Write access to Developer Assistance, FM Changes and similar fora should be restricted to game owners

[Dave]

As these fora are currently accessible for anyone with a forum login (distinct from game ownership) discussions between game owners on topics of potential game improvements are constantly derailed by some non-owners who lurk just to irritate others.

 

Should post-access to some fora be restricted to those who have purchased the game?

If so what do you think are some appropriate candidate fora for which restriction would improve the quality of discussion?

Edited April 1, 2016 by Dave

[Venturi]

A BIG +1 to this. Excellent idea. Those who give input to the devs should only be those who have a vested interest in improving the outcome of the project; in real terms this means that they have paid for the game.

 

To wit, they ought to own the game before having privileges to post into developer assistance subforums.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Venturi

[DD_Arthur]

 

 

To wit, they ought to own the game before having privileges to post into developer assistance subforums.

 

Oh yeah.  +1

[Jade_Monkey]

Is there any stong evidence of a lot of "outsiders" participating in FM discussions?

 

Just wondering.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Is there any stong evidence of a lot of "outsiders" participating in FM discussions?

 

Just wondering.

 

Lucas_From_Hell, who seems to be a pretty valuable asset to this community despite his short membership time, would be a good example of having put in his $0.02 cents before owning the title... That being said, with the fact that he seems a pretty reasonable guy he may be atypical compared to other non-owning armchair pilots who voice their opinions or beat the dead horse around here.

 

Disclaimer: Lucas - no hard feelings, mate, you just happen to make a decent example!

Edited April 4, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Happy to serve as an example, S-Ghost

 

In specific terms of the Developer Assistance, I don't know what would work best. There has been an extensive amount of childish behaviour in the FM Discussions but then there has always been in every single flight simulator regardless of people owning the title or not. Restricting it would probably keep away a good few annoyances, but also lock out enthusiasts who don't happen to own the title but who can still provide some valuable information (pilots, veterans and whatnot, for example).

 

If they kept the FM Discussions player-only and the Historical Data, Aviation and the rest of the boards open, this would be a decent compromise since FM Discussions are specific to the in-game implementation whereas Aviation/Historical Data are for more factual reporting.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I think the answer could be yes but not as the forum is currently set up. There is valuable information provided and good argument even among those who, uh, argue methodologies shall we say, without owning the game. On the other hand, if there was a section created for in-game experiences among PLAYERS ONLY then that would be a place to have good conversations as well. I don' t mind an exclusive section as long as the general forum is open to the public. It is obviouslyhealthy for noobs and potential customers to come and take a look at our game.

 

Abstaining from the vote for now as neither is an ideal option IMHO.

[Dave]

I think the answer could be yes but not as the forum is currently set up. There is valuable information provided and good argument even among those who, uh, argue methodologies shall we say, without owning the game. On the other hand, if there was a section created for in-game experiences among PLAYERS ONLY then that would be a place to have good conversations as well. I don' t mind an exclusive section as long as the general forum is open to the public. It is obviouslyhealthy for noobs and potential customers to come and take a look at our game.

 

Abstaining from the vote for now as neither is an ideal option IMHO.

That is why the proposal is for "some" fora rather than a blanket "all". In many cases the views of non-players are useful and or interesting. But when they get to have a say in development direction - in many cases drowning out the voices of people who have paid to have a game which reflects their input - then it is analogous to allowing tourists to vote in a federal election.

 

Due to the limiting format of polls, the unbounded question of which fora might be appropriately restricted is best addressed through comments. I would suggest restricting access (essentially voting rights) to fora which seek user input into the enhancement, rectification and other alterations to the game from its current form.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Dave

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Well, I can read and don't feel I was rude or unclear but if we are going to get into condescending tones then let's clarify a few points:

A. Your poll is vague and a definitive answer cannot be made based upon it.

B. You did not pay to have your input reflected. You paid to play a game developed by others who may or may not value your opinion, or mine, or people who have not paid as well.

C. There are people who are contributing to parsing data, who have not paid, who are providing input as much as, and in some cases more than, members who have paid.

D. The primary individuals who are causing problems are finally being exposed to repercussions for poor behavior through moderation. The likely prime target of such is probably well on his way to his first ban.

E. There are individuals who have paid and are just as obnoxious as those who have not paid. A yes vote would have no effect on those individuals.

F. None of my original points were non-germain to your OP or your poll as it currently stands.

 

G. How is it that my suggestion for a modified forum and/or modifacation of this poll does not qualify as a suggestion........................as you suggested?

Edited April 6, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Dave]

HerrMurf" post="346790" timestamp="1459898994"]

 

Well, I can read and don't feel I was rude or unclear but if we are going to get into condescending tones then let's clarify a few points:

I don't know where you got condescending from or why you are being so hostile. I was elaborating on my first post because based upon some of the comments I felt I had not been verbose enough. There is nothing at all vague about the poll. It was clearly stated and simple to understand. If neither "yes" nor "no" are appropriate answers to the question then abstention is the correct choice.

 

The fact that the forum poll format allows associated comments caters to the situation - as we have - wherein more information is desirable or the poll format does not allow adequate scope to completely capture the available options in an enumerated list.

 

I quoted your post as your rationale for abstaining was what made me reread my initial brief post. When people quote you it isn't necessarily an attack on your point. Sometimes yours was just the post that made them think about it again.

 

 

HerrMurf" post="346790" timestamp="1459898994"]

 

B. You did not pay to have your input reflected. You paid to play a game developed by others who may or may not value your opinion, or mine, or people who have not paid as well.

 

I did - it was one of the benefits offered in exchange for buying the game when it was still on the drawing board.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Dave