Nice Idea Final ...

1) Make the poll on the front page a little more visible, it takes quite a bit of scrolling to get to it, so I hardly bother, as I want to get to the forums, not look for a poll for 1 minute plus.

2) Make seperate forums for seperate games. Also make a "General Gaming" forum where "1337" users can argue over which game is the best, and so on. State clearly that the Off Topic forum is NOT for arguing about gaming, and deal harshly with those who don't follow that rule. After all, a Best Offense is a Good Defense.

3) Hate to sound elitist, but perhaps create a private section of the forums for the long-time regulars and veterans, invite-only. That way, Taw won't be ripping his hair out when countless newbies as what "Tawaklanistan" is for the thousandth time, and Arcon won't be subjected to a barrage of insults from a immature 15-year old for posting his (sometimes) straight-up opinions.

4) Allow avatars only after a certain rank. Suggested before, but a good argument. If they aren't banned by "Commander", good chance they're mature enough to handle having their own personal pic. Disallowing .gif avatars might be a good idea too.

More to come soon ...

I know it is a bit difficult to do and would require Admin / Mod time but the game mods really need to be better organized. Some way to navigate a sensible tree to get to the kind of mod you want would be great. Total conversion mods would be individual branches: All TNG mods should be located in branch, all Rebalances in another, etc., etc.

---

Hate to sound elitist, but perhaps create a private section of the forums for the long-time regulars and veterans, invite-only. That way, Taw won't be ripping his hair out when countless newbies as what "Tawaklanistan" is for the thousandth time, and Arcon won't be subjected to a barrage of insults from a immature 15-year old for posting his (sometimes) straight-up opinions.

---

It's only elitist if you restrict it to regs and vets. If anyone who demonstrates that they have a certain level of maturity can be invited, regardless of how many posts they have (obviously they would need to post a considerable amount to prove this, I just wouldn't want to see a "Commanders and above only" rule), and regardless of how long they've been a member then no one should have a problem. I would like to suggest that it use a sort of "membership by nomination" process instead of simple invites. Otherwise one mistake could concievably ruin the entire experience.

"membership by nomination"

if this was to happen then it should be the mods that do this and not the normal forum members like us

... So if one of the mods dislikes us, we can't get in ?. I'd prefer the already-invited members to decide .....

Personally, for me, it would cultivate a very seperatist and elitist group of people (those in the forum), and it would propogate a rather intense divide - in my opinion. I do not see why people who have posted a little bit longer, or a little bit more, should be able to dictate whom has access to certain forums, and as for the content of the forum - it would (so far) be the off topic - but closed to outsiders. I dislike the elitest idea - which is exactly what it is.

The reason WHY it should be done? So far, all I have seen is because 'we don't want them to ruin our community conversations' or along those lines? Imagine that you didn't have access to the OT forum at all right now - you never did. Do you think you would still be here posting? Do you think you would count yourself as a 'community member'?
Now why do you think you guys should be able to stop others from enjoying what you manage to enjoy? If someone had been dicating what you could/could not see already, then you would probabily not be a an active member here at all - you would have gone away.

You guys were given the chance to integrate into the community that existed, why do you seek to remove that same opportunity that you were granted, from others that SHOULD have the chance? Communities grow/shrink/develop/disappear - so why should you now dictate the future of other new members to be able to enjoy participating in discussions? In all honesty, what gives you guys the right to it as well? If older members - from two years ago, came back - and demanded they had a forum where you guys couldn't participate at all - would you like that, or would you find that unfair?

I semi understand the reasoning for the whole idea, but at the same time - I disagree with it strongly. Condeming non existant members as spamming leet speakers months before they may perhaps arrive, is just a little bit......whats the word......hmm.

Elitist.

It's a tug of war. If you've been here long enough, you get tired of new posters who figure they can just say what they want without reading the Rules & Regs. At least now they are more prominently linkied as such insteaad of FAQs.

My problem with invitation only is that, essentially, it may as well be a different site altogether then. It would not have to be TLR or a section of it. It could be anyone's website.... by invitation only.

I've thought about this a bit because the idea appeals but I think it ends being counter to what TLR was meant to be in the first place. And I say this regretfully.

The best that the vets or regs can do is ignore the unwanted chatter and maybe, just maybe, have some tweaks or hints put into to forums to suggest some areas may be best visited AFTER a good understanding the rules has been gained.

Beyond that, I can't fairly say that any of us are entitled to elite treatment.... much as I would like to say just that.

<Edit>

On a separate note, in looking over the past few polls, there is a clear pattern of response that shows that it is the game itself and the mods and what it takes to play it (hardware) that draw the most responses.

The other less directly connected poll queries pull less than a thousand responses.
So people do find the polls. Not all poll questions are of equal interest, however.

BUT I too would want to see it made even more noticeable.

Edited by - Indy11 on 10/30/2004 6:13:58 PM

What would come about with a private forum?

As i have said before, an invite only based on quality of post that allows discussion on religion and politics. It can still remain a family site, but only expressed levels of maturity and individual passwords are allowed. Or we could create on accessed by all but "zero tolerance" where by you act like an idiot once then your banned from the ENTIRE site. I've seen that another forum and it holds very well. No Spam and no flaming. People disagree with each other but there is respect for other peoples opinion. This will give a lot of life back in to the site.

religeon and politics discussion doesnt work...it can break up friendships. There are very good reasons why these discussions are not allowed

I can see your point sw, but in terms of discussion each peoples views differ greatly. Religion is a very touchy one, politics less so. If we are all mature about this then i'll respect anyone from jew to catholic to communist. Thats why the invited need to be carefully chosen.

i dont like this invite thing. it degrades those that aren't chosen. 'oh you weren't invited because, even though you're 40years old, you have the maturity comparable to that of a 4year old'

i also dont like the avatar idea. i prefer not being subject to the horrible reality but in all seriousness, 'you can't have this and that before comander' is just a bit too much and will strongly encourage spamming to get up to that point. besides, un-serious spamming isn't banned. if they were, mods' strictness would have to be questioned.

as for maturity, i dont like that either, but its already been debated enough by chips and others.

just a few points i'd like to highlight;

it will cause the community to split up, forming the 'vet's and the 'newbs'. there will be much war and spamming and inevitably, breaking up the site we've all come to love that is TLR.

oh i just remembered, i think we should promote the irc link more. there's just too few people there. besides, it's also a limb of TLR. just not as frequently used.

"it will cause the community to split up"
the community is alredy split up

It's interesting that you should say that sw. Would you care to clarify that comment?

I would answer that statement, but like Esq says - care to clarify what you mean sw?