?

As far as I understood the original post this will be a group of people who give input on future projects/reorganizations on CC before they are effected. Presumably so as to minimize the risk of doing something that seemed like a good idea at the time but in retrospect turns out to be extremely stupid and unpopular with the forum population.
Moderators and the supervising of moderators aren't mentioned anywhere, so I strongly doubt this group will have any form of policing powers. I think its function will only be consultative.

What? I'm not going to get a banstick??

I won't get that special thrill of typing 'thread locked due to reasons undisclosed and unfathomable to boot'.

I'll miss the chance to write in riddles, blatantly avoid the topic at hand, but add an inappropriate to make my efforts seem less draconian and more jokily familiar?

Doh!

MeDeFe wrote:As far as I understood the original post this will be a group of people who give input on future projects/reorganizations on CC before they are effected. Presumably so as to minimize the risk of doing something that seemed like a good idea at the time but in retrospect turns out to be extremely stupid and unpopular with the forum population.
Moderators and the supervising of moderators aren't mentioned anywhere, so I strongly doubt this group will have any form of policing powers. I think its function will only be consultative.

Frankly, I'm surprised anyone took it to be anything else. I thought "focus group" was a fairly clear description of what OP's looking for.

squishyg wrote:Frankly, I'm surprised anyone took it to be anything else. I thought "focus group" was a fairly clear description of what OP's looking for.

I actually laughed when I read some of the "patrolling the moderators" posts in this thread. While the original post was vague, it made no mention of having anything to do with anything related to moderators, but rather, help with future events and projects.

Kotaro wrote:

squishyg wrote:Frankly, I'm surprised anyone took it to be anything else. I thought "focus group" was a fairly clear description of what OP's looking for.

I actually laughed when I read some of the "patrolling the moderators" posts in this thread. While the original post was vague, it made no mention of having anything to do with anything related to moderators, but rather, help with future events and projects.

I thought it would be something similar to testing... like beta's and what not, or that sort of thing. Along with the chosen people providing feedback on the idea, whether or not it's useful or even worth trying. I'm not sure where anyone got the thought of mod police. It's rather mysterious.

Two people that I think could be helpful and would be dedicated are flexmaster33 and pmchugh

Kotaro wrote:Take a look at this thread. Most aren't suggesting people that would actually help; they're suggesting the most controversial, the most funny, even the most annoying and destructive users. I gave a list a few days back of very help people, because no one else will.

If this project actually has an chance of success, which I'm rooting for, they'll need actually helpful people. And then they'll actually get something done, and thus, more things for me to play with.

Mmmm.... I never thought I'd say this, but I kinda agree with Kotaro here.

You don't need people in this "focus group" who already post their opinions multiple times in every possible forum thread. You need the ones that don't.

Lx

Lindax wrote:

Kotaro wrote:Take a look at this thread. Most aren't suggesting people that would actually help; they're suggesting the most controversial, the most funny, even the most annoying and destructive users. I gave a list a few days back of very help people, because no one else will.

If this project actually has an chance of success, which I'm rooting for, they'll need actually helpful people. And then they'll actually get something done, and thus, more things for me to play with.

Mmmm.... I never thought I'd say this, but I kinda agree with Kotaro here.
You don't need people in this "focus group" who already post their opinions multiple times in every possible forum thread. You need the ones that don't.
Lx

I don't think that's QUITE what Kotaro was saying. I'm a bit confused though, because you seem to be saying that having people who hold strong opinions and take the time to discuss them would be bad for the focus group. Why would that be a bad thing, or necessarily worse than those who don't?

Woodruff wrote:
I don't think that's QUITE what Kotaro was saying. I'm a bit confused though, because you seem to be saying that having people who hold strong opinions and take the time to discuss them would be bad for the focus group. Why would that be a bad thing, or necessarily worse than those who don't?

No, you simply misunderstand HIM. See, I'm going to take a prime example, with no hostility intended.

A long time ago, Ratings replaced Feedback. Everyone in the community was pissed; a Suggestion & Bugs thread was made, to get the old feedback, back. owenshooter was one of many who posted in this thread to try and get it back.

And then he posted it in every General Discussion, every C&A, every tournament thread, that he went into. It wasn't that he was arguing his opinion, it was that he was taking his opinion outside of the appropriate thread, and into every thread he went into.

In essence, me and Lindax want what you just said; someone who is helpful, who has an honest opinion, and will debate it loud and clear, at the appropriate time, in the appropriate area, and is also willing to have their side defeated, if and when someone argues their point better and gives a better, more healthy suggestion, and then let it go, and not hold onto that one thing throughout the entire time this "focus" group exists.

Woodruff wrote:

Lindax wrote:

Kotaro wrote:Take a look at this thread. Most aren't suggesting people that would actually help; they're suggesting the most controversial, the most funny, even the most annoying and destructive users. I gave a list a few days back of very help people, because no one else will.

If this project actually has an chance of success, which I'm rooting for, they'll need actually helpful people. And then they'll actually get something done, and thus, more things for me to play with.

Mmmm.... I never thought I'd say this, but I kinda agree with Kotaro here.
You don't need people in this "focus group" who already post their opinions multiple times in every possible forum thread. You need the ones that don't.
Lx

I don't think that's QUITE what Kotaro was saying. I'm a bit confused though, because you seem to be saying that having people who hold strong opinions and take the time to discuss them would be bad for the focus group. Why would that be a bad thing, or necessarily worse than those who don't?

I'm just saying that you can read their opinion(s) everywhere (repeatedly), you don't need to have them in a "focus group" to find out their opinion(s).

The "focus group" should be a group of people who's opinion you don't see everyday, combine the two and you may get some kind of feel for what "the community" thinks.

I had this little tiff with owenshooter who more or less claimed that the small group of people expressing their opinion regularly were representative of the (cc) community. He changed that afterwards to the "forum community". IMHO, just because a small group of people express their opinion(s) all the time, doesn't mean that they represent the cc or even the forum community....

That's like thinking that if you say something often enough it becomes the truth or fact.

Lx

Also Lindax,

F U! We agree all the time...

Kt

oops, Kotaro and I posted at the same time (well, he was a split second quicker).

Again, I basically agree with what he says. Apart from that, I would like to mention that in order to have a proper debate you do not want people who regard their assumptions and/or opinions as facts. Or, even worse, assume to know what others know/think/feel.

Lx

Kotaro wrote:Also Lindax,

F U! We agree all the time...

Kt

Mmmm.... maybe I should finally take you off my foe's list

Lx

Lindax wrote:

Mmmm.... maybe I should finally take you off my foe's list

Lx

And you off mine.

Lindax wrote:I'm just saying that you can read their opinion(s) everywhere (repeatedly), you don't need to have them in a "focus group" to find out their opinion(s).

The "focus group" should be a group of people who's opinion you don't see everyday, combine the two and you may get some kind of feel for what "the community" thinks.

I had this little tiff with owenshooter who more or less claimed that the small group of people expressing their opinion regularly were representative of the (cc) community. He changed that afterwards to the "forum community". IMHO, just because a small group of people express their opinion(s) all the time, doesn't mean that they represent the cc or even the forum community....

That's like thinking that if you say something often enough it becomes the truth or fact.

Lx

I believe the idea here is that this "focus group" gets a little bit of everyone, everyone has a "representative" for themselves. We get some of the quiet gamers, which some people have nominated, some of the loud vocal forum regulars who others have nominated, etc. There is no reason to leave out a certain group just because they are loud enough on the forums as is. Every type of group should be included if CC wants to have a well rounded group.

Lindax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Lindax wrote:

Kotaro wrote:Take a look at this thread. Most aren't suggesting people that would actually help; they're suggesting the most controversial, the most funny, even the most annoying and destructive users. I gave a list a few days back of very help people, because no one else will.

If this project actually has an chance of success, which I'm rooting for, they'll need actually helpful people. And then they'll actually get something done, and thus, more things for me to play with.

Mmmm.... I never thought I'd say this, but I kinda agree with Kotaro here.
You don't need people in this "focus group" who already post their opinions multiple times in every possible forum thread. You need the ones that don't.
Lx

I don't think that's QUITE what Kotaro was saying. I'm a bit confused though, because you seem to be saying that having people who hold strong opinions and take the time to discuss them would be bad for the focus group. Why would that be a bad thing, or necessarily worse than those who don't?

I'm just saying that you can read their opinion(s) everywhere (repeatedly), you don't need to have them in a "focus group" to find out their opinion(s).

That's true enough, but IF AND ONLY IF the subject being discussed is publicly known. I wouldn't think that would be the case, to be honest (though OP didn't give any indication how it would be handled, so I certainly could be wrong).

Lindax wrote:I had this little tiff with owenshooter who more or less claimed that the small group of people expressing their opinion regularly were representative of the (cc) community. He changed that afterwards to the "forum community". IMHO, just because a small group of people express their opinion(s) all the time, doesn't mean that they represent the cc or even the forum community....

Yes, I definitely agree with that, and I'm pretty sure OP thinks that, fortunately.

I think everyone is straying far from what OP had in mind. This isn't some moderating the moderators group, this isn't some "everyone needs to be apart of and have equal representation" group, this isn't anything that will affect everyone.

For some future projects here at Conquer Club I am going to be in need of a "focus group" of sorts.

Taking that quote, and hints he has dropped to colton24 and in Live Chat, this is just going to be you helping him set up future "Special Events" where people will beable to get medals. So far, he has given no hint that this group will have any impat whatsoever on any sort of guidelines or anything important that will need everyone's opinion, or even half the different groups of peoples opinions, just helpful people that will give some feedback to what OP is planning.

Then it all sounds like a waste of time to me..........

Kotaro wrote:Taking that quote, and hints he has dropped to colton24 and in Live Chat, this is just going to be you helping him set up future "Special Events" where people will beable to get medals. So far, he has given no hint that this group will have any impat whatsoever on any sort of guidelines or anything important that will need everyone's opinion, or even half the different groups of peoples opinions, just helpful people that will give some feedback to what OP is planning.

OP, can you confirm or falsify this?


Is this merely going to be about planning special games and events so people can add more shinies to their profiles, but not have any chance of impacting forum and site policies?

MeDeFe wrote:Is this merely going to be about planning special games and events so people can add more shinies to their profiles, but not have any chance of impacting forum and site policies?

Fair question, but, since this is a gaming site, "merely" seems the wrong terminology. Planning special games and events can be fun and productive.

I support this list on nominees...

oVo wrote:listed in no particular order of preference
colton24
AAFitz
Robinette
MrBenn
owenshooter
Mr.Changsha
Captain_Scarlet
demonfork
happy2seeyou
poptartpsycho18
Fruitcake
AndyDufresne
LazarusLong
cairnsWK
oaktown
jonesthecurl
BaldAdonis

and this one...

MeDeFe wrote:

Falkomagno wrote:

slowreactor wrote:

Falkomagno wrote:with no special order:
saxitoxin

...

I like healthy controversy, sorry.

He's definitely controversial, I'm not so sure about the "healthy" part, though.



People I think should be on the board include (in no particular order):

owenshooter
PLAYER57832
Mr Changsha
Fircoal
GabonX
thegreekdog
King Herpes
demonfork
Dancing Mustard (yes, I'm serious, he appears to be intelligent, is active (when he can), is held in high esteem by many other forumgoers (and in not so high by others), and has been around for quite some time. I think DM qualifies as "healthy controversy".)

I can't quite put my finger on it yet but the above 2 lists just seem to have something special about them

demonfork wrote:I support this list on nominees...

oVo wrote:listed in no particular order of preference
colton24
AAFitz
Robinette
MrBenn
owenshooter
Mr.Changsha
Captain_Scarlet
demonfork
happy2seeyou
poptartpsycho18
Fruitcake
AndyDufresne
LazarusLong
cairnsWK
oaktown
jonesthecurl
BaldAdonis

and this one...

MeDeFe wrote:

Falkomagno wrote:

slowreactor wrote:

Falkomagno wrote:with no special order:
saxitoxin

...

I like healthy controversy, sorry.

He's definitely controversial, I'm not so sure about the "healthy" part, though.



People I think should be on the board include (in no particular order):

owenshooter
PLAYER57832
Mr Changsha
Fircoal
GabonX
thegreekdog
King Herpes
demonfork
Dancing Mustard (yes, I'm serious, he appears to be intelligent, is active (when he can), is held in high esteem by many other forumgoers (and in not so high by others), and has been around for quite some time. I think DM qualifies as "healthy controversy".)

I can't quite put my finger on it yet but the above 2 lists just seem to have something special about them

Well I heard you'll put your fingers on anything.

You must have heard that from an unreliable source. It's in not on.

4myGod wrote:

whitestazn88 wrote:really, no suggestions for me? i feel a bit insulted

It's because of the avatar. When people see you they don't see a brain...

hey, those are large frontal lobes.