board changes - yes or no?
- Thread starter flykiller
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I want the pulpit back...
time's up.
75% general satisfaction among regular posters and lurkers on the board, and about 10% who want to see changes but are willing to keep returning to the board. these ratios are typical and unsurprising. the surprise is the steady long-term drip of people who say they are going to leave. given the fact that coti seems to have one or two new members signing up each day the vast majority of which never post at all, and the fact that many people view any bulletin board as an on-demand by-right outlet for their personal political views, one may freely assert that the vote-to-leave block consists primarily of new arrivals who find the board is mostly about traveller and does not suit their political-expression needs.
in addition, the 117 positive respondants greatly outnumber the regular posters, indicating a large active lurker population that is engaged enough to say they are basically happy with the board. in addition, these active lurkers are greatly outnumbered by the occasional lurkers who signed up years ago, who almost never post or respond to polls, who show up irregularly but in steady numbers each day - one must count them among those who find the board useful, since they return to it.
seems to me the board, as a provider of traveller role-playing game content and discussions, overall is doing well.
75% general satisfaction among regular posters and lurkers on the board, and about 10% who want to see changes but are willing to keep returning to the board. these ratios are typical and unsurprising. the surprise is the steady long-term drip of people who say they are going to leave. given the fact that coti seems to have one or two new members signing up each day the vast majority of which never post at all, and the fact that many people view any bulletin board as an on-demand by-right outlet for their personal political views, one may freely assert that the vote-to-leave block consists primarily of new arrivals who find the board is mostly about traveller and does not suit their political-expression needs.
in addition, the 117 positive respondants greatly outnumber the regular posters, indicating a large active lurker population that is engaged enough to say they are basically happy with the board. in addition, these active lurkers are greatly outnumbered by the occasional lurkers who signed up years ago, who almost never post or respond to polls, who show up irregularly but in steady numbers each day - one must count them among those who find the board useful, since they return to it.
seems to me the board, as a provider of traveller role-playing game content and discussions, overall is doing well.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Well, you could draw those conclusions, though there isn't a shred of evidence to support them since this wasn't an open poll giving the names of voters. Nor was it entirely (or even primarily) about the removal of the Pit. It was about unspecified board changes.
We have no idea who voted or what they wanted, and I suspect that a number of the regulars who were vocal on these issues voted for substantial change. Some of them have already left.
Er, my calculations make that 30%
No need to fix anything, then, cos most people are willing to put up with the status quo no matter how crap it may be. As you say, no surprise there. :nonono:
It's perfectly safe to ignore the 45% of voters who want some changes.
Don't bother putting the wheels back on, we'll just carry our vehicle Flintstones style.
Last edited:
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
I would be in the "moderate changes" section, but I didn't vote because it would be a meaningless action.
This is not a member-responsive board... this is Hunters personal commercial board, created to pimp his now nearly-defunct game product, and he will run it however he feels... and we have to accept that or leave.
He allows non-T20 discussion as a tool to get more people exposed to T20, and as a side effect has caused the growth of his advertising site into arguably the largest and best "most-versions" Traveller site.
This has happened because the visitors/members have desired it, not because Hunter planned it.
Despite this, Hunter still runs this little kingdom his way, with dictatorial fiat, not through community consensus.
I won't leave (over this issue), simply because CotI is a pretty good resource and interaction site, and meets my needs (in its imperfect way) better than any other Traveller site I have found.
I accept "Hunter's way or the highway", just as I accept many other less-than-optimum aspects of the reality we live in... because I must either accept it or withdraw, and I prefer not to withdraw.
This is not a member-responsive board... this is Hunters personal commercial board, created to pimp his now nearly-defunct game product, and he will run it however he feels... and we have to accept that or leave.
He allows non-T20 discussion as a tool to get more people exposed to T20, and as a side effect has caused the growth of his advertising site into arguably the largest and best "most-versions" Traveller site.
This has happened because the visitors/members have desired it, not because Hunter planned it.
Despite this, Hunter still runs this little kingdom his way, with dictatorial fiat, not through community consensus.
I won't leave (over this issue), simply because CotI is a pretty good resource and interaction site, and meets my needs (in its imperfect way) better than any other Traveller site I have found.
I accept "Hunter's way or the highway", just as I accept many other less-than-optimum aspects of the reality we live in... because I must either accept it or withdraw, and I prefer not to withdraw.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Flykiller & Aramis: I visit & read daily, but often go more than a week without posting anything, until I make a bunch of them. Does that mean that at times I am not a "regular poster"... despite having a 1.16 post-per-day average since joining 2 1/4 years ago?
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I agree with you, Blackbat, and I stay for the same reasons, except that I don't believe we're completely powerless.
Excuse my use of bold on your quote, but I disagree with the first highlighted statement because of the second one. It is possible to influence Hunter (or any other rational dictator) by pointing out a better way of doing things and convincing him of the proposal's benefits.
If I may say so, desiring change but declining to mention it through a sense of impotence is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
For my own part, I only suggested minor changes, but that doesn't mean I'm happy for nothing to happen. My biggest gripe isn't to have any radical alterations, but simply to return the board to full functionality by appointing a functional Admin and more Moderators to share the workload.
I notice at Hunter's last fly-by he found time to ban a couple of people but I haven't seen any new moderator starbursts, despite hints of having one 'waiting in the wings', and I've no idea to what extent Don was or wasn't granted Admin rights. Us plebs aren't privy to that info, apparently. I respectfully question Hunter's priorities.
Delegation is the art of management, even for a dictator. I humbly suggest it might have improved T20 sales and can still improve CotI. I suspect that since the sunset on T20 (if not before) Hunter has lost interest in CotI. If that's true, it's ok; the guy can and should have other priorities, but CotI is too good a resource to let it flounder and die for want of appointing a few good people to take care of it in Hunter's increasing absence.
I see two paths for CotI's future - a bright one, in which Hunter appoints people to manage it in his absence and CotI continues, with Hunter as chief (but not sole) Admin, into the Golden Age when us grognards play Traveller in our retirement; and a dark one in which Hunter jealously guards his ownership, refusing to be helped, moderators throw in the towel and members slowly become more disillusioned and download what they can before leaving to fulfil their needs elsewhere.
I believe that eventually we will lose this resource if we don't convince Hunter to authorise a long-term fix. It's pretty obvious he's not going to make that decision on his own, and my worry is that if we don't suggest, even demand, some changes, there may not always be a status quo to nestle in.
This site needs to be nurtured - for the sake of Traveller.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
The second statement you bolded isn't really contradictory with the first. The things we have done with the site have been in the realm of taking features (gallery, etc) and the like and filling them with things outside of T20, and in doing our own thing within Hunter's framework.
We (general members)haven't really been able to get much changed... my impression is that virtually all changes not originating with Hunter have been at the request of either those who paid to become members of "The Moot", or are moderators.
The initial post on this thread led me to believe that this was not to find out what we wanted changed, or to what it should be changed.
I have seen lots of similar questioning in business & the military, and nearly always it is intended to find out whether we are content or not, and to allow us to vent our frustrations.
This is then followed by a push to "improve morale"... without actually changing what made morale bad to begin with.
Had this poll actually asked what changes we wanted to see, I would have taken it more seriously.
We (general members)haven't really been able to get much changed... my impression is that virtually all changes not originating with Hunter have been at the request of either those who paid to become members of "The Moot", or are moderators.
The initial post on this thread led me to believe that this was not to find out what we wanted changed, or to what it should be changed.
I have seen lots of similar questioning in business & the military, and nearly always it is intended to find out whether we are content or not, and to allow us to vent our frustrations.
This is then followed by a push to "improve morale"... without actually changing what made morale bad to begin with.
Had this poll actually asked what changes we wanted to see, I would have taken it more seriously.
Similar threads
