MGSA Going forward

edited in Association News
As you’ve probably heard me ramble before, there are going to have to be some changes in the way Make Games is run and organised. This is mostly out of the fact that as a community and an organisation we have grown far quicker, and covered more ground than I initially thought we would (yay us!).

With this in mind one of the principal changes that needs to happen is that MGSA will need to change its legal form from an Association of people to a Non-Profit Company. I’ve already started this process and hopefully it will be done in time for the AGM.

Tied with this, we will need to start charging membership fees if you want to be a “member” of the Association. The charging of fees is primarily so that we can actually register for tax (SARS is kicking up a fuss that we can’t be an industry association and NOT charge membership fees). Although the fees will also be useful to cover things like hosting and contributing to events and such.

The fees mooted so far is R500 per annum for “professionals” and R100 per annum for “students”. To qualify for the student rate you need to present a valid student card or be under the age of 18. The fees will not be discounted in a pro-rata basis (so if membership runs from Jan to Dec and you join in Dec you still need to pay the full fees). I’ve opened another post to discuss the benefits of membership (see here: (coming soon)) but in summary: Voting rights, discounts to workshops and events that MGSA runs and as well as access to any government funding or initiatives that MGSA enables.

The committee has decided that since we need to charge membership fees, it makes sense that the voting at the next AGM should only be available to those who are registered members of the association. Starting from today you can join the association by paying your membership fee. Details for payment and the process to joining are found here: (coming soon)
The AGM will be run in the last week of June, this gives people roughly a month to decide if they’d like to join, along with nominate candidates for the new committee. This process will be outlined in a post soon.

Probably the most important change to come though is the “split” of the community and the association. The MGSA community is primarily represented by these forums. The Association will still host them, but they will no longer be the landing page of the associations’ website. Further access and joining the forums will remain free, as will the monthly meet-ups (I see these as “community” events and not association ones, though the Association may look into “sponsoring” the events). I want to stress this point, being a member of the Association does not require you to join the forum, and similarly you don’t need to join the forum to be a member of the association.

However since the association will be hosting the forums (and therefore will be held liable for anything posted on it) we will be implementing quite stringent forum rules and appointing moderators.
It’s been a great 3 years, lets hope we can continue with the momentum and take MGSA and Game Dev in the country to the next level :)

Nick

Comments

  • I'm looking forward to moving from strength to strength with MGSA. Thanks for the tremendous amount of work you've already put in @LexAquillia and the rest of the committee!
  • You know I'm 120% behind MGSA all the way, and hope to be able to contribute more meaningfully soon :)
    Thanked by 1EvanGreenwood
  • I'm definitely keen on contributing as well.
    Thanked by 1EvanGreenwood
  • Im so glad i found you guys, noggals through twitter on the #gamedev. Anyway your dedication, seriousness(with this non-profit move) and monthly meetings is exactly what i was looking for, its been so damn difficult doing everything alone.

    im 100% behind you guys!!!!

    where do i sign?
  • Very happy to see this happening, I think it's the right step for MGSA and I hope the growth doesn't slow down anytime soon. Thank you @LexAquilla for your tireless work and other stalwarts that have gotten us here. We are all grately indebted to you! ;)
  • I'm really looking forward to this,
    it will also help us to be more professional,
    and other businesses will also trust each business whom part of the association more,
    thus it will improve all things.

    Thanks for all your efforts,
    it always amazes me how we this organisation is doing and that it has the ear of the government even!
    This organisation and forum is truly the gateway to games (and app) development in Africa.
  • edited
    That's great news :)
    Membership fees are a good way to cover some basic expenses.

    Suggestions:
    1) Do not limit voting to registered members at the next AGM.
    Only limit it at the AGM after the next one.
    R500/R100 may not seem like much, but for some devs it may be difficult to obtain before the next AGM, or an expense simply not planned for.

    2) Consider removing the Jan to Dec membership period.
    Rather have membership run for 12 months from the date the money has been paid.
    (Apple does the same for iOS dev accounts, and they send out reminders a month before it expires.)
    This means more admin for MGSA, but will encourage people to join any time.
    (Although, "more admin" could simply mean a "paid date" in a database.)
  • edited
    As a student, I don't think R100 a year is unreasonable. Being a part of a game dev community is extremely valuable at this stage of our careers. Additionally, if you look at sports clubs at UCT, all of them charge far more than R100.
  • That happened really quickly :)
    looking forward to the big boy pants :P
  • edited
    Quick questions:
    1. When will the banking details become available?
    2. How does this affect the actual structure of the committee? I remember some time back a mention of a massive reduction in committee members?
    3. If the AGM is happening end of June, what's happening with nominations for committee etc?
    4. Do we need to show someone our student card or how exactly is that process going to be managed?

    Also, a question on mods vs committee members - is there a separation between these functions? Or does becoming a committee member make you a mod, for example? Just something I'm curious about. Who actually are our mods around here?
    Thanked by 1Bensonance
  • I would personally prefer it if we could have a distinction between mods and committee members. Either committee members could choose mods that are not on the committee or the people who use the forum (but is not necessarily connected to the association) can vote for the mods.

    I think this lessens the work load of the committee members so that they can focus more on one thing. And I also think it distributes the perceived power a bit.

    Anyone else feel like this is a good idea ?
  • @Kobusvdwalt9 I believe that's where the split of the community and the association comes in. The community management will deal with mods rather that the association.

    I hope that a member won't be allowed to be on both the association and community management at the same time. Because otherwise what's the point of separating them.
  • Good points. I guess the problem comes in in that the people who most often volunteer their time (through being mods or committee members) are the same people. Few members of the community (considering it's actual size) step up to take on the various roles. Even just helping out with judging comps - lots of people said they would help but when it came down to it, we're all still mostly relying on one person.
  • Maybe ive not been paying attention but for me it seems like no one else really gets asked. Do they get asked at the meetups ? Where can one volunteer one's time for online activities such as moderating ? Many of us can help out online but cant make it to the meetups.
  • Just volunteer. Pm one of the committee members. No one gets asked really, it's all volunteers
  • Just volunteer
    The fact that @Kobusvdwalt9 wasn't aware that was the way to do it maybe indicates it wouldn't hurt to just ask for volunteers regularly? It happens for big events and for big jobs like the reskin, but maybe a pinned thread of areas still needing volunteers might help?
  • dammit said:
    Just volunteer. Pm one of the committee members. No one gets asked really, it's all volunteers
    Where can we find out whom is all committee members and forums mods per year?

  • Boysano said:

    Where can we find out whom is all committee members and forums mods per year?
    So much this. I had an issue registering, and for the life of me I couldn't find anyone to contact about it. Eventually I managed to get it sorted via Facebook, but the only reason I thought to do that was because I saw Facebook mentioned in a post somewhere. Having a link to a contactable person, or even to the social presences would have saved some time and trouble. I have no problem Googling, but was near throwing my hands up and writing it off as a lost cause at that point.

    I also agree that a thread listing the areas where extra hands (or eyeballs, or whichever other body part) are needed would be a good idea as more people would be willing to help out if they see a need for their particular skill set.

    I'll keep an eye out for that list of benefits you mentioned. I've never belonged to an association before, and have pretty much no idea what the point of such a thing is. The company I work for belongs to one, but that's largely just to put the logo on the bottom of our letterhead.

    /5 cents from a newbie
  • LindieDB said:
    Boysano said:

    Where can we find out whom is all committee members and forums mods per year?
    So much this. I had an issue registering, and for the life of me I couldn't find anyone to contact about it. Eventually I managed to get it sorted via Facebook, but the only reason I thought to do that was because I saw Facebook mentioned in a post somewhere. Having a link to a contactable person, or even to the social presences would have saved some time and trouble. I have no problem Googling, but was near throwing my hands up and writing it off as a lost cause at that point.

    I also agree that a thread listing the areas where extra hands (or eyeballs, or whichever other body part) are needed would be a good idea as more people would be willing to help out if they see a need for their particular skill set.

    I'll keep an eye out for that list of benefits you mentioned. I've never belonged to an association before, and have pretty much no idea what the point of such a thing is. The company I work for belongs to one, but that's largely just to put the logo on the bottom of our letterhead.

    /5 cents from a newbie
    Glad you made it through the process :) We used to have a front page to this forum with the contact details - but it's sort of been lost in a process of us attempting to move the whole site...which keeps getting waylaid.

    Anyway, there's this thread which shows the voting from the last AGM: http://www.makegamessa.com/discussion/1929/event-annual-general-meeting-2014-30-april-2014/p2
    Vote counts:
    Hanli - JHB 22, CT 22, Luma 9, Online 1, Total 54
    Ben - JHB 22, CT 15, Luma 4, Total 41
    Danny - JHB 12, CT 21, Luma 5, Total 38
    Travis - JHB 22, CT 1, Luma 9, Total 32
    Ruan - JHB 8, CT 16, Luma 3, Online 1, Total 28
    Ryan - JHB 0, CT 11, Luma 0, Total 11
    Nicholas - JHB 5, CT 0, Luma 3, Total 8
    Kim - JHB 2, CT 0, Luma 0, Total 2
    Though, I believe Hanli stepped down from her role... I think that basically leaves Fengol, Danny, Nick, Ben and Travis?

    Also, while we're on this topic, can I please remind the committee about my concerns over how the voting was held last year so that we do not have a repeat of this.
    I would like to voice my general dissatisfaction with the way the AGM was run tonight. While the agenda was stuck to on many points (a few points were missed based on the minutes from the last committee meeting), I feel the way the voting was run was inappropriate.

    Firstly, as someone who has been on a committee before and attending my fair share of AGMs, I know from experience that this is an election procedure. This means that the candidates that are nominated (and accept) need to run for their position. They need to lobby for support from all factions and at the AGM they need to stand up in front of everyone and tell us why we should vote for them. We need to know exactly what they intend running for and what they intend on doing for the society as a whole. We need to hear solid motivation for why - if they have been doing a fine job volunteering currently - they need to be voted into a committee position. How does having that person on the committee serve us? Do they understand the roles and responsibilities that they are taking on.

    There should then be a question session where community members can question those running so that we have some better understandings of their intentions as well as their skill set. Even if the person were the only person running for that position, this is still the process to follow because the community is allowed to vote "no confidence" in any particular candidate and have a position held empty until such time as a suitable member is found to be elected.

    The voting system used was also highly inappropriate. Voting should at all times be kept private. If we needed to move to a pen and paper ballot which would have taken ages, then we needed to do that. Alternatively, why not google docs? You need to be signed in to complete the forms (if you choose this setting) which would prevent anyone being able to vote on anyone else's behalf. Regardless of the method, a vote by a show of hands is simply not good enough. You might think that people would not be affected by the actions of others, but countless studies have shown the skewing influence of peer pressure (even unintentional peer pressure).
  • Any expected ETA for signups?
    Thanked by 1CodeCthulhu
  • I mentioned in the nominations thread that I'd received an email from @LexAquillia in reply to some concerns I raised. I was going to summarise it - since a lot of it is repetition of what is already outlined here - but I decided I'd share it verbatim. He did mention in his email that I could do this, so I'm not sharing private conversations without the other person's knowledge, just fyi.
    Why the reduced number of committee positions?
    Over the past three years it has proven to be exceptionally difficult to get all members of the committee to regularly attend the committee meetings. Getting consensus has also proven to be difficult with some decisions, even if they are urgent sometimes taking weeks to get resolved simply because we need to wait for everyone to give their input. The primary motivation to decrease the number of board members is to increase the efficiency of the board and make governance of the association simpler. If I had my way I'd have the board down to the legal minimum which is 3, but again the current committee decided against this. This ties into one of your other concerns, will this reduced committee be able to handle all of it's responsibilities? In this respect I have to disagree with you, I think the Association (and the board that currently governs it) is already responsible for too much, and as part of the restructuring I'd like to see the responsibilities of the association limited (and some of those responsibilities given to the community).

    There is a conflation of Make Games the Association, and the community (both virtual and physical).
    Up til now (I think out of necessity) Make Games as a legal entity and as an industry association has been conflated with the broader South African game development community. My biggest desire from this restructuring is to clearly delineate and split these two entities. This is the primary drive (beyond the tax implications) for the membership fee. It gives us a clear and determinable way of establishing who is a member of the association, and who is a member of the game development community (currently we have been pseudo relying on registration on the forums and attendance at the AGM, but in all honestly we cannot give an accurate tally of who our members actually are). From this stems a very important factor. The board of MGSA (and MGSA itself) is ONLY accountable to its members, and similarly, the board should not have (and legally speaking doesn't) have any authority over the community at large. To this end the community and association (to my mind at least) should have different leadership structures and legal entities, and broadly have different areas of responsibility. I will not dispute that the forums are currently acting as a hub for the community, but to equate that the forums is Make Games to my mind is false. My primary reason to support this is that by and large, the vast number of "members" are either not on the forums, do not use the forums or have tried to distance themselves from the forums.

    If we agree with the above, then the following questions need to be asked:

    What is the role and purpose of the Association, and what is this different to role and purpose of the Community?
    I have always envisaged Make Games the Association operating as an Industry Association. To this end it's primary purpose is to act as platform or vehicle to forward the interests of it's members. Traditionally the members would be companies (not individuals) but I don't think we are at the point where it is viable to just have companies as members. In other words, Make Games should be lobbying government and other stakeholders to make on behalf of professionals or companies. Technically, Make Games shouldn't be dealing with or looking after the interests of hobbyists (and I suppose students). Any interaction with these groups of people by the association should be to advance the agenda of the members (so in the case of students hobbyists it is to either turn them into full time developers or employees of member companies). In the past this is what I've primarily done as chair. I've lobbied government, brokered deals and generated work for companies that are part of MGSA. This is what I'd expect the future chairperson of Make Games to do (be it me or someone else). It is a sad state of affairs unfortunately that most of these efforts have not come to fruition (and there are multiple reasons for this).

    In my opinion the community should be responsible for organizing and running community events (like game jams, and even the community nights). On this point though I was over turned, so for now the community meetups will remain the responsibility of the Association and as the community representative for the area, the primary responsibility will be to organise and run the meetups as well as act as a liaison for Association members at those locations. The Community Liaison will also be responsible for organizing the industry events in those locations as well (so EGE in Cape Town, and rAge in JHB).

    With all the above let me give special mention to the forums as they currently stand.

    The forums are a liability to the Make Games SA brand and the Association.
    I've outlines what I should be doing with my limited time as chair. What I've found that I'm actually doing most of the time is dealing with the fallout, pettiness and personal conflict that comes from forums. If people could actually behave like adults, I'd have a lot more time and inclination to deal with MGSA community stuff. My initial desire was to completely split the forums from the association, but I was outvoted by the other member's of the committee. What we have decided instead is that the association will continue to host the forums. The Association (via the board) will be laying down rules and electing the moderators. The Moderators will not be members of the board. If people don't like it they are free to start a new online community elsewhere.

    Make Games has lost at least three opportunities on an international and national level as a result of "outsiders" seeing the behavior of the forums. Make Games as an Association is perceived as being hostile, toxic and unprofessional as a result of the behavior on the forums, which is unfair as the people we should be representing are hardly ever on (or aren't on) the forums. I've spent an incredible amount of effort doing damage control and trying to repair this effort. Know this, Make Games is only seen as legitimate by 3rd parties (like Government, like our equivalents overseas) because we sell it as an industry association for professional game developers. While members of the community may see the forums as valuable, for the association it probably does more damage than good. One of the other changes that will come from this is that members will need other ways of interfacing with Association beyond the forums, this will be a primary goal of the new board.

    I know this doesn't quite yet address everyone's concerns and I'm sure more people will have more of a say. This also doesn't necessarily represent what I think. I'm passing on someone's thoughts.

    Finally, we're still waiting on what's happening with payments and when the AGM might happen. This is information I don't have.
  • I would like to say that I am in favour of the direction things are moving, as outlined in the above post, and I look forward to the future of MGSA. I think that some of the things outlined there will make some people upset, but they are all well considered and will unquestionably be in the best interest of MGSA.

    If there's any confusion, when I say some points might upset people, I am specifically referring to the points regarding the forum and how they are currently a liability.

    In terms of the size of the committee and its ability to efficiently function, I think this direction is a good direction to move in, and one should always remember that if it doesn't work things can always be adjusted down the line.
    Thanked by 2dammit TheFuntastic
  • My question regarding membership fees. Besides voting powers, what do the fees buy the member?
  • @SebastianS

    Paid members would also get access to Workshops run by Make Games SA at a discounted rate (or free)
    Access to Co-Working space (again at a discounted rate)
    If we ever manage to get a trade mission going, that would only be available to paid members
    Preference to events that we organise (like EGE or rAge)
    My lawfirm will give a discount to Make Games SA members for any legal work we do.

    I'm hoping to get other partnerships and benefits to add more to the value of membership to the organisation as time goes on
  • edited
    Make Games as an Association is perceived as being hostile, toxic and unprofessional as a result of the behavior on the forums, which is unfair as the people we should be representing are hardly ever on (or aren't on) the forums.
    This is what some people have said to me after visiting the forums and seeing the way some people are treated here by other members.

    I hope this will change.

    p.s. I know I am late to the party ... but I seldom come and visit.
  • I suppose this is the responsibility of the new board, but it seems like the sooner the association disassociates itself from these forums the better. If this is a task requiring a web developer's time this is something I can't help with, but Free Lives could donate some funds.

    (I don't expect that's actually the hold up, but if it helps we're offering)
  • I think what we need to do is actually consider how we are going to fix the forums. We need a decent set of moderators - who won't be the committee. Who are the volunteers for this?
  • I am already a moderator on the Unreal Engine Forums ... so I will help here as well ... if people want me to. My job allows me to be online most of the day and weekend.
  • I also would like to volunteer for moderating the forums. I can only attend the meetups once a year just incase thats a problem.
  • With or without decent moderators, I would still be in favor of the forums being completely separated from MGSA itself. they serve completely different purposes.
  • dammit said:
    I think what we need to do is actually consider how we are going to fix the forums. We need a decent set of moderators - who won't be the committee. Who are the volunteers for this?
    How are the forums currently broken? What, in the most recent handling of incidents (the most recent being the rc_collins thing), is lacking?
  • @dislekcia :) I am personally happy with the current moderation, but people seem to keep repeating that the forums are broken. I think as well, that the moderation cannot lie on one single person because it's too much work :)
  • edited
    I have a suggestion.

    Some forums do this and I think it's a good idea. Make sub-boards for game dev, comps, and then one that's a "hot zone", where people talk about potentially heated topics like social justice.

    Then make the game dev forums open to new accounts, but the hot zone you need either to wait a month or have X good-faith posts in the game dev boards before you can post in it.

    That would help prevent wandering trolls with burner accounts from setting fire to things. You gotta show good faith before you jump into contentious threads.
    Thanked by 1mattbenic
  • @garethf: How does having a "hot zone" not serve to encourage argumentative and polarising posting culture? I understand the desire to not have new accounts re-igniting old arguments, but the warning system handled exactly that (with apparently malicious intent too) really well. I'm also not comfortable with labeling topics like social justice as "potentially heated" - including them in a section designed to contain potential flamewars normalises the idea that people should be flaming each other over these topics, why would we want that?
    Thanked by 3dammit Karuji damousey
  • Perhaps the term "hot zone" was a poor way of phrasing it, though I would suggest that whether you feel comfortable labeling topics as "potentially heated" is independent of whether those topics actually are potentially heated, in reality.

    Rather think of it as the "circle of trust". If you've demonstrated yourself as acting in good faith and invested in the community, you gain entry to the circle of trust. Some issues will be difficult for a community to wrestle with, and bad faith actors have the potential to do damage.

    It also forces those who are new to spend some time simply reading. Observe the arguments, learn about the community culture and what the generally accepted views on the matter are, before leaping in with a potentially ill-considered opinion.

  • edited
    It also allows those who want to avoid those kinds of conversations altogether, and are just here for things like comps and help with practical problems to focus on those threads (and have them stay at the top of their conversation list, not drowned out by inevitably higher-postcount heated issues).
  • @mattbenic, @garethf: You're both assuming that the only way to engage with these topics/kinds of conversations is with anger and negativity being the major driving forces. That is completely counter to the kind of forum I'm trying to sculpt.
  • I don't quite know how you've jumped from "some discussions are difficult" to "the only way to engage with difficult discussions is through anger and negativity" exactly, but no, you've completely misread my points there.
  • Surely having a section for discussion of sensitive or controversial topics does not necessarily imply that that discussion needs/can/is allowed to be heated or have a tone of anger/negativity at all? I think the idea of having a section dedicated to discussions in which people are particularly likely to feel uncomfortable/angry or have widely varying strongly held opinions isn't a bad one even if it only serves to separate those discussions from the others.
    Such a separation ideally means that when people engage in those discussions, they do so knowing that they are likely to feel strongly about the topic and should think twice before submitting there post. They are ideally more aware of their state of mind when adding to the conversation.
    On the other hand I suppose you'd like to have it that this is the case across the entire forum and people might take the existence of such a section as an excuse for behaviour elsewhere ("Arguing goes in the other section so dont give me any counter-points here at all")
  • I'm not assuming that at all, and I doubt Gareth is either. I have, however, seen over the years from every forum I've ever been on that those kinds of discussion can, and frequently do, get extremely heated. They're the kind of discussion that could absolutely benefit from limiting contributions by new/unvetted members that haven't had a chance to absorb the culture of the community first. We can try and cultivate whatever culture we like, the nature of forums is such that uncontrolled new members are likely to go ahead and post without understanding that culture. There's no usher at the door handing out pamphlets on good behavior.
    Thanked by 1garethf
  • edited
    D3zmodos said:
    On the other hand I suppose you'd like to have it that this is the case across the entire forum and people might take the existence of such a section as an excuse for behaviour elsewhere ("Arguing goes in the other section so dont give me any counter-points here at all")
    Yup. That's just one of my issues with the idea of a gated area for "flammable" topics. We want the whole forum to be flame retardant.
    garethf said:
    I don't quite know how you've jumped from "some discussions are difficult" to "the only way to engage with difficult discussions is through anger and negativity" exactly, but no, you've completely misread my points there.
    Sorry. Perhaps it would help if you explained your points in light of the idea of the "circle of trust" encompassing the entire forum, instead of just a small part of it. Taking into account how the warning system means we have at most 1 or 2 short-lived bad faith posts in any given thread. (Maybe don't make fun of using the word "comfortable" this time?)

    I'm also curious how putting these rather rare discussions (there really aren't more than 1 every few months) into their own forum area doesn't serve to move them into a category reserved for "discussion of the other". Rational, friendly discussion of these sorts of topic is what we should aim for.
    mattbenic said:
    I'm not assuming that at all, and I doubt Gareth is either. I have, however, seen over the years from every forum I've ever been on that those kinds of discussion can, and frequently do, get extremely heated. They're the kind of discussion that could absolutely benefit from limiting contributions by new/unvetted members that haven't had a chance to absorb the culture of the community first. We can try and cultivate whatever culture we like, the nature of forums is such that uncontrolled new members are likely to go ahead and post without understanding that culture. There's no usher at the door handing out pamphlets on good behavior.
    What about new users that want to participate in those discussions in positive ways? You're totally assuming that the only way a new user would sign up to post is with anger/negativity - or at least, if you're not assuming that, then you're not valuing the positive contributions of people like @Jelligeth. I'd rather have more like her at the cost of one or two short-lived troll posts.

    And again, the warning system seems to be structured well enough to catch and prevent the type of negative behavior you're worried about - across the whole forum, with no need for a special area that would mark the topics placed in it as other to the status-quo (which is obviously not the correct message to send at all). And yes, there really should be an usher pointing out good behavior (or at least, a link to the rules, working on that).
  • edited
    Sorry. Perhaps it would help if you explained your points in light of the idea of the "circle of trust" encompassing the entire forum, instead of just a small part of it.
    That's like saying "expand your idea of trust to everyone you haven't met yet". It sounds noble, but it's not a particularly cohesive concept. Trust is earned through experience and interaction. Without it being earned, it's not really trust, it's just hope.

    There is no way for someone to have earned trust without having posted (except for a member-referral system, which is problematic in other ways).
    (Maybe don't make fun of using the word "comfortable" this time?)
    I didn't. I emphasized the words that highlighted how we were talking about two different things. Whether you're comfortable labeling a thing "a potentially heated topic" is a different thing to whether that thing is potentially heated. One is what something is, the other is your personal feelings about calling it that.

    Your comfort level doesn't change the fact that these conversations are often difficult.
  • garethf said:
    That's like saying "expand your idea of trust to everyone you haven't met yet". It sounds noble, but it's not a particularly cohesive concept. Trust is earned through experience and interaction. Without it being earned, it's not really trust, it's just hope.
    I see it as much more akin to going to a known favorite cafe and trusting the regulars not to piss in your coffee. I probably wouldn't go to a cafe that hung a sign out front that said: "Hey, absolutely no peeing in the coffee in the special pee-free back room, okay?"
    garethf said:
    There is no way for someone to have earned trust without having posted (except for a member-referral system, which is problematic in other ways).
    In a way, this whole forum is a referral system. While joining it is relatively simple, it's not exactly advertised to the entire world as the best place to chat about stuff that makes you angry... It's a pretty self-selecting special interest community. My focus is to make is slightly less self-deselecting for people whose problems you're suggesting should be moved off the main forum. How do those people feel about this suggestion of yours? Is it sidelining?
    garethf said:
    I didn't. I emphasized the words that highlighted how we were talking about two different things. Whether you're comfortable labeling a thing "a potentially heated topic" is a different thing to whether that thing is potentially heated. One is what something is, the other is your personal feelings about calling it that.

    Your comfort level doesn't change the fact that these conversations are often difficult.
    They don't have to be difficult, nor do they have to be hostile. So far they've only really proven difficult for angry white dudes that mistakenly assume that talking about privilege or sexism or bigotry is akin to calling them horrible people who are beyond redemption... That sort of mis-reaction is only a given if you allow it space to grow. It seems like the warning system totally shuts that down without the additional worries of shunting basic awareness to a ghetto.
  • edited
    dislekcia said:
    They don't have to be difficult, nor do they have to be hostile. So far they've only really proven difficult for angry white dudes that mistakenly assume that talking about privilege or sexism or bigotry is akin to calling them horrible people who are beyond redemption.
    I know I've gotten upset at people on these forums for expressing negative opinions about feminists. I know I've gotten upset at you for arguing Bayonetta doesn't express sexist attitudes. For that matter I know I've gotten upset in discussions because of differences in opinion about the usefulness of engine development. I'm pretty certain other people who weren't angry white (bigoted) dudes got upset in these situations as well. My point is there is perhaps a larger gamut of hostile situations than is being focused on here.

    I don't actually know which arguments were the ones that caused overseas investment to flee. I presume at least one of those arguments was an argument about engines. Which neither better moderation, nor some kind of "hot-topic" zone is actually going to solve. This is something I'm concerned about, which is why I'd like a disassociation between the forums and Make Games SA the association.

    Though I know not everyone here is as concerned about the Make Games SA brand. (And is more concerned about the spirit of the forums themselves, which is also important, or not concerned I guess)

    Irregardless of whether this forum is rebranded (or recontextualized) I totally agree that a positive culture here is something we should strive for. (Which is what folks here are making suggestions for). If we can improve the moderation we should. If we can structure the forum in a better way we should.

    But this thread is getting close to proving the point about hostility already :(
  • edited
    @BlackShipsFilltheSky: Yup, you're right. I'm not going that far back TBH. So far this discussion seems to be about the sorts of topic that created the most recent push to change rules and figure out better ways to affect forum culture change. I don't see those old discussions as part of that, so I'm assuming that people aren't talking about those for this zone idea.

    You're also right that such a zone doesn't solve those discussions becoming hostile either. I do feel that a well implemented warning system can at least prevent arguing while upset with each other from turning into bad faith shouting matches though, so that is a thing I'd chalk up as a positive side to a solid forum-wide moderation policy/system.
    Obviously a positive culture is something we should strive for. If we can improve the moderation we should. If we can structure the forum in a better way we should.

    But this thread is getting close to proving the point about hostility already :(
    I dunno, I felt like the urine-enriched coffee thing was at least a reasonably good joke ;)

    So far most of the pressure on the forum to look good can be dealt with better and more positively by having an actual MGSA site.
    Thanked by 1EvanGreenwood
  • edited
    dislekcia said:
    So far most of the pressure on the forum to look good can be dealt with better and more positively by having an actual MGSA site.
    I hope that happens soon. I was saying that Free Lives could donate towards this sort of thing (if that is helpful/speeds things up).
  • edited
    I think the goal for me would be to structure the community in a way that rewards the posting of games far more than anything else. I feel that someone coming to a MakeGamesSA community forum should be blown away by the sheer number of game prototypes and projects and the feedback by people testing those games out. I feel that it should be generally more difficult (i.e. need to dig a level/click deeper) to find threads that aren't actually the posting of game projects.

    I think having Jobs and Events be quite visible are also positive things, both for me personally, and for strangers or investors looking to get the gist of the community. There are many other things the community offers (like answering peoples' questions about getting into game dev), but in terms of the "face" that I think should be shown to the stranger, I think Projects, Jobs and Events are the most important and show us in the most positive light.

    image

    In graphic/web design, one of the core principles is deciding what is important to be shown, either in terms of user action or in terms of information being conveyed. There's a hierarchy of information that you decide, and this can greatly affect how people use your website. It also helps to focus your message so that you're not trying to please 100 different people, but rather making sure you're really good at conveying the core of what your content should say about your organisation.

    Perhaps visiting the forum shows the Projects category and stickied Events by default, as an example. Or perhaps next to my nick at the top of my posts it'd say "Elyaradine - Latest project: HACK". I dunno, there are probably loads of possibilities in terms of emphasising projects, jobs and events, without having to put in the development that creates something like Artstation, itch.io or GameJolt. I'm hesitant about suggesting software-based changes given how difficult those are to implement with everyone being super busy, but I do think that they can be really effective, because they push for certain behaviours before a visitor has even gotten the chance to have to be immersed in the rest of the community culture. (I've personally redesigned the MGSA home page and forum a couple of times over the years, but never actually followed through because of getting other work that takes priority and then forgetting and not finishing.)

    There are also proactive things we can do as individuals, like "I will download, install and play and give feedback on at least one game a week", but I dunno, it's hard (for me) to keep stuff like that up unless there are direct, short-term benefits, because there are unfortunately always more important things to do. (But that's maybe a personal problem of my over-committing.)

    --
    edit: I think the same kind of thinking applies to MGSA as an industry organisation. What does MGSA do? What are the benefits of membership and how do people sign up? What do we want to show that's attractive to press/investors? I think those are the core things that the MGSA home page should address. Everything else (that I can think of right now) is less important, and the visual hierarchy should reflect that.
  • edited
    Where did that post from @quintond go ? I could have sworn he posted something. If moderation happened then we should be notified right ?
  • Nope ... I deleted it ... decided it was not going to help take the discussion forward and it was better left unsaid.
    Thanked by 1Kobusvdwalt9
Sign In or Register to comment.