DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s)

DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [AE Forum Resources] >> Forum Support and Suggestions

Message

Ilø¤IMPERIAL¤ølI -> DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (10/23/2009 22:18:04)
I came about to suggest one/two things. But first, can I ask, "Why isn't the DragonPedia Masters on the list?" list: http://forums2.battleon.com/f/tm.asp?m=12938799 Every other titles/ranks are enlisted there, but DPM isn't there. I'd like to suggest that it, be added. :) Now, for a new Group Memship title... since the DF section has DragonPedia Masters, who works on the DF Encyclopedia. Shouldn't their be recognition for those who work on the other Encyclopedias, too? I help with WF's encyclopedia, it would be nice to have a Group Membership title that entitles you as a forum user who helps/works with the WF Encyclopedia. Different Group titles for different types of Encyclopedia helpers. Take this to thoughts...

BlueKatz -> RE: DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (10/23/2009 23:25:50)
I'm DragonPedia Masters, I don't feel that's necessary. Our work is build DFPedia, I don't think it's necessary to have a tile. (also it's really easy to join DragonPedia Masters group!, not like other team) One thing I like in BattleOn Forum is the balance, there is not much high lever member, newbie, noob... like other forum, so every one is the same. If we have a tile like that, every one will join DragonPedia Masters, but many of them will not build anything. (I think a lot about Debatable, with a reason above, I don't think it's necessary) Note: Sorry if I can't feelback in Forum Suggestions[:D]

Clyde -> RE: DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (10/23/2009 23:58:09)
For Additions/Edits/Suggested changes/etc. I would say it is usually best to PM a Mod or Admin(I would definitely go with a Mod since the Admins are extremely busy). Handling it this way is a lot smoother, cleaner, and would probably guarantee that the change is done. I don't believe that the Dragonpedia Masters group deserves a title. While some of the group may be working hard the rest could be doing nothing and getting a title. One of my concerns is that everyone would join just to get a title and to brag about it. Another is that it would mean a lot more work for the Group's Head mod to go and sort through which member is active and keeps the title as to who is not active and loses their title. Also the Debate Club group has a title because it is a lot harder to get into that club and one of the main requirements is that you remain active. However, I think whether or not a group gets a title depends on the Head or the Admins. As for different groups for the different Pedias. Even if the rest of the AE Pedias were to change their format to work with Pedia groups and you were to join every single one of them, I am sure there would still not be a title. Besides, if someone truly enjoys helping in the Pedia and is dedicated to it then I am sure they will get the title they deserve in time. ;) Hope this helps.

Ilø¤IMPERIAL¤ølI -> RE: DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (10/24/2009 8:09:16)
Forum titles aren't necessary needed, but Group Memship names are. As an AP, I don't have a forum title, but I do have a name that entitles that I'm in that group. What I meant from my previous post was, that since there are DragonPedia Masters (a specific group), can't we have (err) WarpPedia Legends (a name that's along that line), MechaPedia Pilots, etc. WarpPedia Legends are those who work/help in the WF Encyclopedia, MechaPedia Pilots are those who work/help in the MQ Encyclopedia, etc. (i.g., you get the idea). I'm starting to rant and make no sense... here's the big thing "I would want to see forum users who work on either Encyclopedias be given a Group Membership title, (notice that I said Group title, not Forum title [;)]) as like the users who are given the DPM group title. Here's a Pic (incase you're lost, and confused): http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/2469/aaaaaaud.jpg

Zyrain -> RE: DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (10/24/2009 12:30:38)
I do agree with Ilø¤IMPERIAL¤ølI, But I don't think it's needed for WF yet. But for the people who work on AQ's Encyclopedia - Yes! ~Zyrain

Vivi -> RE: DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (10/24/2009 12:42:00)
The reason a group exists for things like the Dragonpedia Masters and the Approved Authors is that it allows the forum staff to control who posts in those areas of the forum (you can't post in them without being in the group). Creating groups for open parts of the forum would be redundant because everyone can already post there. It also starts to raise the question of why for encyclopedia helpers and not other people. Why not a group for people who help out in Q&A? Why not a group for raters? Why not a group for people who work really hard on finding bugs in the games and reporting them? You could make the case for pretty much any helpful group of people. And what about qualifications? Do you just join to the group like you do for DragonPedia Masters (which defeats the purpose of recognizing helpful users because anyone can get the group on their page) or do staff have to select you for it and add you themselves (in which case, how is it different from the helpful/creative/constructive/friendly titles)? We do have our Helpful/Constructive/Friendly/Creative system for recognizing members who go above and beyond to contribute to the forums in a positive way, but to me this idea seems like too little recognition for too large a group of people.

Ilø¤IMPERIAL¤ølI -> RE: DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (10/24/2009 13:42:01)
I agree with what you're saying. But, despite the fact that there's already a group for those who help/work on DF Encyclopedia wouldn't it be fair to have other Encyclopedia groups as well? Anyone can join, all they need to do is help and give entries of equipments, quests, NPCs, monsters, etc. But I guess this would be to soft... way too easy... To All: Do you dislike the suggestion? What's your thought about it then? Is it really necessary then? Could you elaborate on your thoughts? Acknowledging those who help--aren't a big deal to you? quote: Why not a group for people who help out in Q&A? Why not a group for raters? Why not a group for people who work really hard on finding bugs in the games and reporting them? Groups for those in particular? Those are 'everyday' stuff. It's like awakening from a sleep and going to work/school--must do, daily stuff. Anyone can answer a question from the Q&A, anyone can rate, and anyone can find bug(s) in the games and report them, those are for those who wants to help. The wiki and encyclopedia are different. Those who make the entries are willingly and dedicated. They just don't want to help, but they want to be proud of what they've accomplished/done. They want to go and check the wiki/encyclopedia and find their hard-worked entries. Mm... it's harder to explain when everything is seen differently from one's own aspects. But wanting and willingly are two different words, two different meanings, and are two different categories that will categorize what is what. (I'm getting to a point where nothing really makes sense [8D], bare with me). I can't make myself more clearer than this. I'm confusing myself now. O.o

Vivi -> RE: DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (10/24/2009 14:05:39)
The Dragonpedia Masters group is part of how the system for the DF encyclopedia works. The other encyclopedias use different formats that do not require the creation of user groups to run properly. It's not a matter of what's "fair", it's just about what is needed to accomplish the given goal. I do not agree with your assessment that helping out in the encyclopedia is somehow more worthy of recognition than helping out in any other way on the forums. Helping other users out is not a "must-do daily routine", these people are volunteering their time to things like answering questions, writing guides or rating characters just like you volunteer your time to putting information into the encyclopedia.

jimbo32 -> RE: DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (10/24/2009 14:57:38)
To expand a bit on what phoenixfire was saying, the DF pedia does indeed use a different format than the other game encyclopedias. The Dragonpedia Masters group was set up so we could more closely monitor the 'pedia submissions and cut down on conversation, questions, and spam in the 'pedia entries. Any DF player who frequented the 'pedia before the changes will tell you that there used to be a lot of garbage posted regarding farming, drop rates, etc. So. Rather than close the 'pedia to public posting, the Masters group was formed. It's a good compromise which cuts out all of the nonsense but still allows interested DF players to help out the 'pedia AK's and be included in compiling the 'pedia. The other game encyclopedias do things differently, so they don't need a separate group. But it's a necessary part of the DF system, which is why the group exists. As phoenixfire said, any members who make an exceptional contribution in any area of the forums would likely be considered for Helpful/Constructive/Friendly/Creative title(s). They exist to show that the forum staff has recognized the contributions of the title holder - unlike the Masters group, which is just part of the inner workings of the DF 'pedia. That said, as a forum group, I think the Dragonpedia Masters should be listed under the "Regular Users" section. After all, it's the only public group which isn't there (as far as I could tell, anyway). However, don't expect a separate group for any other encyclopedias unless the posting format is changed. MQ, AQ, and WF do things differently and don't require member groups.

Ilø¤IMPERIAL¤ølI -> RE: DragonPedia Masters and new Group Membership(s) (10/24/2009 16:51:46)
I guess you two are both right. Mm, I have nothing further to add, I'll have to consider and think about it for a while... If anyone has anything to add, feel free to do so.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition

0.09375