Curial Changes discussion (split from the Townhall)

[Iskar]

There are definitely some interesting ideas in that Curial Reform discussion from 2.5 years ago. I wonder what caused it to be put on hold/slowly die away?

Not sure how much use it would be to (re)start discussing the ideas of back then anew, although I would have some thoughts on it.

[Veteraan]

Well, from this POST I understand that there is still a discussion going on somewhere else (Lord GED and his merry Knights looking for the Holy TWC grail). So there probably is not much use in discussing this much. At least not in detail.

I have read through most of it now and my main thought about it is that even back in 2014, the way most people spend their time online is done by visiting the big social networks and for the gamers also Steam. This is even more so for 2017. I don't think we can expect TWC to be able to compete with that and I think it shouldn't try to begin with.

The front page is the place where much can and should be gained. It seems this is clear to everybody though. Of course there needs to be content to link to of such quality that people will return. That needs a reliable body of contributors that keeps on going. A job best done by staff, as it is now, I believe.

[PikeStance]

There are definitely some interesting ideas in that Curial Reform discussion from 2.5 years ago. I wonder what caused it to be put on hold/slowly die away?

Not sure how much use it would be to (re)start discussing the ideas of back then anew, although I would have some thoughts on it.

The short answer is that GED had personal issues and the discussion just faded.
GED's idea more or less 'double down" on content and even more "role- playing" than now. Since this is the area that is declining. It is unlikely, even if implemented, it would had changed anything.

[Iskar]

Well, from this POST I understand that there is still a discussion going on somewhere else (Lord GED and his merry Knights looking for the Holy TWC grail). So there probably is not much use in discussing this much. At least not in detail.

I have read through most of it now and my main thought about it is that even back in 2014, the way most people spend their time online is done by visiting the big social networks and for the gamers also Steam. This is even more so for 2017. I don't think we can expect TWC to be able to compete with that and I think it shouldn't try to begin with.

The front page is the place where much can and should be gained. It seems this is clear to everybody though. Of course there needs to be quality content to link to of such quality that people will return. That needs a reliable body of contributors that keeps on going. A job best done by staff, as it is now, I believe.

I wonder what they are cooking up there. Judging from his posts in the Proth discussion the focus seems to have shifted, though, from just adding something on top of the Curia to "tear it down and rebuilt it from scratch"-type scenarios.

I agree that we can hardly compete with social media in their role to provide casual chat and light social entertainment. However, I think the forum environment we have is still better suited to more lasting efforts, thorough debate, modding projects involving more than one modder, creative writing, etc.

If any new plans result in an increased focus of site institutions on these, I'm all for it.

[Veteraan]

I wonder what they are cooking up there. Judging from his posts in the Proth discussion the focus seems to have shifted, though, from just adding something on top of the Curia to "tear it down and rebuilt it from scratch"-type scenarios.

I think it is unrealistic to expect any big contributions from the members of the Curia. Those who want to be involved are already doing so. Of those who are, only a small amount visit the Curia, let alone do anything active there. You can (partly) tear it down as far as I'm concerned and build (leave) something that only caters to the awards function the Curia has. If it still is deemed important that Citizens behave on a higher standard than regular members, that would need Censors, or some automated system and you will probably always need some kind of janitor to keep things going and properly archived.

I agree that we can hardly compete with social media in their role to provide casual chat and light social entertainment. However, I think the forum environment we have is still better suited to more lasting efforts, thorough debate, modding projects involving more than one modder, creative writing, etc.

If any new plans result in an increased focus of site institutions on these, I'm all for it.

Very true, this site can only survive if it focusses on it's strong points and improves some of the weaker points it wants to keep. But as my earlier remark about the front page, this has little to do with the Curia section as such.

[Iskar]

Very much agreed. I take it the Front Page, if envisioned as something more dynamical with frequent addition of new content and articles, requires a sufficiently large and sufficiently reliable group of contributors - a role the citizenry unfortunately seems inappropriate for given its past excesses and mindset - and this group was somehow hoped to be accesible via this kind of new system of "orders" or whatnot one may devise.

[Ngugi]

Iskar, may you to elaborate?
"Excesses"? "Mindset"?
What "humble mindset" are we supposed to subject to?
Most citizens active on the site are out on the site creating, posting content and participate in activities to the benefit of the community, some every day, as you know very well.

As for the example, there are loads of potential sources, as per above and beyond, for front page material. Members, whether Citizens or not, could beeen allowed to and drafted to create news from existing activity, or make own news - as long as inspired individuals (Citizens or not) with proper, or with access to the persons with proper, administrative rights works on it. Indeed, most front page content today is provided by modding teams sharing their works on own account, or by project groups as for the Awards or competitions.
As with Content, no explicit need for Citizens as body, as long as Staff or authorized admins are attached.

[Iskar]

I should probably have been more precise. By excesses I meant rule violations and detrimental behaviour by people desite their citizen badge (cf. the second spoiler in this post), by mindset I was referring to what is admittedly my impression of a certain conception of Citizenship - namely, that it entitles to rougher conduct than usual (see "grown up rules for grown up members" or the aggressive climate popping up in Proth discussions now and then) instead of mandating a generally exemplary behaviour.
There is no doubt that there are countless citizens out there delivering valuable contributions to the site and promoting a friendly and helpful atmosphere. What I was getting at, more precisely worded, was that Citizenship fails to serve as a guarantee for this kind of beneficial behaviour. There is certainly a statistical correlation between being nice and contributing on the one hand and citizenship on the other hand, but it is not strong enough to use the citizenship badge as a reliable indicator for such behaviour.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Apologies if my post explaining why the forum is closed was unclear, there is no further discussion of that idea taking place in some other secret forum at this time. I meant that line to say that discussion was ongoing in the Curia as pertains to the contents of that forum, or would be after it was made visible. I've edited my post to read as follows, let me know if it's still unclear:

Just making a note here in case anyone wonders why they can't post here in the future. This forum is now visible to Citizens per GED's request, but posting is disabled (after this one). This was a discussion that took place in 2014 and is now visible so that these ideas or others that may benefit from them can be discussed in the Curia main.

As with most things of this nature, they are discussed assuming an ideal of involvement but usually the key collaborators get busy and it falls by the wayside. There's another somewhat related forum from a year previous where I outlined a possible transition to an Order/Guild type system but it focused less on the centralized pageantry part and more on empowering decentralized autonomy and self-determination by interest area. That one, like this one, fell by the wayside when I got too busy to hammer out all the minutiae. I won't make that area visible since it would detract from the current discussion, and it seems unlikely to get anywhere since the Modding/Historical Community proposals I passed through the Curia have yet to be implemented and they're narrower in scope.

[Ngugi]

@Iskar
I hear you then, hehe.
The Citizenry as a body of spot on prudent individuals isn't a rational expectation even if it's the bar we aims for, as we often are elected for specific contributions, while manners may be little known - or change over many years.
We, and staff (which we recently acknowledge in amendment), may been lacking in removing "bad apples" so far, while some Citizens appriciate the 'diversity', and while the peer based system may have high hopes for repentance; but the suggestion that Citizens would been given free range is so naive it should not been taken seriously based on the election process itself.

[izzi]

Normally I don't give any opinions, but in this case I like to mention something. What is TWC? It's a forum for modding and modded games of (especially) TW. That's why people come to this place, to download mods/patches/tools/...I am a modder myself, and I enjoy how I can use TWC to create and share my creations. And I think it's good to concentrate on that. It's true that you have Steam workshop, Moddb and/or other forum based workshops. But there is not one as good as TWC for the Total War franchise. To be honest guys, Total War has a monopoly in this genre. There is no other game that can beat them in that RTS gaming experience. TWC can be a gold mine in that way. It has never been a social forum in the way like Facebook or something like that and it doesn't have to be. A lot of people I know, have just bought a Total War game and they loved it. They never knew about mods for the game. Until I told them to visit TWC and they loved it. There are thousands of mods (smaller ones and bigger ones). Concentrate on the modding area of the site, by supporting it with 3d lessons/tutorials/...with videos. This gives chance to other ones to learn how to mod and ho knows, create there own game. I own a lot to TWC, without it, I could have never modded they way I do it now and there are many that are doing the same, by learning at TWC.

[PikeStance]

I should probably have been more precise. By excesses I meant rule violations and detrimental behaviour by people desite their citizen badge (cf. the second spoiler in this post), by mindset I was referring to what is admittedly my impression of a certain conception of Citizenship - namely, that it entitles to rougher conduct than usual (see "grown up rules for grown up members" or the aggressive climate popping up in Proth discussions now and then) instead of mandating a generally exemplary behaviour.
There is no doubt that there are countless citizens out there delivering valuable contributions to the site and promoting a friendly and helpful atmosphere. What I was getting at, more precisely worded, was that Citizenship fails to serve as a guarantee for this kind of beneficial behaviour. There is certainly a statistical correlation between being nice and contributing on the one hand and citizenship on the other hand, but it is not strong enough to use the citizenship badge as a reliable indicator for such behaviour.

I am glad you clarified it.

it will continuously be an uphill battle. Citizenship is more distinction that demands more than it gives. However, if we want more of "rights," then our behavior certainly needs to improve.

Normally I don't give any opinions, but in this case I like to mention something. What is TWC? It's a forum for modding and modded games of (especially) TW. That's why people come to this place, to download mods/patches/tools/...I am a modder myself, and I enjoy how I can use TWC to create and share my creations. And I think it's good to concentrate on that. It's true that you have Steam workshop, Moddb and/or other forum based workshops. But there is not one as good as TWC for the Total War franchise. To be honest guys, Total War has a monopoly in this genre. There is no other game that can beat them in that RTS gaming experience. TWC can be a gold mine in that way. It has never been a social forum in the way like Facebook or something like that and it doesn't have to be. A lot of people I know, have just bought a Total War game and they loved it. They never knew about mods for the game. Until I told them to visit TWC and they loved it. There are thousands of mods (smaller ones and bigger ones). Concentrate on the modding area of the site, by supporting it with 3d lessons/tutorials/...with videos. This gives chance to other ones to learn how to mod and ho knows, create there own game. I own a lot to TWC, without it, I could have never modded they way I do it now and there are many that are doing the same, by learning at TWC.

While is important, it ironically played second fiddle to content, which also attracted people to the forum. Modding sites are a threat because content's importance has been sheered by easy access wiki guides and youtube channels. Now TWC faces serious challenges from content it is left with the debaters and modders who have been more or less left alone.

A secondary problem is the loss power of the Curia. The less power something have and the more people involved with it, then the more vicious people will fight over the scraps of power For a while content fed the "beast." Now, content is smaller and less meaningful, it is ghost town. The Curia didn't have the best reputation before, so afterwards, it became even worse. The site also have a reputation of being "cliquish." This is bad, but it isn't necessarily the kiss of death. I belong to site that developed this reputation. It is now the biggest most highly respected forums of its genre. It probably wasn't rue in that case it isn't really true here. However, people here do tend to get too personal on things.

[Frunk]

Thread split from the Townhall.

[izzi]

I am glad you clarified it.

it will continuously be an uphill battle. Citizenship is more distinction that demands more than it gives. However, if we want more of "rights," then our behavior certainly needs to improve.



While is important, it ironically played second fiddle to content, which also attracted people to the forum. Modding sites are a threat because content's importance has been sheered by easy access wiki guides and youtube channels. Now TWC faces serious challenges from content it is left with the debaters and modders who have been more or less left alone.

A secondary problem is the loss power of the Curia. The less power something have and the more people involved with it, then the more vicious people will fight over the scraps of power For a while content fed the "beast." Now, content is smaller and less meaningful, it is ghost town. The Curia didn't have the best reputation before, so afterwards, it became even worse. The site also have a reputation of being "cliquish." This is bad, but it isn't necessarily the kiss of death. I belong to site that developed this reputation. It is now the biggest most highly respected forums of its genre. It probably wasn't rue in that case it isn't really true here. However, people here do tend to get too personal on things.

Thanks for your comment Pike. I know it's not always easy to work with others as a team. Everyone has it's own view on a matter. That's normal, because we have are own personality.
But I have commented about it (about modding), because I feel (it's just a feeling I have), that CA is not as supportive for Modding since STW2. For example, Craig is not at CA anymore (at least, that's what his LinkedIn profile says) and he was a real push for the modding community. And I also see, that the modding tools provided, are not as extensive as STW2 (this why I only mod that game as it's almost fully moddable). Maybe, because they want to release more things by DLC. I have no idea. That's the reason why ask to concentrate on those things (Modding). Many of the strong leading modders are almost gone (they have other things to do, or even creating there own game) or are not online anymore since months. This is not good for the future, as knowledge can get lost. But, you all do a good job, continue like this and keep up the good work for TWC.

[Frunk]

I have finally gotten around to having a good browse of the Curial Changes threads, and further to the opinions already shared in this thread, I need to say that while the changes sound intriguing and cool, in theory, I have my doubts that the system* will be easy to implement, nor that it* will be able to sustain itself after being implemented. I'll elaborate on my concerns after I lay out what I think the changes are, because there's quite a bit of info to digest and I may have misinterpreted it.

*My interpretation is that, essentially, a guild system would be created, which would replace the Curia and Citizenship. These guilds would be headed by a guild master; would set their own agendas and objectives, and; compete with other guilds for "glory" (for want of a better term) and (possibly?) for awards/rewards. Membership would be determined by the members of the guild; would be capped at a certain number; would NOT be restricted to one guild per member, but; guild masters would not be able to be part of another guild.

Assuming I'm on the right track, I just don't see this system being able to be implemented currently. A number of Hexers, particularly those directly involved with the technical side of things (GED, Squid, y2day) are busy with other things, which means implementing the numerous changes to the forum and the site that would be required, would take quite some and effort. This was essentially already said by AL.

I also am concerned that, even though the guilds can set their own agenda and goals, that the guilds would have anything to do, i.e. any reason for existing. It could be argued that even the Curia has an ongoing identity crisis, with awards-giving being our only clear and agreed-upon mandate, so what could this system hope to actually achieve? Furthermore, historically we've seen that systems which have been implemented without an obvious function become disused and obsolete over time. The Forum Magnum, for example, had a variety of clear mandates, demand for which proved to be lacking over time, and thus it was abolished. So, what could we expect for a system that doesn't even come along with suggested mandates? (Again, unless I've missed them). I predict that, were this to be implemented successfully, it would fail to get very far off the ground and eventually become another white elephant.

My third and final concern is that, even if the necessary Hex(ers) and/or other members driving this project were around to bring it to fruition, and even if it had a clear mandate and reason for being created in the first place, that there simply would not be enough active members to "staff" the various guilds. In the Curia, voter turnout and general activity in the Capitol suggests we have 20 to 30 active members, at most. Divide this number by a few guilds (even if membership across guild was possible/acceptable) and I predict we'd be left with understaffed guilds.

To summarise, I believe there are no obvious leaders to bring this system to fruition; there is no demand or obvious mandate for this system, and; there are not enough active members to staff this system.

My suggestion would be to attempt to replicate this system, perhaps from within the Curia, for a trial period, to see if it is indeed feasible, but honestly I think that is unnecessary and I am not interested in it, personally. I do really like the idea of motivating members by creating a competition/friendly rivalry amongst guilds and members of different guilds, but it's an idea that might have worked great many years ago. Now, I just can't see it happening.

[Veteraan]

(..)
*My interpretation is that, essentially, a guild system would be created, which would replace the Curia and Citizenship. These guilds would be headed by a guild master; would set their own agendas and objectives, and; compete with other guilds for "glory" (for want of a better term) and (possibly?) for awards/rewards. Membership would be determined by the members of the guild; would be capped at a certain number; would NOT be restricted to one guild per member, but; guild masters would not be able to be part of another guild.
(...)
My suggestion would be to attempt to replicate this system, perhaps from within the Curia, for a trial period, to see if it is indeed feasible, but honestly I think that is unnecessary and I am not interested in it, personally. I do really like the idea of motivating members by creating a competition/friendly rivalry amongst guilds and members of different guilds, but it's an idea that might have worked great many years ago. Now, I just can't see it happening.

I read the those Curial changes threads also and I agree with your conclusion. Those guilds might have worked in 2010 or earlier even, when there was far less competition for the time people actually can spend on things.

To be honest though, even back then such a system would not have appealed to me at all. Competing for glory and awards/rewards sounds like a complete waste of time, which could be spent much better IMO. Unless you are very fond of "Role Playing" of course, which I am not. On the contrary even.

[PikeStance]

*My interpretation is that, essentially, a guild system would be created, which would replace the Curia and Citizenship.

I do not recall any discussion about "replacing the Curia or Citizenship." If memory serve this was going to be another layer.

These guilds would be headed by a guild master; would set their own agendas and objectives, and; compete with other guilds for "glory" (for want of a better term) and (possibly?) for awards/rewards. Membership would be determined by the members of the guild; would be capped at a certain number; would NOT be restricted to one guild per member, but; guild masters would not be able to be part of another guild.

Assuming I'm on the right track, I just don't see this system being able to be implemented currently. A number of Hexers, particularly those directly involved with the technical side of things (GED, Squid, y2day) are busy with other things, which means implementing the numerous changes to the forum and the site that would be required, would take quite some and effort. This was essentially already said by AL.

There is a sticking point about members who contribute in multiple areas. There was a theory presented on how it can be handled, but the discussion sort of just ended. I am not sure the members above would had figure out how to get the system work.

I also am concerned that, even though the guilds can set their own agenda and goals, that the guilds would have anything to do, i.e. any reason for existing. It could be argued that even the Curia has an ongoing identity crisis, with awards-giving being our only clear and agreed-upon mandate, so what could this system hope to actually achieve? Furthermore, historically we've seen that systems which have been implemented without an obvious function become disused and obsolete over time. The Forum Magnum, for example, had a variety of clear mandates, demand for which proved to be lacking over time, and thus it was abolished. So, what could we expect for a system that doesn't even come along with suggested mandates? (Again, unless I've missed them). I predict that, were this to be implemented successfully, it would fail to get very far off the ground and eventually become another white elephant.

The practical aspects of the system was discussed. I personally felt like it would only be attractive to those who were already contributing. Then again, I am first to argue, "if you build it, they will come." Essentially, this was the point. Create something attractive and the system will be self- awarding.

My third and final concern is that, even if the necessary Hex(ers) and/or other members driving this project were around to bring it to fruition, and even if it had a clear mandate and reason for being created in the first place, that there simply would not be enough active members to "staff" the various guilds. In the Curia, voter turnout and general activity in the Capitol suggests we have 20 to 30 active members, at most. Divide this number by a few guilds (even if membership across guild was possible/acceptable) and I predict we'd be left with understaffed guilds.

Like above the point was to create something that would attract people to want to contribute. This will, in turn, bring in administrators. I do not think leadership would be a problem. It had technical limitations. On a side note, very few admins at the time even participated in the discussion, so there is merit. That being said, people tend to "come out of the woodwork" if it is something they are interested in. Anyway, there were something technical discussions that was never resolved. Again, off of memory, the idea was more of a conceptual framework.

My suggestion would be to attempt to replicate this system, perhaps from within the Curia, for a trial period, to see if it is indeed feasible, but honestly I think that is unnecessary and I am not interested in it, personally. I do really like the idea of motivating members by creating a competition/friendly rivalry amongst guilds and members of different guilds, but it's an idea that might have worked great many years ago. Now, I just can't see it happening.

I probably said this a hundred times by this point, but the first step is to develop a "strategic Plan." The solution can best be determine only after you have identify the issues. Then, and only the, is it wise to pursue a specific course of action. id person A says the problem is "x" and person B states it is "y" and we decide to take action to resolve "y" and the real problem is "x," then we could had easily missed an opportunity and possibly worsen the problem. Another way of looking at this; is the problem of the site over reliance on content? Is the problem the lack of support for the modding community? How would you define this site? What is its most attractive features? These are examples of questions that have been discussed and debated, but have not been answered.

[Frunk]

I may have dreamt the part about the Order/Guild system replacing the Curia, but even so, it doesn't really change anything in my opinion.

If this was an active proposal being driven by someone, as opposed to a discussion of an idea which appears to have been static for a few years, I might be more inclined to agree with the "build it, and they will come" point of view. The forum was made public a bit over a month ago (I only responded today because I just hadn't got around to it yet) but few Citizens/other members seem to have been very interested in it. Perhaps it's too much to consider and digest. For me, it seems a bit too convoluted to be the "answer" to any of those questions you posit, given the current "climate", if you will.

[PikeStance]

I may have dreamt the part about the Order/Guild system replacing the Curia, but even so, it doesn't really change anything in my opinion.

If this was an active proposal being driven by someone, as opposed to a discussion of an idea which appears to have been static for a few years, I might be more inclined to agree with the "build it, and they will come" point of view. The forum was made public a bit over a month ago (I only responded today because I just hadn't got around to it yet) but few Citizens/other members seem to have been very interested in it. Perhaps it's too much to consider and digest. For me, it seems a bit too convoluted to be the "answer" to any of those questions you posit, given the current "climate", if you will.

The discussion was started during a discussion related to Curia reform. One of the points of emphasis for GED is that citizenship standards should be high. The proposal submitted intent is to increase contribution, thus increase traffic and potential revenue. Personally, I think the proposal would be interesting idea to pursue if the site was not based on a specific game type (CA's Total War).

The discussion was based on a basic outline of a single proposal. I think I made an alternative suggestion that was entertained at best, but not explored. The entirety of the discussion took about a month. I can see why you would thin it was convoluted, because the technical aspects was never "fleshed out." It sorted just fizzled.

Just a note, the discussion group was limited to a few members. of that only about a half dozen people participated regularly in the discussion. We were asked not to discuss any part of the proposal until GED was ready to present it himself. It would be impossible to gauge if the "citizenship" would had been interested at that time or even now.