test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Forum Question

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Which person on the team is responsible for the Klingon Forum or the faction to say the least? I would like to know who to PM daily a summary of all the new thoughts that come up. Thanks in advance.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    You're welcome to collect feedback on your own, but the community team is already collating feedback to report to the team. I'd work with them if you'd like to call out something specific.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Careful, Marketing might ban you for asking for such things. This is the first Game forum I have seen that has a marketing dude policing the forums. It's also the first one I have seen that abuses it's passionate player base when it requests to be heard.

    example:

    http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=169375
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Every forum has guidelines. Operate outside them, and there are consequences for those actions. That's not really related to this thread, though. Let's focus on the OP's question, which we've answered.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Rekhan wrote:
    Every forum has guidelines. Operate outside them, and there are consequences for those actions. That's not really related to this thread, though. Let's focus on the OP's question, which we've answered.


    That's awesome Rekhan...

    Any chance we can get some of that love in this thread?

    Thanks...

    Saith
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Rekhan wrote:
    Every forum has guidelines. Operate outside them, and there are consequences for those actions. That's not really related to this thread, though. Let's focus on the OP's question, which we've answered.

    Why are you still here then? You (and marketing) have personally been responsible for posts that have led to most of the angst and anger that have caused these forums to turn to TRIBBLE.

    Seriously, if we could vote to eliminate one department of Cryptic, it'd be marketing, no contest.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Why are you still here then? You (and marketing) have personally been responsible for posts that have led to most of the angst and anger that have caused these forums to turn to TRIBBLE.

    Seriously, if we could vote to eliminate one department of Cryptic, it'd be marketing, no contest.

    * CaptainQuirk hears the sound of the Banhammer powering up through the vacuum of space *

    ALL POWER TO SHIELDS!!!
    BRACE FOR IMPACT!!!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Hey Guys -

    Seriously. Please.

    Would you rather Rekhan NOT post at all or if he did (assuming rekhan is a he) that it be like "Well I am the marketing dude and you are dumb so buzz off"?

    Now before you go off and flame me, I think the Marketing Dept has made some collassal cluster fudges. And I mean colossal. But to be honest, we all TRIBBLE up. What sets us apart is our ability to get back up and continue on in a positive way.

    So far I think Rekhan is starting to get it. And frankly I like it when he posts. Least I can see the devil I know as opposed to one I don't. :) Might not always agree (in fact I think I have referred to his department as the failed used car sales team a time or 2 before) but least he tries.

    Blakinik
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Blakinik wrote:
    Might not always agree (in fact I think I have referred to his department as the failed used car sales team a time or 2 before) but least he tries.

    Blakinik

    That gave me a good chuckle, Blak. Thanks. <3
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Why are you still here then? You (and marketing) have personally been responsible for posts that have led to most of the angst and anger that have caused these forums to turn to TRIBBLE.

    Seriously, if we could vote to eliminate one department of Cryptic, it'd be marketing, no contest.

    he is still here cause he has a job here.
    question is: why are you still here?

    seriously...if there is one type (catagory) of poster we could eliminate it would be instigators like you, no contest.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Blakinik wrote:
    Hey Guys -

    Seriously. Please.

    Would you rather Rekhan NOT post at all

    Quite frankly. Yes Rekhan is not CS, he's not a Dev. He's a marketing person and shouldn't be policing the boards. He should stick to posting news on the website and marketing related information on the forums.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Quite frankly. Yes Rekhan is not CS, he's not a Dev. He's a marketing person and shouldn't be policing the boards. He should stick to posting news on the website and marketing related information on the forums.

    Well, you do have a point there.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Quite frankly. Yes Rekhan is not CS, he's not a Dev. He's a marketing person and shouldn't be policing the boards. He should stick to posting news on the website and marketing related information on the forums.

    The threads required moderation. Who cares which orange name moderates? If the discussion had been an actual discussion, it would still be an open thread.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    The threads required moderation. Who cares which orange name moderates? If the discussion had been an actual discussion, it would still be an open thread.

    Well, in all fairness, if the discussion that is being moderated gives an implication towards what some may consider to be undesirable marketing decisions, then if the one doing the moderating is from marketing, it presents the image that marketing simply would rather silence those who have a complaint about them rather than fairly addressing that complaint.

    This is why thread locks should only be handed down by those specifically designated as moderators or community relations agents. It prevents the perception of bias on the part of the company.

    Now having said that, we shouls be matue enough to police OURSELVES, using rational thought when we post, taking care to avoid saying things that would warrant moderation. But many in this community have made it clear to Cryptic and everyone else that they would rather just blast away with the insults and disrespectful statements to Cryptic and to their fellow community members. And that may account for the no-holds-barred moderation practices of Cryptic in its entirety, resulting in any Cryptic employee taking on moderation powers.

    So realy, in as much as some of us try to insist that Cryptic has brought our negative reactions on themselves, WE have in fact brough Cryptic's retaliatory actions on ourselves.

    Now if someone presents their arguments in a rational and respectful manner, citing undeniable evidence for their standpoint, then as long as they obey the rules, then their posts should not be moderated, and they should not receive disciplinary actions, even if the subject matter paints cryptic, in whole or in part, in a negative light. It is my honest and humble opinion that it is Cryptic's responsibility to address the concerns expressed, and that the arbitrary locking of a thread or the banning of its posters is akin to sweeping the concern under a rug.

    The forum rules exist to make us accountable for what we say. But the fact that we are Cryptic's customers should make them accountable to us when we voice a concern.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Well, in all fairness, if the discussion that is being moderated gives an implication towards what some may consider to be undesirable marketing decisions, then if the one doing the moderating is from marketing, it presents the image that marketing simply would rather silence those who have a complaint about them rather than fairly addressing that complaint.

    This is why thread locks should only be handed down by those specifically designated as moderators or community relations agents. It prevents the perception of bias on the part of the company.

    Thats pretty much how I feel.

    Unfortunately, as far as policing ourselves, some people lack the wisdom to know when to know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em, know when to walk away and know when to run. ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    sovereign wrote: »
    Well, you do have a point there.

    not really, its not up to us how cryptic distribute their man power and what roles each person is assigned.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    not really, its not up to us how cryptic distribute their man power and what roles each person is assigned.

    No, its not up to us, but:
    if the one doing the moderating is from marketing, it presents the image that marketing simply would rather silence those who have a complaint about them rather than fairly addressing that complaint.

    This is why thread locks should only be handed down by those specifically designated as moderators or community relations agents. It prevents the perception of bias on the part of the company.

    This is a very valid point.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    sovereign wrote: »
    Read:



    This is a very valid point.

    i did read it, and i disagree completely.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    not really, its not up to us how cryptic distribute their man power and what roles each person is assigned.

    You're right... It isn't up to us.

    And I really don't care who does the moderation, so long as the one doing it DOESN'T take a biased standpoint. Moderators, by definition of the very word, must maintain a position of neutrality. And when the person doing the moderation has a vested interest in the subject matter being discussed, he cannot in all good conscience maintain a fair, balanced and impartial standpoint. And even if he does manage to avoid actually taking a contrary viewpoint, many of those who witness the moderation cannot help but PERCEIVE a biased reaction whether it is there or not.

    The thing is that Cryptic Marketing has thus far managed to do little more than whip many in this community into a frenzy due to blunder after blunder. And when they get called to the carpet over it, they don't even bother to consider that they have committed any sort of wrong-doing. In fact, Ivan insinuated that WE are some how the bad guys by playing the victim and saying he was upset that we didn't like the video work that was used to advertise the game... You know... the ad that made it look like we could command space battles from the bridge of our ship, thus maklng STO LOOK more like Star Trek than it actuallys is? And I don't have to go into the whole exclusives fiasco...

    So yes... a person representing the group which many in this community feel are responsible for most of STO's non-systemic problems acting as a moderator on issues that touch on perceived bad decisions made by Cryptic (many of the decisions being made by marketing) and locking said discussions without fairly addressing the concerns IS presenting the appearance of bias. And whether that bias is real or imagined, the appearance is still there.

    And because many in the community is "out for marketing's blood," so to speak, Marketing needs to fade into the background, not step up front and center and get in the community's face.

    This is just one man's opinion...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I'd like to see the MArketing Department fiired.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    i dont think the marketing department needs to be fired, its the development department ; )
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Pan420 wrote:
    i dont think the marketing department needs to be fired, its the development department ; )

    We all have ideas for how the game should be, but I think that's a little extreme. I do believe Executive Producer is not the only position I would have restaffed though.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Marketing doesn't need to be fired. They just need to have their practices streamlined by management so that their activities are invisible to this community. The only people who need to be affected by marketing are the potential customers watching or reading ads.

    Development is doing an awesome job considering what they have to work with. They are not a large team, and in the six months since the game launched, they have delivered more in-game material than most other MMO developers out there. They are ramping up to start the weekly episodic mission thing, which I believe will be a precursor to User Generated Content. We've got a new executive producer who has made it a point to be as open and transparent about what is going on than I've seen ANY developer be. The game is on the right track, and we have the right sort of person in the engineer's compartment.

    New Vertiform City here we come! ;)

    I couldn't resist that. :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    We've got a new executive producer who has made it a point to be as open and transparent about what is going on than I've seen ANY developer be.

    I agree with this from a Federation perspective. From the Klingon perspective, it's still smoke and mirrors.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Creovex wrote: »
    I agree with this from a Federation perspective. From the Klingon perspective, it's still smoke and mirrors.

    Well, in all fairness, he did reverse the planned implementation of the third player faction until the Klingon content is balanced with the Federation content.

    What will really tell the tale will be how the Klingon faction is handled going forward beyond Season 2.0.

    I am in agreement with the sentement that the Federation has been given enough for the time being. It is time for focus to be put on bringing the Klingon Faction to equal footing content-wise. After that, for every Federation mission that is developed, there needs to be a Klingon mission developed, and they need to release at the same time. For every gameplay feature that goes in to one faction, the other faction needs one too. Updates need to be delayed until something for both factions can be implemented...

    Either that or shift to a one update per month and devote an entire month's development to one faction, with the Klingons going first on the rotation because they have had to wait so long... In fact it should really go like this:

    Klingon Month
    Klingon Month
    Federation Month

    until the Klingon content is on par with Federation content.

    And when the Romulan faction goes in, it should go:

    Romulan Month
    Klingon Month
    Federation Month

    The UGC, weekly episodic missions, and a number of sandbox elements need to be implemented to ensure that there is always something for each faction to do...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    ....

    seriously...if there is one type (catagory) of poster we could eliminate it would be instigators like you, no contest.

    some would say the same thing about the "passive blind-eye take-advantage-of-me please" people....


    :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Huh I just saw ExpendableCrewman just got banned yesterday.

    Ironic, given his name. Too bad. I like him. He made me laugh.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Mike_Koder wrote:
    Huh I just saw ExpendableCrewman just got banned yesterday.

    Ironic, given his name. Too bad. I like him. He made me laugh.

    Same here. He was a funny guy and the fact that he's a lifer makes it worse.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Mike_Koder wrote:
    Huh I just saw ExpendableCrewman just got banned yesterday.

    Ironic, given his name. Too bad. I like him. He made me laugh.

    same. I liked him too.

    he had valid concerns...but was a little hotheaded in the way he presented them.

    ( I made that mistake before....you have to play the game strategically.....):rolleyes:


    ( add: sux being banned too...you cant even 'read' the forums...lol )
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    What will really tell the tale will be how the Klingon faction is handled going forward beyond Season 2.0.

    Does this statement wreak of launch mentality from 6 months ago????

    Been there, done that, got the K'Tanco....
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Creovex wrote: »
    Does this statement wreak of launch mentality from 6 months ago????

    Been there, done that, got the K'Tanco....

    No... it wreaks of new person calling the shots + now apparently on the right track.

    6 months ago, We had Craig and Jack with their ever-present words of optimism that never seemed to go beyond words. Now we have Daniel who goes out of his way to tell us exactly what is being done, even updating us well into the night and sometimes in the wee hours of the morning on things.

    Now if Daniel would just somehow convince his management to chain marketing to their desks and keep them out of the development and community relations processes, things might just turn around... Keep in mind that Season 2.0 was already under development before Daniel took over. Best to stick with what was on the to-do list for that rather than taking it back to the drawing board just to appease a subset of the community that is unfortunately in the minority at the moment.

    Daniel has given his word that the problems facing the Klingon Faction will be addressed. Let's let them get this chunk of work that was already in progress before he took over launched and then hold him to his promises going forward beyond that. He seems to be fair-minded with player interests at heart. Let's see how things pan out.
This discussion has been closed.