MakeGamesSA, 2016 and beyond.

edited in Meta Discussions
I don't think it's really my position to bring this up. But it's obviously that a number of South African game developers aren't happy with Make Games SA, and if it's possible to remedy this we should.

For my own part, I think the Make Games SA is doing really great right now. Especially with the recent competition, where a lot of developers participated and made some amazing work and engaged with each others' work.

[Edit: I've changed my mind about this.] I do think the recent competition and collective work has been AWESOME, but it seems to me that the peace on the forums is at least in part due to a significant number of developers leaving in frustration, which isn't the sign of a healthy community.[/Edit]

It seems to me that the vast majority of interactions on these forums over the last couple months are helpful, and even quite positive. And for my own purposes, when I've posted prototypes recently they've received plenty of constructive feedback. But that's from my perspective.

In the recent Facebook group thread, @quintond stated that some people were receiving a conflicting experience:

(I hope it's okay to quote @quintond here, I don't want to try speak for them)
quintond said:
Unfortunately a lot people do not find these forums welcoming and do not feel like they can participate. I have a few good friends and a few colleagues in the Indie Game Industry who avoid Make Games SA like the plague ... their reasons are varied and I am not going to go in to it ... but they all come down to not feeling welcomed or allowed to participate.

Some of them tried and some of them came back a few times but eventually just left due to various factors.
quintond said:
Unfortunately my experiences of Make Games SA does not tend to lead me to believe that Make Games SA is a community ... actually a few people I have spoken to and some of those who will not post on Make Games SA feel that this has become more of a kingdom run by a few select individuals ... and is definitely not a community.
Obviously Make Games SA is a community in a semantic sense (because there obviously are some people here who share information, work together towards common goals and have interests in common).

But @quintond's point I think is that these forums have a few individuals running things and something about this is leading to some other individuals feeling unwelcome.

And this isn't the only time the "hostility" of these forums has been brought up. And I've heard this comment independently a few times outside of these forums. Though I don't know if everyone who feels unwelcome feels it is because of a few individuals (maybe that is just @quintond and their circle).

I don't think that game developers will naturally always get along. I don't think there's a way to perfectly avoid conflicts of opinions between game developers. But if it has been getting to the point that a significant number of people feel alienated, perhaps there is something we should do about it?

There's a couple ways in my mind how a few powerful people on the forums could make other people feel unwelcome.

1 ) Through a difference in culture. Game developers are a diverse group, and if one culture is enforced on the forum then people of other cultures may not feel welcome.

2 ) Through the way interactions are conducted. If people are interacting in a way that offends, frustrates or ostracizes other people that could lead to the receivers of these actions feeling unwelcome.

3 ) Just too many arguments that end in offense.

I want to know what @quintond is seeing. Right now I can only guess. I also want to know if I am one of the culprits (I'm not sure if I'm part of the kingdom that @quintond identifies, but I have been on these forums as long as they've existed, and I can be abrasive, so I might be).

@dislekcia mentioned that they thought forums being run as a kingdom was a fair accusation:
dislekcia said:
I think the kingdom accusation is fair. I mean, yeah, guilty as charged I guess. Interestingly, I feel that MGSA as a community was damaged by trying to mitigate that "kingdom" feeling and putting more people in charge: It meant that the vision was never clear and decisive action couldn't be taken...
To which @dammit responded:
dammit said:
I disagree. I don't think that mitigating the kingdom problem caused problems. I think it was attempting to add a democracy without fully revoking the monarchy.
Again, I hope it's okay quoting people here. I think this conversation is very important. I think it just ended in the previous thread because it didn't really belong there.

I think this conversation is difficult, and I think if it is to be had honestly then a few negative opinions need to be shared.

That said, I'd hope we can be civil about this subject (if anyone wants to talk about it). If we need to say something negative about someone (like myself, or anyone else) then I hope we can frame it as constructive criticism (like we are so practiced at doing with each others' games).

Also, I realize the irony in trying to ask questions of the very people who have most likely exited these forums already.

Comments

  • edited
    To which @dammit responded:
    dammit said:
    I disagree. I don't think that mitigating the kingdom problem caused problems. I think it was attempting to add a democracy without fully revoking the monarchy.
    For the record, this is patently false, provided that the "monarchy" in question refers to me. During the period in question (preceeding the last rAge that MGSA had a stand at, and well into the following year) I was not running the forum, I was simply a committee member as voted in by the community during our AGM. The committee took a decision and forum admin duties were handled by everyone on the committee except me in an attempt to address exactly this issue of perceived hostility.

    In my personal experience, that was a time in which open hostility on the forums increased slowly over time while useful feedback fell. While I can't prove that (short of semantic analysis on the forum), I can point to our forum analytics showing less new threads, less regular activity and some very "spiky" thread view counts during that time: Basically, people participated in fights instead of sharing knowledge and posting information and new prototypes and we didn't get many new members. The MGSA committee also declined during that time, resulting in very few committee meetings and a complete stalling of the committee for several months. The final committee meeting before @LexAquillia started the MGSA re-organisation that led to the formation of IESA, saw a vote taken to put me in charge of the forums as sole admin and I was mandated with guiding the forums back to effectiveness and positivity.

    The discussing of rules that followed had a lot to do with issues that deeply affected the game industry at the time: GamerGate and the representation of women and minorities being important factors. Changes in policy resulted in the current warning system to make administration more formal, as well as a (now stalled, pending the IESA switch and new site/front page) push to produce coherent forum rules. I believe that the forum is a healthier place again, it's always saddening to hear that people find this place hostile, but I'm always open to investigating what that means and attempting to fix any issues provided they don't result in the alienation of more productive and helpful forum users.

    MGSA is a knowledge repository, a place for collecting feedback and a skills exchange. Sometimes these things are not pleasant, but as an admin I've been striving to make this place respectful, positive and constructive. There's definitely room for other communities doing other things in other ways, I look forward to not running those ;)

    Once the IESA switch is finalised, I believe it will be up to @LexAquillia who is appointed to manage MGSA and the forums, but I could easily be wrong on that.

    *@Dammit knows many of these facts, so I'm curious what "fully revoking the monarchy" means*
    Thanked by 1Kobusvdwalt9
  • I think the culture of any community is important. We have one. A good one. The problem comes when people post things that are against that culture. Then the admin has to make tough choices, which includes various actions like a repremand, point out the flawed thinking, explaining our culture and eventually warnings etc. People don't like getting hit on the nuckles. What make's it seem worse is that this responsibility currently falls to one person. This gets perceived as a dictatorship. When it's actually just one person trying to make sure we all have ''nice things''. I dont know how we could fix this. Maybe have a admin profile that is seperate from @dislekcia '. Maybe get more people involved again (that share the same goal). Think most members speak up anyway when they see comments and content that is wrong. Really hope more clever people like @Elyaradine, @hermantulleken, @pieter and @francoisvn give their 2c to this discussion too, as they seem to always make a lot of sense, and as has been mentioned this is a very important discussion to have
    Thanked by 1EvanGreenwood
  • edited
    I disagree. I don't think that mitigating the kingdom problem caused problems. I think it was attempting to add a democracy without fully revoking the monarchy.
    What I meant here is that (a) a committee cannot function if one member acts more entitled or believes they have all the right answers. The point of a committee is to have a group of voices that are given equal weight (as I understand it). And (b) the entire committee whittled down to just @dislekcia as everyone on the committee gave up trying to work with him. This tells me that (c) the problems of the committee (and every committee has problems) might not have been caused by having a committee but by having @dislekcia on the committee.

    Also, @dislekcia points out that he was not admin on the forums during this time. He was, however, still on the forums and many many many people have said to him, to me, and to other people that the reason they have left the forums is because of him.

    I myself have defended @dislekcia for many years when people have come to me with complaints but I realise I'm not serving the community in doing so.



    Now, I will add that no one is perfect. I'm sure that some people dislike me. In fact, I'm 100% positive of that. And, hell, there's people that I don't get along with on these forums. And that's fine. The difference is that the number of people who find engaging with @dislekcia problematic is at a problematic volume.


    I'm also going to add that, most people that have dealt in person @dislekcia have found he's fine in person - and in fact can be quite helpful. I've also experienced this. But we're talking specifically about the forum, I believe.
  • I speak now for someone who made the conscious decision to spend less time on the forums. I made this decision because becoming embroiled in heated emotional debates is a time sink I could ill afford as a professional developer. From my own anecdotal observations the forum is in a much healthier place than it was a year or even six months ago. It is my personal belief that the majority of the damage was done by everyone hashing it out and engaging in open debate (warfare). I've seen this culminate in resentment and contempt building building up between the members of this community to the detriment of fostering a healthy community spirit of collaboration.

    In my opinion the turnaround is precisely due to the consistent hand of @dislekcia as admin, and the dutiful efforts of our most consistent community members to steer this back to a place of positive engagement. I feel far more secure that there is now some process to shut down runaway debates, and hope the recovery process continues to the point where I can once again feel comfortable pointing outsiders with valuable game dev voices ( women, people of colour, and people who generally have not had access to making games before) to the forums knowing they are entering a place of respect and mutual understanding.

    tl;dr things are getting better, I think we're on the right track.
  • The biggest issue I see is not the fighting on the forums because those are usually between active members on the forums.

    The biggest issue would be not to have people come onto the forums, post their game and then get 0 feedback. I think something that really pulls people into the forums is when we comment on their games and make them feel more welcome. That will then promote them to stay longer and get more involved in other people's games.

  • dammit said:
    What I meant here is that (a) a committee cannot function if one member acts more entitled or believes they have all the right answers. The point of a committee is to have a group of voices that are given equal weight (as I understand it). And (b) the entire committee whittled down to just @dislekcia as everyone on the committee gave up trying to work with him. This tells me that (c) the problems of the committee (and every committee has problems) might not have been caused by having a committee but by having @dislekcia on the committee.
    Those are some strong accusations. Especially coming from someone outside the actual committee. I don't believe that I'm the right person to answer them, but I hope that @LexAquillia responds as chairman of the committee in question.
    dammit said:
    Also, @dislekcia points out that he was not admin on the forums during this time. He was, however, still on the forums and many many many people have said to him, to me, and to other people that the reason they have left the forums is because of him.
    Well, you're in luck! There's currently a game development community growing which I am not only not an admin of, but am completely banned from. So the opportunity exists to contrast and compare what my impact is in a pseudo-scientific manner.
  • I cannot comment on whether or not forum culture is better or worse for its particular structures of management. That shit is as complex as politics itself.

    But I do believe that if we want to consider a healthy transition from concentration of power and firm-handedness to a more "democratic" system (for lack of a better term) we'd be better off spending less effort on diagnosing which system is better and look more towards "what makes a democratic system actually viable".

    If we want a forum culture driven By The People, we need to look at ways of spreading information about effective conflict resolution in a way that lets a majority of forum-goers qualify to enter debates and disarm a crisis situation. Because right now, a lot of us are trained in "debate style" arts. This does not automatically give us healthy conflict resolution ("I believe I'm right, and will perform the conversation equivalent of armed combat to make myself heard"). We are also literate in fighting for and maintaining safe spaces, which also only barely arms us to deal with a crisis ("bottom line: your statements are toxic. Recant or get out!")

    Most of our conversation patterns currently revolve around force, shaming, othering, and manipulation to get what we want. And that's referring to what the Good Folk do!

    When force becomes our community's on-the-ground metric for conflict resolution, the natural apex of this arms-race is a heavy-handed mod with the biggest stick, who has absolute power to keep people in line.

    If that sucks for us, I want us to work actively to change it. A few suggestions:

    - Conflict resolution resources become shared more frequently in the community, or discussed more often at meetups
    - Committee members and authority figures in MGSA agree to some form of training in conflict disarmament, non-violent communication, authentic relating, etc etc, so as to lead by example
    - In addition, democratic conflict management becomes an official priority of the MGSA leadership. A thread should be stickied and supported. We make Getting Along With People and teamwork exercises an important pillar of the system in the same way that rules about safe spaces and bigotry currently are
    - Game Jam theme! Resolving Conflict!

    If this sounds like a shit-ton of work, I hear you. Building a democratic community that's effective will make extra demands of everyone. I'd even be apprehensive about it myself. But I think this is the sort of effort that's the baseline if we really want to enjoy the forum utopia we're looking for.
  • edited
    Interesting.

    Honestly, posting anything at all in this thread violates the rules I've set for myself for interacting on MGSA. Most of the professional game developers I know have washed their hands of MGSA, and I was going to do so too, 6 months ago.

    But I'm a stubborn bastard, and I generally refuse to give up a potentially useful tool for networking just because of a few people.

    I decided instead that I'd only allow myself to post on MGSA if I avoided anything but cursory, polite interactions with certain people, and only posted in portfolio/project/help needed threads, absolutely no posting in any topic that may be contentious.

    Which this thread is likely to be.

    But people seem to be genuinely trying here, so I'll relax my rules for a moment to make a few points.

    First point, I'd suggest people take note of who DOESN'T post in this thread, who used to post on MGSA in the past. The people who are still around are the ones who are happy with the status quo, for the most part. And if you just read their views, you're likely to get the impression that the majority agrees that the situation is just fine and dandy as is.

    Be careful with that. The number of silent voices reveals something, methinks. There's been a certain amount of weeding out, and this is the end result of that. I'll be surprised if any of the people with a problem actually feel like bothering having this debate for the umpteenth time.

    Point two, it's not just people who are on the wrong side of the garglegorter debate that feel unwelcome here, folks. For example, where are the game engine programmers, the deeply technical people? Are there many left now?

    Did you notice that, up until yesterday, that new SA Game Dev facebook group had "we heart game engines" as their banner? Is that a coincidence? Or do some people feel the need to defiantly state their love for the technical side of game dev because they've been made to feel like this place is hostile to that kind of love?

    Something to think about. Maybe if you leap in to tell everyone who starts a discussion about engine programming they're "doing indie game dev wrong/leading inexperienced devs astray", maybe people feel alienated.

    Finally, if I name names, I'm likely to violate my rules here more than I actually want to. So I won't do that.

    But an interesting thing to look at is the physical location of many of the people who are saying they're happy with the forum culture. To put it bluntly, there's a general feeling that there's a Cape Town clique.

    People feel like there's a group of devs who are friendly with each other IRL and share certain views on the big issues, who reinforce each other in making dissenting voices feel unwelcome.

    If someone gets bashed, berated, shut down or issued warnings for not having the right opinions, and call bullshit, their friends step in to tell the basher that they totally did the right thing and that other dude was totally in the wrong and good on you for fighting the good fight against the forces that would totally bring the forum culture down.

    And if the bashed person leaves, well, they're just being silly and anyway, we're all probably be better off for not having that kind here, no big loss.

    It's a closed loop of reinforcement for behaviors and attitudes that many people feel frustrated by, and have left because of. A lot of professionals simply have no time for what they see as the playground politics on this forum.

    This is not conjecture, they've told me this directly, over a beer.

    Anyway, I'll probably regret posting this. Probably. But see the comment re: stubbornness. ;P
  • One of the big reasons I was happy with the founding of MGSA was that there'd be AGMs and a more democratic structure. I remember how on SAGD, Korax was adamant that his name would be on every page: "provided by Korax" or something. We were playing in his playground that he was paying for, and if we offered to pay for the playground ourselves and make the place genuinely "ours" he wouldn't have that either. I remember how indignant and powerless I felt there. I felt as if we as game developers, just by posting on SAGD, were creating value -- value for other game developers and each other, but also monetary value in the domain itself -- and I didn't like the feeling of creating value for someone who could pull the plug whenever he wanted to and sell the domain to some marketing or gambling company (which, it turns out, is what ended up happening).

    So, while I think we're still far better than back then, because there isn't some footer saying "provided by Nick and Danny" or whatever, and as far as I know there's pretty much zero chance of our years of content and links disappearing, I do miss having an AGM where I can vote for a new committee/management/admin team if I want that.

    I've visited a few studios locally, and I've also found that (a not insignificant number of) people are resistant to taking part here, citing @dislekcia as a reason. For the most part, I suspect that it's just an excuse; I imagine that they're not really seeking feedback for their games anyway. (Or, at least, I don't see them going any where else online. I don't think they're going to TIG Source. Maybe they're getting feedback within their studios, offline.) There are lots of them, which makes it difficult to just wave away. I used to be able to say that if they weren't happy, they could participate anyway, and change things at the AGM, but without the AGM I can't say that any more.

    Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but I feel the changes to the structures managing MGSA have been pretty opaque. I don't like that the committee would meet behind closed doors or disband with little communication over what was going on.

    --
    I know I'm personally posting less often, and I know it's because of a past fight. I generally feel like I need to be more careful of what I say, and having to spend hours proof-reading my posts to make sure my intended meaning comes across (or, sometimes, spend ages in introspection examining what I actually think about something) to avoid being misunderstood or discouraging. That takes more energy out of me than I've been willing to spend, with the art and game prototypes I want to do. I'm still working on fixing my attitude and getting my energy back.
  • edited
    @FanieG: thanks for the mention. I am actively following this discussion, but I also think I have a fairly strong voice and I'm more happy with the status quo than the average, so I'm consciously staying a bit more quiet at this point.

    My 2c so far: I think it's important to note that we cannot possibly have all the possibly things at the same time. For example, if we decide we want to make the forums welcoming for truly everyone, then we cannot also ensure that it will be completely free from toxic behaviour. In other words, I think we have to decide very carefully about what the goals of the community are and make sure there is consensus on this (or at least something that most parties can agree is the best or some such). I don't think we currently have a consensus or anything close.

    I think @dislekcia has made it pretty clear that from his position this is foremost a knowledge and skills sharing repository. I think others see things as being about primarily creating a safe space for people involved with games. I think others see the goal as being as inclusive as possible. I don't think we can have all these things without compromising on the others. My (subjective) opinion is that we need to more directly talk about the primary goal for the community. I feel like there is a bit of talking past each other on this.

    If we can reach a bit of consensus on what the goal is, then I think it will be easier (but still not straightforward) to determine how this is carried out and who is doing this (which seems to be an issue).

    On the other hand, maybe I'm the one busy talking past everyone now and my post sounds like nonsense. If so, I invite you to please say so and continue with the discussion (I promise I won't take it personally ;) ), I'm "just" attempting to direct the discussion in what I think will be a more fruitful direction.
  • Just be careful not to believe that only the people who are toxic are feeling alienated.

    Consider what @Elyaradine said above, about his own posting. Elya is one of the gentlest, most considerate people I've met.

    If someone like that finds the idea of engaging too draining, what is the average experience? For people who aren't as thoughtful and sensitive?

    I don't want to put words in his mouth, so forgive me if that's speaking out of line, Elya. But man, just take a moment and consider the implications for some inexperienced kid or someone whose opinions aren't really that refined, or who isn't already mostly on the same side of the issues as a the majority.

    What is their experience of engagement?

    Thanked by 2Tuism quintond
  • edited
    I think @dislekcia has made it pretty clear that from his position this is foremost a knowledge and skills sharing repository. I think others see things as being about primarily creating a safe space for people involved with games. I think others see the goal as being as inclusive as possible. I don't think we can have all these things without compromising on the others. My (subjective) opinion is that we need to more directly talk about the primary goal for the community. I feel like there is a bit of talking past each other on this.
    I'd just like to point out that a kowledge/skills repository is no good to anyone if it alienates people. Especially if it alienates the people most in need of information and knowledge that has been systematically denied to them, meaning that MGSA has to be a safe space and an inclusive community. For a culture of constructive criticism to be sustainable, trust and safety needs to be a huge part of it.

    I believe that there's a cultural watershed event happening online as spaces previously dominated by unspoken and unacknowledged white male privilege are slowly opened up. To the beneficiaries of this privilege, such change can feel alienating and accusatory (and I leave it to better and kinder writers like @Nandrew to attempt to soothe those feelings). I think that it's important that we attempt to understand what types of alienation are being reported as a problem here, for there are many, and currently there seems to be a large lumping together of issues into a giant problem. That's not how issues are solved, instead we need to digest smaller problems one by one.

    Unfortunately, it's apparent that @francoisvn is right that you cannot make a safe space for everyone when people's primary goals and needs diverge or are in direct competition with each other. It is impossible to make an online space that someone won't try to troll or disrupt (sadly), it is impossible to make a community welcoming to disenfranchised creators and hopefuls while allowing sexist or racist content to be freely posted and not (at the very least) critiqued. While those distinctions may seem easy to make, there are many different kinds of alienation and it becomes necessary to attempt to value them against each other at some point. The question of which alienation is acceptable and which users are more valuable to a community is always going to be contentious.
    garethf said:
    If someone like that finds the idea of engaging too draining, what is the average experience? For people who aren't as thoughtful and sensitive?

    I don't want to put words in his mouth, so forgive me if that's speaking out of line, Elya. But man, just take a moment and consider the implications for some inexperienced kid or someone whose opinions aren't really that refined, or who isn't already mostly on the same side of the issues as a the majority.

    What is their experience of engagement?
    With the above in mind, how would someone go about determining the average experience beyond conjecture?
  • MGSA is kinda a weird place. And I think I've been engaging less of late, I know I had a very large drop off in how much I visited and interacted with the player quite a number of years due to a sense of constant fighting with certain people. It is easy to see why MGSA is viewed by some as a place of conflict. Personally I've just been kinda busy and have been focusing on some community efforts that are still in the works.

    I believe that this community has, and still does, provide an important role in the development of indie games in SA. However I would like to point out that quite a few people I have spoken to in JHB have said that they often feels like the community is a bit of a Cape Town clique, although I believe that this is because some of the strong personalities are from that part of the scene, but it is a point worth noting this sentiment.

    A lot of the problems that we are seeing come from systemic flaws from when MGSA itself was founded: we tried to do too much while the forum's culture had a definite zeitgeist to it, and it was very much in the vein of Game.Dev, but Game.Dev was simply a community, and we also tried to take on the role of an industry body under the same banner.

    One thing I would like to point out is that I feel the community has felt like a much better place in these past few months due to the increase role of visible moderation by @dislekcia, however given that the moderation is visible under his nom de plume it might be viewed as being hostile by some people. Unfortunately just about every other person I've spoken to has said that they've had a run in with dis, or expressed some second hand information about a conflict he was involved in. This is rather sad since he's done a lot of good for this community and game dev in SA in general.

    MGSA was initially started as a community, and we very soon after started transitioning to a kind of body for game devs to operate under, this split the focus on what we wanted to do since we were rooted as a community, but were heading to something else. This had the affect that the council was viewed as having little visibility or effect in what they did since there wasn't much clear deliverable feedback on what they were doing in a way the members of the community could see. I also think we made some poor decisions on who we've elected to the council over the years, but again the space in which we were able to engage with these people in order to see if they would be a good fit was limited.

    In all honesty we've been in limbo for quite some time. This was due to the desire to have fees for the last upcoming MGSA elections, and we didn't have the infrastructure for this. Once again split between community and organisational body. I think MGSA has value as a community, but I don't believe it is, or should be, the singular community for devs in SA. I personally have very little concern over the existence of SAGD2 given the nature of IESA as a representative body, which I believe it will do very well given the experience drawn from it's members during their time trying to make MGSA a game dev body. I believe that MGSA should continue, I think we need to have some point were the kind of authority figure we have get together and look at our constitution and voting process and refine those and make it something that is more usable and pertinent to the running of a community.
  • edited
    With the above in mind, how would someone go about determining the average experience beyond conjecture?
    You can't, of course. Even if you did a poll, how would you know what the people who don't come here anymore think?

    But you can hazard an informed guess, especially if certain types of feedback crop up enough times to no longer count as anomalies.

    @Elyaradine
    For the most part, I suspect that it's just an excuse; I imagine that they're not really seeking feedback for their games anyway. (Or, at least, I don't see them going any where else online. I don't think they're going to TIG Source. Maybe they're getting feedback within their studios, offline.)
    One thing to note here is that game devs working in studios won't necessarily be coming here to get feedback on game prototypes.

    They may just want a place where they can discuss their everyday work lives, share advice and experience, mentor folks and pass on their skills.

    Just participate in a community with like-minded, skilled individuals and talk shop, generally.

    Thanked by 1quintond
  • Adding to the comment about getting feedback. This forum is great for getting feedback on game prototypes from white, male indie developers between ages 25 and 35. If I'm looking for feedback on a game targeted very differently, the feedback from this narrow segment might not be very useful.
    Thanked by 3garethf Tuism quintond
  • dammit said:
    Adding to the comment about getting feedback. This forum is great for getting feedback on game prototypes from white, male indie developers between ages 25 and 35. If I'm looking for feedback on a game targeted very differently, the feedback from this narrow segment might not be very useful.
    This is true if the only feedback and knowledge looked for is playtesting.

    However, if you're a developer looking for how other developers got feedback from different player groups, how they ran their playtests or when playtesting was found to be most effective for other games, there's definitely still value to be had by asking questions of MGSA as a knowledge sharing community.

    Furthermore, if you have experience running playtests with vastly differing player groups, then making that known via MGSA can help and support other developers, no matter what their backgrounds. Also, making such knowledge available will probably help white male indie developers between 25 and 35 realise that they need to test their games with different audiences too :)
  • edited
    @francoisvn in particular, I hear ya and your lens of focus sounds really great (no need to worry though, I'm hearing everybody else too).

    I think it's important to refocus my comment with that in mind:

    I believe it should be our goal to build up a comprehensive conflict resolution culture on the forums, and figure out ways to make this a large-scale effort (a not-insignificant challenge)

    There is a structural flaw with moderatorship which we'd do ourselves a favour to accept and recognise. Either

    - a moderator is too weak, makes too few moves, and lets a space generally be more toxic.
    - a moderator will impose their own culture on the forums through the structural consequence of being required to make decisions about acceptable behaviour. People will feel restrained.

    I consider it axiomatic: the problems we face are fused into the nature of moderatorship. It sounds like a lot of us are asking for a more liberal and member-driven space where heavy-handedness is not demanded, and I think that means formalising collectiveness and certain pro-social traits in everyone.

    It's possible for individuals to handle problematic people very well, provided they're not outright trolls (those are pretty easy ban decisions anyway). The difficulty comes in when 3 other people weigh in on that discussion, and all trigger defensiveness in the co-operating individual. Unless there's concrete skin involved, those interactions don't run in parallel to the positive conversation -- they kill it.

    A forum-wide conflict resolution culture is a necessary vaccine against this situation, and ensures that the community can pick up the slack for those few members who, for whatever reason, aren't toeing the line (most often, it'll just be new people).

    Regarding the priority of safe space, this is a useful reference: https://deconstructingthesystem.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/types-of-safe-spaces/

    So I think people are hoping for a Type 1 Safe Space. But the article outlines some structural difficulties about that. Challenge then being: putting in the effort to make this viable. The work described previously would be among the measures I'd consider necessary for this to function.
  • edited
    For my 2cents with regards to @francoisvn 's point about reaching consensus about what MakeGamesSA's goal is.

    I personally feel, and I realize this may be in conflict with the feelings of others, that MakeGamesSA's goal should be:

    1 ) To encourage making games (through example, through positive feedback and through sharing inspiration),
    2 ) To facilitate making better games (through critique) and...
    3 ) To foster collaboration (through connecting developers in real-life and attracting people to the forums).

    Personally I don't really value MakeGamesSA as a knowledge repository. I've never found any game development forum a better source of knowledge than just a Google search. I do think a FAQ is useful and saves senior members time. And of course I'm not suggesting shutting down threads where forum goers ask questions, but I do think MakeGamesSA is duplicating the work done elsewhere with these threads.

    And I've never really found much use for an online community for chit-chat and talking shop. I know I've engaged in some general discussions (and instigated many), but all of my most negative experiences at Make Games SA and SAGameDev and Game.Dev have been in the category of general discussion.

    That said, I think I'm only talking about the purpose I'd personally like for these forums.

    Which isn't to say anything about character. I think @Nandrew has made some excellent suggestions about the sort of character we'd like. However I don't know myself how to take action on these suggestions. (I'm hoping @Nandrew can point to some steps we could take, assuming that's a path the consensus here would like to follow).

    So another point might be:

    4 ) For the forums to be welcoming and have a culture that rejects sexism, racism, bigotry etc and helps reform those that fall astray in this regard.
    Thanked by 1Tuism
  • @Nandrew: actually I was using the term "safe space" to refer to a type 2, and "all inclusive" be be closer to a type 1 safe space. I think the distinction and misaligned expectations here might be very relevant.
    Thanked by 1dislekcia
  • No probs Francois, I'm glad we have this understanding!

    Right, so some actionables on the "character" problem could look like this:

    - Short term would be gathering a resource database, just build a thread, get people throwing in reference material, etc. Have a common look at some ideas, share knowledge, have some idea of what we're looking at, think on some things from there
    - Next step could be a stickied thread with some of the most agreed-upon touchstones/references. The idea would be: short, simple, easily digestable. Geared towards giving people broad literacy more easily.
    - I also think it would be helpful to start sharing more articles on the disciplines of project management and teamwork, in particular. It's a useful area for many of us to learn and it would be nice to know more about things like scrum, SCARF etc. There's a lot of psychology and person-management insight woven into those things.
    - Also, Cape Town meetups have had a cool talk about scrum/waterfall recently -- we could build more in that direction when proposing topics, and speakers with experience can focus on how person-to-person interactions come into play. I believe we have a sufficient knowledge base for these talks to feature at least somewhat regularly ;) (or maybe JHB already has that vibe)

    These are informal changes, btw, so I'd imagine them just co-operating with the status quo for the time being. If we want more drastic actions, I think we could discuss those after making decisions about other matters in this thread.
    Thanked by 1pieter
  • From someone that comes to MakeGamesSA about once every 6 months.... there is at least one of these threads every time I arrive. :(
  • Here we go again.

    Phase 2 of the reinforcement loop is settling on a path of earnest, well-intentioned but woolly navel-gazing that will have the net effect of leaving people convinced that they're striving their absolute utmost to improve things, while completely failing to address the elephant in the room.

    It's like watching a company HR department decide that the best way to deal with multiple complaints from employees about a particular abrasive manager is by drafting and distributing a memorandum on the core values of the company and mandating company-wide sensitivity training. Lol no.

    Look, I don't mean to be a dick (I probably am, but I don't mean to be).

    It's fairly clear here that most of you don't REALLY see the problem, but you're nice people who are somewhat concerned by persistent reports that there IS a problem, so you're determined to take action to fix ...something. You can't quite put your finger on what it is, exactly, but maybe if you read enough social justice links and post enough pleasant jargon, you can satisfy yourself that the issue is being addressed. So far, I see nothing here indicating that it really is.

    I mentioned the physical location thing, but it seems I need to point it out again. Look, right now, at the people who are nodding along in agreement with each other about what needs to be done to effect positive change.

    It's the same general group of people, every time. It's a closed feedback loop guys.

    If you want to genuinely fix things, reach out to the people outside that loop, the prominent SA game dev folks who've already left or gone quiet and ask them what their problems were, why they left. Don't just assume it's because they're sulking about not being allowed to be sexist or something.

    And ask them how they'd suggest fixing it. Get that input. Discuss it in private, where dirty laundry isn't out in the open and egos aren't on the line. Talk to people as people, not like some HR drone jargon machine.

    REALLY listen, to the voices of people who actually have the problem, not the ones that don't really see it*, and then use voting or whatever to effect a change.

    Or don't, and I'll see you all again in 6 months, same time, same place.

    *protip- the ones who think everything's gotten better lately generally aren't the ones who're so frustrated by the status quo that they've washed their hands of the forums entirely.
  • I personally feel, and I realize this may be in conflict with the feelings of others, that MakeGamesSA's goal should be:

    1 ) To encourage making games (through example, through positive feedback and through sharing inspiration),
    2 ) To facilitate making better games (through critique) and...
    3 ) To foster collaboration (through connecting developers in real-life and attracting people to the forums).

    Personally I don't really value MakeGamesSA as a knowledge repository. I've never found any game development forum a better source of knowledge than just a Google search. I do think a FAQ is useful and saves senior members time. And of course I'm not suggesting shutting down threads where forum goers ask questions, but I do think MakeGamesSA is duplicating the work done elsewhere with these threads.
    I think that me saying "knowledge repository" is confusing. What I mean is more like a knowledge community. The idea isn't to replace google searches or to operate a vast searchable system, the idea is to make knowledge both visible and approachable. If people don't know that other game developers exist in SA, then they won't ask questions or try to work together. If people only try to solve problems via google searches, then they can only get info on things they think to search for - often the best help is someone with experience reading a description of your problem and giving you an idea or concept that you would never have thought of. Knowledge is further made approachable by allowing mentorship and opening up people's otherwise individually connected networks to new developers that might not have any connections themselves.

    So, you can't ask a question of Google and get context-relative information back that you didn't know to look for. Hopeful local game devs can google about how to sell their games on Android as much as they want, but without MGSA they wouldn't be able to find out what's really going on and know that people are working to make things easier - or that there are options to publish games right now. Similarly, @dammit's example above about forum demographics shows how someone might view a community as just a place to get people to play your game, without taking into account the network effects of allowing other people to see the problems you're trying to solve. A community allows other people to offer their help, which you can't get from google.

    Thanks, I'll shelve "knowledge repository" from now on. A knowledge community achieves all the points you've listed above, provided it's got a constructive culture.
    And I've never really found much use for an online community for chit-chat and talking shop. I know I've engaged in some general discussions (and instigated many), but all of my most negative experiences at Make Games SA and SAGameDev and Game.Dev have been in the category of general discussion.
    I feel like meetups are pretty good for the socialising, chit-chat and talking shop angles. Then again, back when I started Game.Dev I did so expressly to have a place where people pushed each other to make stuff, not a place that talking about something you might make got you patted on the back. Also, Game.Dev was originally part of a larger gaming forum with lots of other sections, so people probably had the opportunity to simply socialise online just outside Game.Dev's "door" as it were. That bears thinking about.
    4 ) For the forums to be welcoming and have a culture that rejects sexism, racism, bigotry etc and helps reform those that fall astray in this regard.
    The reform part feels pretty ambitious, but I can't say that doesn't seem like a good goal.
  • edited
    I know you must feel frustrated by this @garethf ... Thanks for sticking with this. Your input is a lot more valuable than just saying: "Oh, this again" and leaving it at that.
    .
    garethf said:
    It's the same general group of people, every time. It's a closed feedback loop guys.
    I can see it's the same group of people offering solutions. I know I'm a part of this :/ . But I'm not actually seeing alternative solutions suggested (though obviously there have been a number of suggestions as to what the problems might be, and I don't think the solutions suggested so far address all of these concerns).

    You say you've been close to people who are disenfranchised, and have been disenfranchised yourself, surely you're in a strong position to help here. You're in a position to stop this being the echo chamber you've identified it as.

    That said, I will speak again to the one or two people I know that have exited the forums :)

    If we need to make changes to leadership on these forums, which is what I honestly expect most of the disenfranchised people to advocate, maybe we can get more voices from Johannesburg in senior positions on the forum so that moderation (when it is applied) is by people who know each other in real life (and have a better understanding of each other)?

  • garethf said:
    It's like watching a company HR department decide that the best way to deal with multiple complaints from employees about a particular abrasive manager is by drafting and distributing a memorandum on the core values of the company and mandating company-wide sensitivity training. Lol no.
    The scenario you've outlined would be an awful waste, and I respect your desire to radicalise. We don't want empty words to yet again dominate a non-evolving creator's space.

    Perhaps my commitment to company culture should be full-hearted, and this commitment would not shy away from one important thing:

    We want to throw out the idea of "managers" entirely.

    I think there currently exists an idea that if we change @dislekcia to behave in the way we want, or replace him with someone else, we're going to have a happier, more inclusive community. And sure: I'm in touch with plenty of people who do not participate on MGSA, the voices of dissidents are a lot less lonely here than we may think. There was a time I'd barely stop by myself. But the current revolutionary approach tends to end with shifting the dominant culture of the forum for a time, waiting until a new power base forms (let's call that the "new bourgeois", with Cape Town currently in the driver's seat), and having this argument all over again with new actors on different parts of the same old Drama Triangle ( http://www.lynneforrest.com/articles/2008/06/the-faces-of-victim/ ).

    I feel that, within the analogous thinking, firing or reprimanding the manager only resets the cycle and does little to change the lives of employees, which means that we'll be stuck with a similar conversation another six months from now. I've made a case in previous posts to outline the problem I have with the simple existence of a moderator, and I believe that this can only be circumvented by widespread action From The People, For The People.

    I am not content with a change in management: who do we choose to mod instead?

    I'd love to consider myself worthy of moderating, but I'd either be too soft-handed and allow a more toxic community, or wait for the day when people disagree with my decisions strongly enough to demand an end to this bullshit. And one day I'll probably flip out and ban-hammer an entire thread, because I'll be looking at a discussion where everyone has sunk into some manifestation of anger and toxicity, from a community which outsources its peace-keeping faculties to a single authority who is now structurally bound to control them. Calming down eight agitated people at once is an advanced Steam Achievement, not a reliable go-to.

    To say that such a problem won't happen under the "right" mod seems idealistic. Even in this thread, right now, all of our posts deserve red pen marks through bits of them.

    I can respect frustration and a desire for change in management -- I just cannot advocate putting down the idea of conflict management literacy no matter what decisions are made here, and I believe it's the solution to our frustrations anyway.

    With a positive conflict management culture, we could have handled the Pierre fiasco so, so much better -- mods or not. We could deal with the eruptions of newbies with grace and assertiveness. We could have defused so many bewildering conflicts about game engines (including one even on the Comp G thread!) to evoke change and understanding while triggering less resistance.

    If we do not want someone else taking responsibility for us, imposing upon us, and inevitably agitating some group or becoming ineffective, we have to do that ourselves, and this requires effecting on-the-ground change. If we're trying to create a "flat" working ideal like the one at Valve, we need to make sure most people are on board and pulling their weight. This challenge increases when we can't really screen people before they enter our environment. In fact, it may be best not to use a company analogy at all: this is more like a political system, a kind of Game Developer nationalism minus the personality cults.

    The formation of IESA is critical in giving us this window, as we can now separate the regulatory body from the community culture and secure the latter's independence more meaningfully, with less risk of structurally dominant "cliques" forming. But we cannot lower mod strength and be content with chaos for any amount of time: it's definitely a roll-up-our-sleeves process and it would need to start immediately upon change occurring.

    Several formal policies could strengthen our efforts, but first and foremost this would be a community consciousness thing.

    ... eh, mebbe I'll just post some resources this weekend. I don't think this culture change has to wait.
    Thanked by 3pieter FanieG Bernard
  • It's good that we are having this important discussion.
    And that we are mature enough to discuss it, with people putting the positive growth of SA's game industry before their egos.

    A special thanks to @dislekcia for his civil and thoughtful responses.
    And for the admin work he has been doing.


    Something else, and important, to keep in mind:
    The people who become admins must be committed to doing the work, and must do the work.

    It's easy to be caught up in the excitement of change.
    But when it comes time to do the work to enable the change, few people are willing to do it.
    Most people are too busy doing more important things.
    (And for some, that includes watching movies/TV series, playing games or spending hours on social media.)

    "It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them."


    Are there currently anyone on these forums who are willing to be admins?
    Even if you will gain nothing personally out of it.
    Maybe not even thank yous from the community.


    On a side note:
    One possible solution to reduce toxic threads:
    Add a complain/report button. Such as the like button.
    The admins can then "safely" close a thread when they see a large number of the community does not like the thread.
    The offenders will also be aware that their thread was closed because "the people have spoken".
    (Is that what the "flag" button is for? If so, we need to start using it and clarify to everyone its purpose.)


    Also, as others have mentioned, we need to clarify the goals and purposes of these forums.
    (Some people have already mentioned good goals.)
    Then we need to put it on the front page. (Or at least a link visible on every page.)
    Thanked by 1FanieG
  • @EvanGreenwood - Thanks Evan. I do get the impression that you and a few others are really trying here, that you're making an effort to genuinely listen and not just talking over people, and that helps with the frustration a lot. :)

    In turn, I'll try not to give in to frustration.

    In terms of contributing solutions...I think that may be jumping the gun a bit. Step 2, while we're still on step 1.

    Let's focus on really understanding the issue, first. If people have a problem interacting with certain personalities, what is it about those personalities that rubs them the wrong way? Is it everything about a person, or just certain behaviors that can be tempered by taking that person aside and having a quiet chat to them about their approach? Is it a power imbalance with the way the community management is setup, allowing some voices to trample over others, that can be fixed with a different structure?

    It's easy to say "I just can't stand person X", but why? Once we really understand the problem as a community, I think the path forward will be clearer. ;)

    Where we are now, and it's a process that I'm hopeful is currently underway (in large part thanks to you making the effort here), is just talking to each other and really nailing down what the heart of the issue is. That'll take talking to the people who've experienced the problem, listening to them and not just talking over them or past them to the people we already agree with.

    And being really, really conscious of when we start to slip back into talking past or over each other again.

    You've heard a bit of what I've had to say, and I'll continue to add my 2c here, for as long as it feels productive, but I think it's really important to reach out to some of the others who have left and chat to them, 1 on 1. They probably won't feel like coming back to MGSA just to post in this thread, so effort will need to be made to reach out to them and have that conversation via different channels. Skype and email are good.

    And I don't mean just you, Evan, should do this. There's a couple of people in this thread who seem to earnestly want to help and who probably know some of the folks who have gone quiet, who could reach out to them to have a chat.

    There's no need to reconceptualize the paradigm and decolonize our revolutionary mind boxes here, folks, this isn't a #RhodesMustFall rally. Just reach out as normal human beings and have a friendly chat.
    Thanked by 2Trimpiece quintond
  • Dipso said:
    On a side note:
    One possible solution to reduce toxic threads:
    Add a complain/report button. Such as the like button.
    The admins can then "safely" close a thread when they see a large number of the community does not like the thread.
    The offenders will also be aware that their thread was closed because "the people have spoken".
    (Is that what the "flag" button is for? If so, we need to start using it and clarify to everyone its purpose.)
    That is exactly what the flag button is for, people have been using it that way for quite a while now. In fact, flagging is a major part of the current warning system, several warnings have been given based on flagged posts (and, indeed, the number of flags received). Point taken that it's apparently not explained well enough though.

    Interestingly enough, knowing that a warning "comes from the community" does not seem to change the level of vehemence and bile that people reserve for replies to being warned. Community-based warnings may even drive people further away from MGSA because they end up feeling like they're not welcome in general...
  • Most posts here are about the long-time past and present users, and how MGSA is changing over time and where it should go.
    But I just wanted to mention a pretty different issue and that is how a new user may see the site, and how they feel from the first responses they get. One example: So a new user registers, and posts their plan about making the next big X or Y. Experienced users on the site know that it has a very likely chance of failing, and they very bluntly tell the user that. True or not, literally the first response that this user has received about their enthusiasm has been to shut them down.
    There are other examples but my point is that it might be worth every user paying a bit more attention to being motivational to people that are excited about gamedev.

    Maybe I totally have the wrong impression, and I apologize if so, but in my [possibly skewed] mind, I am literally worried about the response I would get to some of the stuff I've wanted to post before. And that isn't normal, is it?

    I've felt ^ for a while, but I do have to mention that I think this is changing somewhat. It is awesome to see responses where instead of just bluntly saying "This will never work, make something smaller" people give helpful advice like "Start with a basic prototype of X mechanic, then add some simple networking, then do Y, then maybe Z...". At least that way the person is both motivated and they manage to "complete" the full X and Y tasks, even if they lose interest at Z.

    And on a different unrelated note...
    Anecdotally, it someones feels like the only threads that gain lots of responses/interest here are the meta ones about rules, regulations, etc etc.
    Here is a good example: http://makegamessa.com/discussion/3926/ingenuity-ios-ipad-game#latest
    A 16 year old kid successfully published an Android game, and is interested in game dev, and they receive basically no response. Seriously, holy crap. These are exactly the type of people that we should be trying to motivate to carry on.
    (I am totally guilty of this too - I play a lot of the prototypes but often just don't have useful feedback to add. Bad Matt.)

    p.s. This is just how I see the site, and it could be totally wrong. I don't read everything here, and I generally try to stay away from the argument threads because of the time-suck thing someone else mentioned.
  • edited
    I am a new user (only joined Dec 2014) so what I am about to say may be out of sheer inexperience.

    When I arrived on the forums, I learned to expect 3 things from makegamessa and I still only expect those very same 3 things:

    1-announcements
    2-discussions
    3-feedback

    Somehow it feels to some that having heated debates are unnatural or that having discussions such as this one means the forum is broken.

    In my humble opinion, how can a forum not have issues and not have arguments. I am not implying that they are required. Though the challanges of having a diverse set of people together, opperating through a system that is still defining it self, while everyone tries to figure out how to best deal with things isn't exactly a walk in the park. Sure the forums have issues but from what I have personally come to see, makegamessa has some pretty distinct problems its facing that other forums don't need to worry about.

    They have been mentioned above but here they are again:
    -Grouping of individuals in certain locations.
    -Actual effort that needs to be exercised to welcome new members by looking at their games. (As opposed to just doing nothing or simply saying "hi and welcome" on other forums).
    -Rooting out sexism. (Especially when the forum is a platform where sexist material could be posted through the form of games).
    -Far greater range of topics that could result in fire fights than many other forums which are only focused on one particular topic.

    Once again I am not saying that all is well. I am saying that this should be expected and if it can be expected a generally more hopeful attitude about these kinds of discussions could be applied. Its not a "ug! this again!" its re-alignment in a growing community thats facing some real challanges.

    I understand that some are implying that the same topic has been discussed with seemingly no real progress.
  • edited
    garethf said:
    There's no need to reconceptualize the paradigm and decolonize our revolutionary mind boxes here, folks, this isn't a #RhodesMustFall rally. Just reach out as normal human beings and have a friendly chat.
    This may be startling, but I disagree even with that framing. I contend that being "normal human beings" is the default setting we've had until now, and it's precisely the reason why naivete may yet prevail.

    I do not know if what I say constitutes talking past folk and agreeing with authority, but let me fix the former right now: a pattern I've notice here is that many people with "connections outside" claim to have already spoken about problems in the system. And we can look at this frankly: is there really a single person in this thread who actually doesn't know what's being critiqued right now? Who, exactly, sits down for a rant-filled beer with someone and doesn't offer their 2c on what they think should change about the status quo? I'm pretty sure I've been close to the verge of alcohol poisoning myself as I subject whatever poor friend is nearby to my opinions about the shortcomings of MGSA, people in MGSA, the acronym we chose for MGSA, and why MGSA doesn't just do what I say because my ideas are good and they're just not being used, goddammit (we all have the best plans).

    We know what people think, and we know what people want, because we've already been communicating for years. I could set up a "forum complaints" Bingo board if people thought it would be fun enough to play (hint: it wouldn't).

    We can either make forward progress through a hive-mind of gurus who think we understand conflict resolution and power structures (the honeymoon period of a small community does not prove its effectiveness), or we can start building a more meaningful culture that begins with actual resource sharing and a structural game plan that arms everyday users instead of focusing on exactly which teeth we want the big bosses to not bare at us when we ask them to keep us in line.

    I cannot endorse a personality-focused solution when a structurally-focused one would solve the broader problem. Feel free to seek and share other voices if that scratches an itch for liberty. And I look forward to another list of "Ten Things Everyone Says About Management (now with Cat Pictures)". But let's also look beyond that -- because, like you, I sorely desire a conversation that has pattern-breaking qualities rather than just hot air.
    Thanked by 1FanieG
  • edited
    Okay so, I definitely don't want to stomp on the ideas of inclusivity and voice-hearing. I respect the principle a great deal. I think I should appreciate that more.

    I don't know how high my confidence is in seeing meaningful knowledge gain. It feels like part of the same circuit, and the hopes I outline feel like an answer to some complaints I'd have about the community myself:

    - There's not enough pro-education culture. I see stuff blowing up everywhere and people getting banned or shunned and I'm like damn, that could really stop happening. I want the conflict resolution culture I've been outlining.

    - This is not the best safe space it could be. People who do not know how to engage problem behaviour without starting a fight, will either start a fight, or disengage. We've been arguing about that dipole for a while now, whether it's heavy-handedness or forum idleness in response to toxicity.

    I hope this does a better job of addressing you, soz.
    Thanked by 1FanieG
  • edited
    @Nandrew

    Look, I think you're a good guy, and I know you're trying to help. But I don't think you realize how this conversation is going from the other point of view.

    How you think it's going:

    Person A: We have a problem. The paradigm is broken.
    Person B: Then we'll change the paradigm so this problem won't happen again. I've got some ideas on how it should work!
    Person A: Awesome! The paradigm isn't working for me so let's discuss what new paradigm we want to implement! Let's hash it out to get the best ideas!
    Person B: High fives and ice cream!

    How it looks from here.

    Person A: There's this problem. So let's talk about it...
    Person B: I know how we can solve this. What if we...hear me out...reinvent our paradigm of community management? Let's elevate our community consciousness and redefine what "moderating" means. We can take training courses and...
    Person A: This is really not helpful.
    Person C: I am interested in reinventing my paradigm. Tell me more.
    Person A: Seriously guys, seriously. Focus.
    Person D: Let's discuss the semantics of paradigm reinvention.
    Person A: FUUUUUUUUU!!!

    You might not think this is how the conversation is going, but read back up a bit. A number of people presented a very solid, concrete problem reported to them, and within short order the conversation was drifting off on a tangent to discussing type 1 vs type 2 safe spaces.

    There's that saying about how conversations don't work when it's just two people waiting for their turn to talk, rather than listening, and something like that mechanic is happening here. I know you mean well, but rather than really discussing things with the other side, your focus is shifting inward to your personal theories about reinventing community management, which then draws others to focusing on that as well. Meanwhile, the people with the actual problem get talked over, and disengage from the conversation.

    I know this probably comes across as snarky, insulting and dismissive, and I apologize for that. But not only is this a kind of "not really listening" IMO, it adds a tremendous amount of white noise to the conversation, making it that much harder to REALLY talk about the issue.

    It's like trying to talk to someone as they rapidly float off into the theoretical clouds. It makes one want to reach for a nail gun. ;)
  • edited
    @garethf Regarding step 1 (as in figuring out what the problem is).

    I'm quoting a couple people from this thread first for a refresher. These are just quotes that pertain to hostility on the forums. There have been other problems mentioned here (like the lack of feedback on certain kinds of threads or the quality of the feedback for certain kinds of projects).

    (There is a little bit of context missing from some of these snippets, but I think the general points come across)
    dammit said:
    Also, @dislekcia points out that he was not admin on the forums during this time. He was, however, still on the forums and many many many people have said to him, to me, and to other people that the reason they have left the forums is because of him.
    ...
    I'm also going to add that, most people that have dealt in person @dislekcia have found he's fine in person - and in fact can be quite helpful. I've also experienced this. But we're talking specifically about the forum, I believe.
    TheFuntastic said:
    It is my personal belief that the majority of the damage was done by everyone hashing it out and engaging in open debate (warfare). I've seen this culminate in resentment and contempt building building up between the members of this community to the detriment of fostering a healthy community spirit of collaboration.
    Nandrew said:
    Most of our conversation patterns currently revolve around force, shaming, othering, and manipulation to get what we want.
    garethf said:
    Maybe if you leap in to tell everyone who starts a discussion about engine programming they're "doing indie game dev wrong/leading inexperienced devs astray", maybe people feel alienated.
    garethf said:
    To put it bluntly, there's a general feeling that there's a Cape Town clique.

    People feel like there's a group of devs who are friendly with each other IRL and share certain views on the big issues, who reinforce each other in making dissenting voices feel unwelcome.

    If someone gets bashed, berated, shut down or issued warnings for not having the right opinions, and call bullshit, their friends step in to tell the basher that they totally did the right thing and that other dude was totally in the wrong and good on you for fighting the good fight against the forces that would totally bring the forum culture down.
    Karuji said:
    A lot of the problems that we are seeing come from systemic flaws from when MGSA itself was founded: we tried to do too much while the forum's culture had a definite zeitgeist to it, and it was very much in the vein of Game.Dev, but Game.Dev was simply a community, and we also tried to take on the role of an industry body under the same banner.

    One thing I would like to point out is that I feel the community has felt like a much better place in these past few months due to the increase role of visible moderation by @dislekcia, however given that the moderation is visible under his nom de plume it might be viewed as being hostile by some people.
    roguecode said:
    I am literally worried about the response I would get to some of the stuff I've wanted to post before. And that isn't normal, is it?
    I did get feedback back from outside the forums. And I'm waiting on one other response.

    The feedback echoed what @garethf, @Nandrew and @TheFuntastic said. That heated debates on these forums, with participants refusing to concede any points or seek agreement, have lead to feelings of alienation.

    The point @garethf made, that game programmers in particular have had their views rejected by game designers, and subsequently a lot of game programmers have left, was also echoed. In my mind this falling out comes down to the previous problem pointed out, that arguments were engaged in as battles to be won.
    Thanked by 1TheFuntastic
  • There are many emerging Game Development Groups, some can be found on meetup.com, others can be found on Facebook, I know that there are a few more then this community would like to admit...Game Development communities are growing very quickly and soon the kingdom will fall...Let's just be honest...Developers are not growing in this community because they cannot network on these forums in the same way that they can with the many unregulated Facebook pages and the many other benefits of social media networking. It is obvious that the owners of Make Games SA are still trying to drive these forums as the focus of the community...But in the end of the day, all this is, is a forum... So why not join one of the many emerging communities..Such us a place where no decisions are made for the community and value add only happens via a community voting poll. You have the freedom to leverage off of social networking to promote your product or service. The answer lies here, http://southafricangamedevelopers.com ...The fact that so many members feel unwelcome here is because the policing of the threads is week..Make Games SA does not really seem to bother with this in the same way that other communities do... For example, in my group, if you break the rules, you are kicked, that is it..We do not tolerate any discouragement or insulting of any company, developer or student...It is just simply not tolerated. Political discussions are band...because this almost always leads to problems within the community...And what makes things worse, is that these threads get locked when the leaders don't like what the community is saying. Not deleted, locked...so that the leaders always have the final word...That is just not fair!
  • @Julian I am in no way a committee member of MGSA but I am active on their forums. Your message in my personal opinion is seen as tho you have not done any research about your facts. This is indeed not the fastest growing group but it is certainly not just going to vanish into thin air because another group is bigger.
    Developers are not growing in this community because they cannot network on these forums in the same way that they can with the many unregulated Facebook pages and the many other benefits of social media networking
    That is untrue. I can work here much better than on a facebook group because my posts are easy to track where on facebook it will easily dissapear to the bottom and be difficult to find again. There is indeed other benefits from a facebook group that this website does not have but does not make this worse, only different.
    The fact that so many members feel unwelcome here is because the policing of the threads is week
    I assume you are saying the policing is *weak and not week. I think the policing on the forums are good but people sometimes take offence to it when they should not.
    For example, in my group, if you break the rules, you are kicked
    From my personal experience you kick people that do not agree with you even if they obey the rules. Please explain to me why I was kicked from your group without breaking the rules. Was it because I did not agree with you 100%?
    Political discussions are band
    Not sure why you keep using the word "band" instead of "banned". Unless of course you mean a music band or a arm band.
    Not deleted, locked...so that the leaders always have the final word...That is just not fair!
    Usually the topics get locked to stop further fighting on the topic. I have seen a topic or two get deleted in my time when it was REALLY bad.

    You must be careful of being a hypocrite because as far as I remember you banned me from your facebook group without any reason as to what I did wrong to receive the ban. I also received no warning so basically the "leader" had the final word in kicking me without even informing me why. That is not fair.
  • edited
    *removed post voluntarily*

    @dislekcia made a great point about personal attacks below, which inexcusably is what my post was. It was inappropriate and comments such as that are not constructive and have no place on MGSA, no matter what my feelings may have been on be subject.

    Apologies to all.
    Thanked by 2FanieG SUGBOERIE
  • edited
    @EvanGreenwood - Thanks for taking my advice to heart, I appreciate the effort.

    Regarding this:
    The feedback echoed what @garethf, @Nandrew and @TheFuntastic said. That heated debates on these forums, with participants refusing to concede any points or seek agreement, have lead to feelings of alienation.
    That is perhaps phrased more diplomatically than I would have put it. It's not, in my view, "participants" generally. There are certain problem personalities, and then a certain cliquishness that buffers those personalities from any perception of wrong-doing or need for correction.

    This is why I don't think @Nandrew's ideas about conflict resolution resources will be particularly effective. If the perception is that those problematic personalities are already doing a swell job, then there's little need to pull back and engage in critique of their behavior.

    It's like my example with the HR department above. If a specific manager's behavior is problematic, and the HR department thinks that the solution is to hash out a core value statement or conflict behavior guideline pamphlet and send it to the entire company in the hopes that the problematic individual will realize it's regarding their behavior and take it to heart, they're going to be sorely disappointed.

    That manager needs an intervention, directly. They're not magically going to 'get it' from broad statements and vague general principles stated poetically. They need to be sat down and talked to, not by the employees who they've angered, but by their peers in management who are disturbed by the number of employees who are reporting frustration.

    You might think "well, that's what's happening here" but it's like a fire where a few embers have been lit, that is now being smothered in cotton wool.

    I appreciate your efforts to keep the fire going, though. :)

    ps - no, the employee analogy isn't perfect, but I hope we can all see the point and not get bogged down in semantics.

    pps - in this analogy, I'm one of the employees. I don't have the necessary community influence needed to stage the intervention, I can only report on the problem as I see it. If I can't rally people who have said influence to see and act on the problem directly, I'll be written off as just another angry bastard making unnecessary waves in your harmonious pond.
    Thanked by 2dammit quintond
  • I definitely don't want to snuff anything out, and I've probably had more than enough of a say here now.

    I'll wait around until I can add something else relevant. ;)
  • Julian said:
    There are many emerging Game Development Groups, some can be found on meetup.com, others can be found on Facebook, I know that there are a few more then this community would like to admit...Game Development communities are growing very quickly and soon the kingdom will fall...
    There are 2795 registered MGSA users. But that's not a useful statistic, active users are more important: Over the last month, MGSA has had 56 active users, 88 discussions created and 681 comments made on those discussions. During that month, MGSA has has 64825 page views (I believe that's unique users per day). The forum users have produced 6 events, finished a competition, organised an international showcase of local games and celebrated numerous developer achievements during that time.
    Julian said:
    Let's just be honest...Developers are not growing in this community because they cannot network on these forums in the same way that they can with the many unregulated Facebook pages and the many other benefits of social media networking.
    That's an interesting assertion. How do you know developers are not growing? Or, more importantly, how do you know that MGSA is *preventing* developers from growing? The MGSA surveys of the local game industry show that the industry is indeed growing and that developers that participate in the MGSA grow too. Anecdotally I can trace back positive impacts from MGSA (and Game.Dev) activities before that. Then there's also the advocacy angle, which has produced numerous resources for developers over the years - everything from sponsored competitions, to international attention for local games, to invites to international conferences, to better deals for devs distributing their games and networking directly with platform owners overseas. And then of course, there's the growth of IESA to continue that advocacy in more effective ways.

    All of the benefits of social networking are, of course, available to anyone who wants them.
    Julian said:
    It is obvious that the owners of Make Games SA are still trying to drive these forums as the focus of the community...But in the end of the day, all this is, is a forum...
    Those achievements that I mentioned up there are not things MGSA is trying to claim credit for, but the results of shared forum user activity. We're just facilitating communication and collaboration with (as you put it) just a forum. And a lot of work.
    Julian said:
    So why not join one of the many emerging communities..Such us a place where no decisions are made for the community and value add only happens via a community voting poll.
    This doesn't seem to be true. Decisions were made for the ZAGD community on a whole host of things - Everything from the name, to random rules for game jams, to which posts are deleted and which posters are banned. In fact, the polling you hold up as participatory has no coherent system governing how long polls run for, what constitutes a decision-making quorum or even a basic process to allow members to question or add to the options provided in a poll.

    In fact, questioning how a decision was made via such an arbitrary length poll that didn't give me the opportunity to vote was what seems to have gotten me banned from ZAGD. Although that's merely conjecture on my part, no explanation has been given as to why that happened. Nor was there a vote to ban anyone.
    Julian said:
    You have the freedom to leverage off of social networking to promote your product or service. The answer lies here, http://southafricangamedevelopers.com ...The fact that so many members feel unwelcome here is because the policing of the threads is week..
    That's interesting, given that many people who feel unwelcome here seem to be pointing out ways to *weaken* moderation and are reacting directly to strong control, why would you assume that weak moderation is the issue?
    Julian said:
    Make Games SA does not really seem to bother with this in the same way that other communities do... For example, in my group, if you break the rules, you are kicked, that is it..We do not tolerate any discouragement or insulting of any company, developer or student...It is just simply not tolerated. Political discussions are band...because this almost always leads to problems within the community...And what makes things worse, is that these threads get locked when the leaders don't like what the community is saying. Not deleted, locked...so that the leaders always have the final word...That is just not fair!
    There's a lot of logic and consideration that goes into moderating a forum and a community, it's not easy, nor is it a personal playground for me (despite what people seem to think). A locked thread allows that content to remain on the forum, often a thread was only derailed towards the end of an otherwise useful discussion and it doesn't make sense to delete the entire thread and lose that info. A locked thread can also serve as a warning that certain behaviors are not acceptable, this sort of warning flag is a major part of attempting to produce a safer space online. Locked threads can also be re-opened should people wish to continue discussions in a more positive manner, this has happened here often - if the threads had been deleted, that wouldn't have been possible.

    Discouragement and insults aren't great, you're right. Those are not tolerated on MGSA either, although I will point out that "discouragement" is a very broad wrongdoing and that sometimes people get discouraged either by the realities of game development in SA, or by things that weren't intended to be discouraging. That's why this forum specifically frowns on personal attacks, because those are easier to both identify in intention and avoid in future. Also, users may honestly make mistakes and/or learn to operate within the rules, so banning them outright instantly is not the best course of action. The current 3-active-strikes warning system is a community-mediated structure that stemmed from a similar conversation to this one.

    As for the summary taboo on "politics"... Well. That definitely hinders the growth of developers - if they're unable to talk about or be made aware of local opportunities and effort that IESA is making available to support all local developers, that's obviously not in the interests of growth. But perhaps "growth", like "politics" is a specially defined term whose meanings can shift as needed.

    It's interesting that you point out a seeming lack of fairness here when you're still able to participate (constructively or not is up to you), know exactly what to avoid doing thanks to the warning you received AND are seemingly defending your own desire to summarily remove anyone from your own community at any time with zero transparency or oversight. I'm not sure you understand what people are upset about here ;)

    But don't worry, give it some time and I'm sure people will start hating you personally for being visibly in charge of something online too. You don't even really need to ban people either! At some point you'll say or do something that someone else will latch onto as the reason you're horrifically evil for ever, no matter what you do subsequently. Good luck!
  • @Julian: Why the recruitment drive? Most of the active users here have already joined ZAGD on FB. If you're asking for more participation, that's a very different thing and something you need to address within your own community space. If you're upset that people are participating here and not on ZAGD, you have a couple of choices:

    You can either try to compete and outdo MGSA as a place for the sorts of things MGSA already does (which is what you currently appear to be doing with the meetups and jams and forum, etc) or you can try to do things that MGSA doesn't do well and be the place that people go for that instead. I know that I much prefer the second option!
  • I've been meaning to post something for a while now, but have only got round to it now. I just want to step in here and say somethings;

    1) The committee wasn't whittled down to 1 due to @dislekcia. At the last formal committee meeting only 2 members had actually resigned. As @dislekcia mentioned, it was decided in that final meeting that he would be in charge of running the forums and I'd act as care-taker for the "organisation" while we transitioned into the paid membership structure. I was meant to organise an AGM to hand-over but it never actually happened for a variety of reasons (see below)

    2) The failure to hold an AGM and elect a new committee is solely my fault, but bear in mind that at the time we where still grappling with how to manage the change to having "paid" members, and then with the formation of IESA it got side-tracked. In fairness though, no one (except @dammit) actually followed up on when an AGM would happen. I very much got the impression that people didn't care (or at least people where happy enough with the status quo that no one really pressed for it to happen), and with other things going on in my life I just didn't have the time to organise an AGM for an organisation that I wasn't sure was going to exist (see below).

    3) This thread didn't get any further responses: http://makegamessa.com/discussion/comment/39374/#Comment_39374 . What do you want to happen to MGSA? As much as I try to be guided by the community, when I get no responses I make decisions which I think are for the best, because sometimes it just can't wait. For what it is worth I still think these questions need to be answered:

    1. Does MGSA need a formal committee structure that is currently in place? Or should it move to a simpler structure?
    2. What is the focus of MGSA going to be?
    3. Does it make sense to track "membership" beyond who is on the forums?

    With no response from the community, it has been left up to me to decide how to handle this. My initial thinking was to leave MGSA be, let the active community member take the reigns and let it continue as is. After talking to a number of people though many thought this was the wrong approach. My current thinking (based on the limited feedback) is to dissolve MGSA the organisation and transfer the assets (what little of them there are) to IESA. I've spoken to a fair few people and the general consensus seems to be that this is what should happen. Make Games as the brand and forum would still exist, but it would be paid for by IESA (and to an extent controlled by it). Perhaps the more important question (for me at least) is what happens to the legal entity that is MGSA? There is a long string of wool that I've laid down (with good intentions) that either someone else needs to look after or we need to start rolling it back in.

    Lastly, @dislekcia and I don't actually have any real authority beyond the control that we've been granted. If you don't like what either of us are doing, run an AGM and elect a new committee, we are only in this position because, it appears, no one else wants to do what we do. The constitution of MGSA still exists and we are bound by it.
  • . At the last formal committee meeting only 2 members had actually resigned.
    And their reason's for resignation had absolutely nothing to do with @dislekcia?
    Thanked by 1quintond
  • I'm not really a big fan of "management by commitee".

    MGSA as a concept is something that everyone wants to get behind and be part of, but there seems to be the notion that it needs to be "managed". Due to this, unfortunately, the management of it falls under a select few who actually cares about "managing" it, and inadvertently imposing their idealistic style on it, while the rest of us just want to be part of it in our own unique ways.

    While I'd actually prefer not to really get into this conversation, I'd like to propose a possible solution that may work (or may not depending on your perspective).

    Why not just split the MGSA online presence into multiple formats. (1) Corporate website, (2) Knowledge sharing portal where it is all about the goals of making games and the rules are clearly defined up front, and (3) a proper forum where it is about community, open conversation and discussion; and everyone has an equal voice.

    I realise that a lot has gone into developing MGSA to where it is today, but it is simply not scaling well. And honestly, I don't buy the "making it a safe place" policing model. You can't be inclusive and exclusive at the same time, and it is a complete fallacy to bracket everything that doesn't suit a specific world view as toxic or offensive.
  • edited
    garethf said:
    This is why I don't think @Nandrew's ideas about conflict resolution resources will be particularly effective. If the perception is that those problematic personalities are already doing a swell job, then there's little need to pull back and engage in critique of their behavior.
    So I don't want to speak for @Nandrew here (but I'm going to, I hope I don't misspeak too terribly). But he's been witness to these forums these past few years, and I'd be incredibly surprised if there weren't specific people he had in mind that could benefit the most from conflict resolution training, and conversely, the rest of the forums benefit the most from those specific people receiving that training.

    I doubt that @Nandrew believes we are all equally responsible for the feelings of hostility this forum has generated. Obviously you @garethf don't believe that. I don't believe that (and I include myself in those more to blame).

    I do think @Nandrew is proposing that the whole forums embrace a conflict resolution culture so that A ) we don't have to name names and shame specific people, and B ) because if we all are good at conflict resolution then there will be less need to place power in the hands of a few moderators (and perhaps we can have a community a bit more like @farsicon would like, one that can be self-governing).

    Of course I'm speaking about @Nandrew's intentions, which I don't actually know. But I expect he's seen some of what you've seen @garethf and I expect he would hold some of the same people accountable should he be pressed.

    I know I said in the opening post of this thread that "I think the Make Games SA is doing really great right now". Well I'm still excited about the recent competition that happened and the AWESOME creativity that came out of it...

    But now it seems to me that at least part of the reason the forums are more peaceful is because a significant number of developers were squeezed out permanently, and so I can't say I think Make Games SA is doing well at all.

    I got a bit more feedback from outside the forums (which I'm going to try paraphrase, and I hope the message stays true):

    Again the point was echoed that game programmers were ostracized, and that there was a ganging up on the part of game designers (the phrase "ganging up" wasn't actually used, and I don't think anyone is making the claim that it was a coordinated effort, but, regardless of the motives, in effect there was a ganging up).

    A new point was brought up that the forums are structured and presented in a way that favours game designers. There isn't a good place to talk about game programming for instance. There isn't a good way to post programming work, it doesn't exactly fall under "Projects", or "Portfolios". There isn't really a good way to post work if you aren't the originator of projects on Make Games SA. I'm paraphrasing heavily, but Make Games is probably big enough to dedicate space, both in real life and on the forums, to game programming. (And I personally think we could be doing better for art as well, and perhaps writing?).

    The point was echoed that the game design point of view is being privileged in general (over the needs and points of views of other disciplines).

    And the point was echoed that @dislekcia in particular needs to respect the point of view of others better and apply more tact.

    (It fucking sucks writing that last point, I consider @dislekcia a good friend and this thread must difficult for him, but I'm trying to relate this accurately)
    Thanked by 1Nandrew
  • edited
    Again the point was echoed that game programmers were ostracized, and that there was a ganging up on the part of game designers (the phrase "ganging up" wasn't actually used, and I don't think anyone is making the claim that it was a coordinated effort, but, regardless of the motives, in effect there was a ganging up).
    I'm curious, do game artists feel similarly ganged up on?
    A new point was brought up that the forums are structured and presented in a way that favours game designers. There isn't a good place to talk about game programming for instance. There isn't a good way to post programming work, it doesn't exactly fall under "Projects", or "Portfolios".
    What does a good way to post programming work look like, for reference? Is there a specific reason that a project can't be a program? I'm honestly not sure why someone can't post a programming portfolio, for instance... I suspect that the biggest reason that this is not done is because the pattern hasn't been established. On their own, the tags "project" and "portfolio" don't exclude anything - they were expressly chosen when the community debated tags and categories to be discipline-agnostic.

    I mean, the code tag could be a lot better, but wouldn't we need programmers to help fix that? ;)
    There isn't really a good way to post work if you aren't the originator of projects on Make Games SA. I'm paraphrasing heavily, but Make Games is probably big enough to dedicate space, both in real life and on the forums, to game programming. (And I personally think we could be doing better for art as well, and perhaps writing?).
    Again, the complaint that projects have to be originated by posters seems to be one of precedence rather than impossibility. @Squidcor used to post about work that was being done at Tasty Poison that wasn't specifically "his". RetroEpic seems to be doing fine posting about the new Afghanistan '11 project, even though that's technically owned and originated by @JohanNagel.

    The design pattern for MGSA's forum structure has always been to try and avoid specialisation as much as possible, but if something starts taking over content-wise, a new section gets made for it. Thus, if lots of game programming-specific posts started appearing on the forum, then they'd merit whatever structures it became apparent that they needed. That's what happened with Audio, and that seems to be working fine.

    I don't understand why game programming specifically is impossible to post about, in fact, there seems to be quite a lot of content around programming on this forum in general, it's just never warranted special treatment.
    The point was echoed that the game design point of view is being privileged in general (over the needs and points of views of other disciplines).
    Did you get any explanation of what this looks like or is caused by? The idea that one specific element of game development is privileged is interesting, how does that work? They're all needed to make games, after all.

    I worry that everything that isn't art, audio or programming is being lumped in as one huge "game design" topic, when in reality we have lots of threads about game production, project management, marketing, release timing, announcements, etc. There are very few pure game design threads, just like there are few pure programming threads, for similar reasons: It's hard to separate individual disciplines out that cleanly in the reality of game development.
    And the point was echoed that @dislekcia in particular needs to respect the point of view of others better and apply more tact.

    (It fucking sucks writing that last point, I consider @dislekcia a good friend and this thread must difficult for him, but I'm trying to relate this accurately)
    ... Look, I'm already aware that my point of view on forums and moderation is basically ignored, 10 years of successfully running a very different community doesn't seem to count for shit when it's easy for anyone that has a problem to say "You're running it wrong!" and thus dismiss anything I have to say.

    I'm already the bathwater in this discussion.
  • edited
    farsicon said:
    Why not just split the MGSA online presence into multiple formats. (1) Corporate website, (2) Knowledge sharing portal where it is all about the goals of making games and the rules are clearly defined up front, and (3) a proper forum where it is about community, open conversation and discussion; and everyone has an equal voice.
    1. This has already stalled 3 times. The current hope is that with IESA backing, there will be budget to spend on securing someone's time to produce a site.

    2. The forum is a knowledge sharing community already, by design. Building a wiki or something similar is beyond the scope of the MGSA and so far has been attempted multiple times and never worked. I apologise for introducing the term "knowledge repository" earlier in the thread, a "knowledge community" is much closer to the goal.

    3. The forum is already a knowledge community. Open conversation and discussion of game development topics/info within the rules is already possible. MGSA was never intended to be an untargeted social forum - those already exist and the people running them do a good job keeping them roughly civil. That being said, "everyone having an equal voice" is not a reality online - the status quo favors very specific kinds of speech by very specific kinds of people. To combat this, it is necessary to introduce counterbalances and create safe spaces where the status quo is actively challenged in order to be welcoming to those whose voices aren't currently equal in society. It's also necessary to work very hard combating the negativity that tends to drive online discussions - MGSA has a better track record for positive outcomes and interactions than most online communities I've been part of (if it didn't it wouldn't have survived and grown like it has) and I feel like this is being lost in the discussion so far.
    farsicon said:
    I realise that a lot has gone into developing MGSA to where it is today, but it is simply not scaling well. And honestly, I don't buy the "making it a safe place" policing model. You can't be inclusive and exclusive at the same time, and it is a complete fallacy to bracket everything that doesn't suit a specific world view as toxic or offensive.
    Would you mind explaining how you see the forum failing to scale?

    I've already addressed safe space policies above and why they exist. Please note that fostering inclusion is not about trying to exclude others (but I can understand how those that are already included by default might feel that they're being excluded when their default position is challenged) and it's not about branding things as toxic or offensive. That happens with specific pieces of content, yes, but that's an extreme end of a spectrum and only happens in extreme cases of discrimination. Welcoming more kinds of people does not mean that those already here are less welcome.
  • edited
    @dislekcia I'm not sure if this is the place for people to be justifying their complaints. I worry that that opens the door for arguments that the complaints are misplaced, or arguments that actions on the part of the perpetrators were justifiable and shouldn't be held against them, and that might benefit someone, but it wouldn't benefit those making the complaints.

    That said, I'm not suggesting that developers here shouldn't explain themselves if they feel inclined, especially if I misrepresented someone (then obviously please correct me, here, or in private). I just don't want a debate about which grievances are justifiable, and, if I'm honest, I'm a little afraid to be poking at some of these old wounds.

    That said, I might be totally wrong? Is explaining why you feel alienated or excluded part of the process? It seems like it isn't, but I'm uncertain about how to go about conflict resolution...

    (I'm also sorry if I'm saying what things can and can't be discussed, I know I have no authority to do so. If I'm making this more difficult please let me know).
  • Wouldn't these discussions be much better if it was done over skype/teamspeak? I feel that so much more input could be given in a positive manner if a online meeting was held with the committee members and the community on how to resolve the issues. That way it would be easier to explain yourselves, justify your thoughts and also allow everyone to hear the tone of voice used in conversations instead of here on the forums where it is difficult to understand each others emotions.
  • edited
    @EvanGreenwood - sure, and if that's the case, if what you're trying to do, @Nandrew, is move to make the changes you see need making without making particular individuals feel like this is a witch hunt, I really do understand and respect that.

    But as I mentioned above, I don't think trying to speak in generalities and hoping the problematic individuals will Take The Hint will work. People who don't see their behavior as a problem generally read the generalities and think "this is great, I totally need to teach this to newbs!". They don't see it as something they desperately need to take on board.

    That's just been my experience, dealing with people. And sure, that's just my opinion, and anyone can disagree with that. But that is my opinion, so that's why I am pushing for a more specific intervention, not just an outlining of broad principles. It's likely to be hard and painful, but I think it's necessary.

    And I think that people here are seeing it's necessary, and taking that difficult action, so I'm feeling pretty hopeful! And I'd pretty much written off hope that things would change, so that's pretty cool!

    To add to the feedback you've mentioned, Evan, I'd like to say that, from my perspective, the frustration comes from having conversations with people who Always Know Better.

    People come to forums for different reasons. An experienced professional doesn't come to the forum for the same reasons as a wide-eyed student. We're not here to receive advice on making prototypes with gamemaker and juicing our jump animation. We're mostly here to enjoy a sense of community, talk shop with like-minded individuals, swap war stories and pass on our knowledge/mentor.

    The game engine programmer threads are one example, but there have been others. One I remember recently that I found frustrating, I've got 4.5 years experience working in digital gambling game development and 4 years making my own indie game. And if I make a comment like "there's a huge amount of overlap between the fields, as careers go, they're kissing cousins" I have to spend like a day defending my position from people who don't have the same experience but Just Know Better.

    Like I said, experienced professionals come to forums for different reasons to newbs. By definition, most of us have better things to do with our time than post on forums. In that scenario, why the hell should I bother?

    Chatting face to face in a bar, the conversation would go like this:

    Person A : I've found that gambling game development and video game development are very similar.
    Person B : Oh? I've worked in both and my experience was very different.
    Person A : Yeah? Interesting, let's compare and contrast our experiences!
    (Later)
    Person B : Well, that was interesting! Great chat, it's interesting to hear different viewpoints!
    Person A : Yeah, that was great! Hugs and ice cream all round!


    How it goes on MGSA:

    Person A : I've found that gambling game development and video game development are very similar.
    Person B : You're wrong. So wrongity-wrong-wrong. Let's argue for 3 pages.
    Person A : Merciful Death, take me now!


    So yeah. To isolate the general problem from any particular individual or subject matter, it's (IMO) trying to share your experiences and expertise as someone with a lot of experience to share, and butting heads with people who Always Know Better And Who Are Willing To Argue Until You Quit In Frustration.
Sign In or Register to comment.