My Dear Historians

[G-Megas-Doux]

To be honest there have been posts like that every year I have been here just the frequency has changed.

[hellheaven1987]

To be honest there have been posts like that every year I have been here just the frequency has changed.

Yes, and new proposal says you should all discuss like that everytime, can you do it?

[G-Megas-Doux]

Yes, and new proposal says you should all discuss like that everytime, can you do it?

Ha, you have seen my posts over the years. You know I cant keep up that level of discussion for to long. So I will have to learn to be careful with which discussions I enter and make a huge effort then bow out gracefully if I cannot.

[hellheaven1987]

Ha, you have seen my posts over the years. You know I cant keep up that level of discussion for to long. So I will have to learn to be careful with which discussions I enter and make a huge effort then bow out gracefully if I cannot.

Not just you, but most of us cannot do it. That is why I find OP's proposal kindly meaningless, as most people can never keep up posting long, carefully written posts for long. The most possible result hence would be even less people post in VV - an opposite situation where OP's proposal wants to achieve.

But then, like I said yesterday, I don't think the new structure OP proposed would make things worse, so why not try it?

[G-Megas-Doux]

I'm all for self improvement and pushing ones mind to its limits of concentration and methodical order. I just have to be interested in the subject matter.

[Diocle]

I don't like very much this idea Pike, I think that the historical threads in the various Mod Forums are good as they are and where they are, why depriving the Mods of an occasion to talk about history with the users and players?

Why do you want to split the discussion between historical experts and players? Don't you think that a good reenactor, for example, could give better suggestions than a guy graduated in history in some forgotten place of the world and with no knowledge of ancient weapons and armors and '0' experience about Ancient warfare?

In my experience the historical discussions in the Mod Forums are interesting and constructive, you meet interesting people and TWC is a nice place even for these reasons.

I don't see why you want to relegate history into a sophisticated and exclusive ghetto for self-proclaimed 'experts', in which after three or four days you'll find yourself alone and talking with the void, that is, with yourself!

Another good boy tainted by the 'red syndrome'!

[G-Megas-Doux]

I don't like very much this idea Pike, I think that the historical threads in the various Mod Forums are good as they are and where they are, why depriving the Mods of an occasion to talk about history with the users and players?

Why do you want to split the discussion between historical experts and players? Don't you think that a good reenactor, for example, could give better suggestions than a guy graduated in history in some forgotten place of the world and with no knowledge of ancient weapons and armors and '0' experience about Ancient warfare?

In my experience the historical discussions in the Mod Forums are interesting and constructive, you meet interesting people and TWC is a nice place even for these reasons.

I don't see why you want to relegate history into a sophisticated and exclusive ghetto for self-proclaimed 'experts', in which after three or four days you'll find yourself alone and talking with the void, that is, with yourself!

Another good boy tainted by the 'red syndrome'!

I never said I was for all parts the thing I am mainly for would be the link to primary sources. However holding yourself to a higher standard of debate is usually a good thing.
By red syndrome do you mean the fictional book?

[Petrucci]

I thought he meant ideals, like in socialism.

[PikeStance]

Yes, and new proposal says you should all discuss like that everytime, can you do it?

I don't like very much this idea Pike, I think that the historical threads in the various Mod Forums are good as they are and where they are, why depriving the Mods of an occasion to talk about history with the users and players?

Why do you want to split the discussion between historical experts and players? Don't you think that a good reenactor, for example, could give better suggestions than a guy graduated in history in some forgotten place of the world and with no knowledge of ancient weapons and armors and '0' experience about Ancient warfare?

In my experience the historical discussions in the Mod Forums are interesting and constructive, you meet interesting people and TWC is a nice place even for these reasons.

I don't see why you want to relegate history into a sophisticated and exclusive ghetto for self-proclaimed 'experts', in which after three or four days you'll find yourself alone and talking with the void, that is, with yourself!

Another good boy tainted by the 'red syndrome'!

Y'all are taking too far. I never said you have to discuss at an academic level. As it was then, the college of History is reserve for those types of discussion. Though, the VV can certainly host that level of discussion as well. The point is too attract more users to the history section by making it more visible and accessible (user friendly). Ideally, this would indirectly bring greater variety and POV to the forum therefore elevating the range of topic and quality. It in no way means anyone would feel left out.

What is mean by splitting historical expert from players? I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Anyway, the historical sections placement together would make it more user friendly for modders and historian alike. If anything, it would bring the two together not divide them.

What sense does it make to spread the history sections troughoiut the forum? If they wee all together, who would advocate the division as they are now? I scarcely believe anyone would. While the the release of each game it was logical, with so many games release, it s no longer the case to keep that way. If anything, the fact there so many games makes it illogical to keep it this way.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

One problem: the Fall of the Roman Empire WAS in the 15th century, so your medieval period is rather short...

[hellheaven1987]

One problem: the Fall of the Roman Empire WAS in the 15th century, so your medieval period is rather short...

Implying Byzantine Empire was Roman Empire.

[PikeStance]

One problem: the Fall of the Roman Empire WAS in the 15th century, so your medieval period is rather short...

Implying Byzantine Empire was Roman Empire.

This is a discussion best kept for its own thread. However, if it really bother you I can always change the descriptor to,based solely on dates rather than "watershed" moments.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Is this thread aware of the following thread?

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...als&p=13945480

[PikeStance]

Yes that thread is about tags for searches. It has no direct bearing on this proposal.

[General Retreat]

I'm not seeing the issue with game-based historical threads being collated into one place. It makes sense that these discussions are opened up to as wide an audience as possible. In order to retain mod user traffic, all that needs to be done is to replace the old sub-forum with a redirect to the new location.

The bonus to this system is that the main users in the old location still have easy access to the material from their usual stomping ground, while new faces who weren't even previously aware of localised history sections (such as myself) will be encouraged to pitch in.

As for "red syndrome", in this context I'm assuming that's a reference to citizenship (the user title/group) and a sudden desire to fix or change things.

[Hetairos]

Hello everyone, I have not time to dig in into the discussion, but I would just like to add my viewpoint on the historic research as a modder:

PRO
- TW Periods are apparently going to be remade (Shogun > Shogun II, RTW > TWRII and so on), the need of the same historic material is necessary
- Mods from the same time periods are apparently in need of the historic material of the same era as well
- The developers fora are gems of historical research and contribution
- The developers fora are hidden to everyone else except the contributors
- There are hundreds of developers fora of which a certain amount is actively used

CONS
- The public and general historic research threads are public, adhoc and more creative, but are messy, include sometimes doubtful content and sources, are disorganized and do not present information in the way of how modders could make use of it.

So from a modders viewpoint (being highly egoistic here, as being a modder ^^) this would make sense if we can bring in all this awesome fragmented historians from those developers fora into one centralized information hub* and secondly if we could solve the issue with public content vs "professional" research compiled specifically for modders.

*I don't understand why things have to be researched over and over again and written down so redundantly in all those developers fora instead of providing a ever improving polished and centralized main hub of sources.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

As was fantastically pointed out by G-Megas-Doux (Will rep you when i can for preventing a topic running of it's course), there is already a thread to debate the Roman Empires actual end... and it's not this thread. Please stay on topic people.

Carry on.

[PikeStance]

THIS IS AN UPDATE

The Reorganization outlined in the OP has passed the Curia and is now under review/ discussion in the Hex.

Ultimately, to make TWC a premiere site for the discussion of history and historical research we need to create a system that will promote continuity so that it will last indefinitely.

The Proposal Thread: [Decision] Historical Community

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hex have been having a chat this week and have resolved to ask for further information on a specific aspect of the proposal.

I come to request further information on the position of 'Archivist'.

1. Who appoints the Archivists? Are they Curia, Content, or something different altogether?
2. Who do they answer to? Who ensures they stay active? Who ensures they are impartial and fair? What qualifications do you envisage applicants having as a pre-requisite, if any?
3. What powers do you envisage them having in the area of policing the quality of discussions and threads?

We feel in principle that the proposal is a good idea but the position of Archivist is explained only in vague terms, giving a very generalised description of what they would do. We would like more details on the mechanics on the proposed position.

My Response

Initially, I have several phases to my proposal.
Phase I: Creation of historical sub- forum and official Archivum. (completed)
Phase II: Establish Historical Panel and mechanism of continuity.
Phase II: Establish a system of recognition of expertise. (This is a hybrid idea from another proposal)


Historical Research is neither content or modding, and yet neither can exist without it. It is something in between. I never envisioned this to be a Curia led project. I know in the past there was a historical panel that had existed, but for some reason it was allowed to fall into disuse. Ultimately, things last if it has a “catch” to encourage a continue use. The best way to do this is through recognition as alluded to in Phase III. Before I continue, I want to stress the difference between my vision and what is technically possible or feasible.


In one of the questions, you expressed that the duties and responsibilities were vaguely stated. This is what I had written in the OP:

Summary of Archivists Duties and Responsibilities

1. Archivist will be responsible for collecting and maintaining the repository in their respective fields.
2. There will be at least one archivist per period (including Asia and Naval Research)
3. Searching for quality sources.
4. Quality control would increasingly become the role of the archivists as a group.
5. Archivists would act as LM in their respective areas facilitating productive discussion and reporting any ToS violations.

If this is considered vague, I am not sure how to address your concern. If you can asked a specific question about each one, I can answer it more effectively.

The issues of appointments.
My ideal situation would be to create a Historian Board which would have a Chairman who would be responsible for the hiring and managing of the Archivum and Archivists. I personally created a group called the Historical Research Society. While there isn't a vetting process to join (its open to anyone more or less), it can be the umbrella group that can help determine the Board. Out of the board, Hex could choose a director (aka Chairman).


As far as how the Archivists are chosen; there are possibilities. One the Chairman can have absolute power to choose based on the qualification of the candidate. Another is to have each candidates vetted and chosen by the Board as a whole. In this case, the Chairman becomes a manager with the power to dismiss for inactivity or other detrimental behavior.


Who can be an archivist?
It isn't necessary a person holds any type of outside qualification (like a degree). A person should possessed some expertise in their field of interest. This can be ascertained via a questionnaire. It was my initial goal to have a separate discussion on this matter. I am open to options.


I honestly do not know what you mean by “impartial or fair.” The archivist role is to assist researcher to find sources that they could use for the Mod, AAR article, etc. If there is an issue it will be on the reliability of the source. In the event of a source in dispute, policies can be put into place to ensure their inclusion in the repository, though perhaps a note attached over the question of its reliability. I do not anticipate to be an significant hurdle that cannot be resolved.


Policing Threads.
I do not anticipate Archivist to handle infractions. Within the Archivum they would have full powers to post and remove post that are not up to high academic standards. They will not handle infractions. They would be expected to report all ToS violations if any occur. The same would be true within the Historical Research forums and the VV- though a different standard would be expected in each sub forum.


In Phase III
As a process to improve quality discussion and continuity of participation, I would like to see a certification program created. Based on postings, articles, and research, members can be recognized for the expertise in certain areas of history and culture. This idea is a hybrid of my proposal to have tick boxes in people's profiles which squid objected to. There was another objection that a person shouldn't chose for themselves. However, this idea is still in its infancy.... thanks to AL's link it provided an infusion of thoughts on the matter. I am still sort of working it out.


Thanks for your time …. again if I fail to address something adequately, please let me know.