Gleemax Q&A

[KnightBrokenCross]

1) If within Gleemax I should be able to get to any other point w/o being forced to hit the back button which chokes from time to time.
2) Whether or not a staff blog is in my favorites putting the timestamp next to their name of their lastest blog I believe would help with the both the current frustration of navigation issue ("Feb 22nd post, oh yeah I read that" goes to next one) and the added time of needing to use the back button and refreshing or starting over in some cases.
3) How about a user manual? Or a help menu that helps you with Gleemax? I'm not trying to be a wiseguy but I wasn't the guy that designed the site and while he's got a really good idea where things are at I don't
4) Why aren't things organized? Folders/Subfolders? Table of contents?
5) Hey new back button issue, clicked on something I didn't want to see sooo.. (back button) See new post below
Thanks

User Manual: We (the community leads) have plans for it, but we may wait for the last alpha patch before writing it up. We definetly have plans to get one of these things done, though, and all questions you ask will be helpful there, as well as all the issues people have been bringing up.

On 4), which things? If you mean blogs, most bloggers have a "sticky" blog that is an Index to their blog posts. There is also a blog with links to all the staff blogs. There's also the Gleemax Compendium, with links to all blogs, to make navigation easier and to showcase people's blogs.

All of the technical concerns raised will be brought to Wizards' attention.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

2) I won't go into people's dealings with Community Management (though all my dealings with them have been great, personally), nor the issue of a WizO being fired. I can, however, understand that some people may not understand the CM/CS structure, and how VCLs/FLs work. This will be included in the Gleemax FAQ we're currently working on, but here's the gist of it:
- Customer Service (i.e. WizOs) deals with Code of Conduct violations, and have various moderating powers; WizOs are WotC employees;
- Community Management deals with Editorial Moderation as well as community building. VCLs (Volunteer Community Leads) are community members who volunteer their free time to engage in those activities for a specific area, reporting directly to Community Management, and they have certain powers to go with their title (e.g. decide which competitions get prizes, whether a blog can be featured, etc.); Forum Leads are also volunteers, but they simply make suggestions regarding a specific forum to CM, while also writing FAQs and helping newcomers to those forums.

In practice, as a Forum Lead myself, I can tell you that I have found Community Management (and Wizards) very willing to hear what we have to say, and I have felt that they have kept their word that what we said would matter.

This is actually my problem with board moderation. Not the application of of moderation in particular cases but the overall structure that is set up. In order for the boards to be seen as anything other than WotC boards the moderation structure has to be different from the WotC board structure. While the VCLs for the Gleemax side may be different from the VCLs on the WotC side, they all report to the same CM department. In order for me to see Gleemax as a seperate entity I need to see that the moderation is seperate as well and reports to hierarchy that is seperate and independent of the CM/CS departments at WotC.

While I have no case to speak of right now I can easily see future problems where editorial or CoC descisions are made against people who speak out or have issues with WotC. Whether or not any moderation decsions are justified or not the blame will immediately be leveled at WotC for censorship of those they dissagree with. In order for the site to truely be seen as a place for all gamers, those gamers will need to be free to praise or critize any gaming company, and in order for that to happen they need to be confident that the moderation is not being done by people who have a vested interest in one particular company.

I realize that WotC is bankrolling this, and they have already made some steps in this direction by having an independent advisory board. What they need to do is continue down this road and have an independent moderation force. Just look here at ENWorld to see that responsible individuals who care about the community are able to do thier jobs without needing to report to a corporate hierarchy. My hope is that these moderators will be loyal to and support the Gleemax philosophy instead of being there because they support Gleemax because it is a WotC venture.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well, Gleemax is a public alpha at the moment, hence why things are very rough around the edges.

To be fair though, the fact that it is a public alpha isn't relevant - the issues I'm concerned about are basic structural features.

I could possibly accept a public alpha which wasn't feature complete, but even the features which it does have don't work in an acceptable (aka usable) fashion.

I know that SharePoint "does" blogs, wikis and forums out of the box; I just think it does it all in a very cackhanded way - and development for SharePoint is a fundamentally horrible process in my experience. I don't envy the people working on programming for Gleemax.

Cheers

 

[smetzger]

I know that SharePoint "does" blogs, wikis and forums out of the box; I just think it does it all in a very cackhanded way - and development for SharePoint is a fundamentally horrible process in my experience. I don't envy the people working on programming for Gleemax.

eegads, their using Sharepoint. That seems a very bad choice for a public site.

Anyway, Isn't there some such legal nonsens that if you post something on Gleemax its the property of Gleemax? Or maybe if you post it on Gleemax you can't post it anywhere else?

I know there was something very restrictive that I didn't like about the legalise.

 

[KnightBrokenCross]

On having independent CM team for Gleemax: that's definetly on the suggestions list, yes, but it's ultimately their call. I agree that it would help make it all more neutral, along with other advantages. I can also say that no issues have arisen yet, but, as you say, they can arise in future.

On the programming team: I don't envy it either.

 

[KnightBrokenCross]

eegads, their using Sharepoint. That seems a very bad choice for a public site.

Anyway, Isn't there some such legal nonsens that if you post something on Gleemax its the property of Gleemax? Or maybe if you post it on Gleemax you can't post it anywhere else?

I know there was something very restrictive that I didn't like about the legalise.

What you post in Gleemax belongs to Wizards (summarising it), basically, which was put there to avoid liability in case there's parallel development, I believe.

This hasn't prevented me from posting because:
- Wizards has paid, professional designers and developers to make their games, nicking my stuff would be a bit much;
- It'd be a ridiculous PR move to use the ToU to nick stuff from people who posted it on the website, or otherwise trigger that clause for silly uses like that.

Given it was a requirement of the Legal Department, the clause is going to stay. That said, I do, personally, think that it should be seen in the light that I outlined above.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

What you post in Gleemax belongs to Wizards (summarising it), basically, which was put there to avoid liability in case there's parallel development, I believe.

This hasn't prevented me from posting because:
- Wizards has paid, professional designers and developers to make their games, nicking my stuff would be a bit much;
- It'd be a ridiculous PR move to use the ToU to nick stuff from people who posted it on the website, or otherwise trigger that clause for silly uses like that.

Given it was a requirement of the Legal Department, the clause is going to stay. That said, I do, personally, think that it should be seen in the light that I outlined above.

Sure for many people I am sure WotC would probably not bother to steal their ideas. But it can keep some people from posting particularly those who would be some of the best ones have, and that is some of game designers themselves. The way I would look at it would be for the WotC lawyers to write something that they would be comfortable with another site using and their R&D team posting at that site. The way the Terms of Use are now written, if I was a WotC lawyer I would not let any of my game designers post on a site that had that language.

 

[keterys]

They also want to be able to collect really good blogs and repost them as highlights, I believe.

 

[KnightBrokenCross]

They also want to be able to collect really good blogs and repost them as highlights, I believe.

At D&D Insider, yes.

 

[smetzger]

What you post in Gleemax belongs to Wizards (summarising it), basically, which was put there to avoid liability in case there's parallel development, I believe.

This hasn't prevented me from posting because:
- Wizards has paid, professional designers and developers to make their games, nicking my stuff would be a bit much;
- It'd be a ridiculous PR move to use the ToU to nick stuff from people who posted it on the website, or otherwise trigger that clause for silly uses like that.

Given it was a requirement of the Legal Department, the clause is going to stay. That said, I do, personally, think that it should be seen in the light that I outlined above.

Posting a rule Gleemax would negate the ability to also contribute it to something like Netbook of Feats.
Some of my rules were re-used by other companies and published.

I want to retain the right to at least get credit for something I think of.

If they want to be able to grab stuff for DI, they should give IP creators some rights.

Why is it a requirement of the legal department?