Jump to content

The next CM scenario site???


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The registration mechanic at SDP I, while annoying, was much less of a problem than at TPG. CMMODS, by the way, has the easiest system to work with.

Reviews should certainly be signed and not anonymous, because knowing who the reviewer is is often the only way you can tell whether to take the review seriously or not. But that has nothing to do with registration.

The mechanical issue is not about being bothered with registration. What I am saying is that if you create a step that is mechanically clunky and that isn't strictly necessary, you will discourage people from downloading your scenarios. That is cliquish and contrary to the whole spirit of posting mods or scenarios in a public forum. The Scenario Depot is supposed to be the only place where anyone would go to get their scenarios, and since it will be a near-monopolistic provider it is essential that it be held to a higher standard: the people who will be coming there will be a captive audience, and that mustn't be abused. The Scenario Depot has to look after the interest of the community as a whole, and not just a particular segment of it. It needs to be open and set up in a way that doesn't smack of exclusivity or a closed club. And it must be very easy to use.

There is really no reason to burden people with having to remember one more screen name and one more password. It's not so bad at CMMODS because at least there you can set the log-in screen to always remember your password, so logging in doesn't interefere with the process.

I would dearly love to know who downloads my mods, but I don't need to know. In fact, I shouldn't be allowed to know. Merely knowing how many have attempted to download is enough to satisfy prurient curiosity. And the designer's need to know doesn't wash: when I play a new scenario I often send e-mails with lists of any glitches I've found to the designer because I'm a compulsive editor. I rarely get a response back. I've taken to simply correcting the file and sending the corrections back with a note explaining what they were. That doesn't get a positive response very often either. What I'm beginning to suspect is that many designers really want adulation rather than feedback or proofreading.

So if the rationale behind registration is not standing on as firm grounds as it pretends to, and is somewhat invasive to begin with, do away with it or water it down to the point that the unscrupulous wouln't eventually be able to use the information collected for their own nefarious commercial ends.

[ September 06, 2005, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: Philippe ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Philippe:

The registration mechanic at SDP I, while annoying, was much less of a problem than at TPG. CMMODS, by the way, has the easiest system to work with.

How so? I have 2 ways to register at TPG. If you want to be put in the player registry, you fill out the long form. If you just want to download scenarios, you fill out the short form. The short form includes 3 difficult fields: 1) provide a username (handle), 2) provide a password, 3) provide your email address

Reviews should certainly be signed and not anonymous, because knowing who the reviewer is is often the only way you can tell whether to take the review seriously or not. But that has nothing to do with registration.

Nope, it does have to do with registration. How else do you prevent someone from giving a crap review and then signing somebody else's name because they want a little payback for a bad review that one of their scenarios got?

The mechanical issue is not about being bothered with registration. What I am saying is that if you create a step that is mechanically clunky and that isn't strictly necessary, you will discourage people from downloading your scenarios. That is cliquish and contrary to the whole spirit of posting mods or scenarios in a public forum.

I'm sure that I will have just the "short form" as described above. If you could provide an example of the "clunkiness" of the sign-up process at TPG, I'd be happy to look into that and make any changes needed for TSD2.

The Scenario Depot is supposed to be the only place where anyone would go to get their scenarios, and since it will be a near-monopolistic provider it is essential that it be held to a higher standard: the people who will be coming there will be a captive audience, and that mustn't be abused. The Scenario Depot has to look after the interest of the community as a whole, and not just a particular segment of it. It needs to be open and set up in a way that doesn't smack of exclusivity or a closed club. And it must be very easy to use.

I think other scenario hosting sites will disagree with the premise of TSD being the "only" place to download scenarios, but I agree that it must be easy to navigate, easy to use, functional for both the scenario authors and the visitors and provide a simple interface for providing reviews for the scenarios that are both accurate to the reviewers opions and useful to the scenario author.

There is really no reason to burden people with having to remember one more screen name and one more password.

TPG uses cookies so that you don't have to log in ever again after you initially sign-up if you so choose. You must have cookies disabled or you've only been to TPG one time.

It's not so bad at CMMODS because at least there you can set the log-in screen to always remember your password, so logging in doesn't interefere with the process.

That is telling CMMODS to put the cookie on your computer - he gives you the option, I just intrude and put a cookie. So, since you do save cookies, I assume you're not a frequent visitor to TPG. I'd like to invite you back to the site and have a look around, maybe download a couple of scenarios and most importantly, provide a playtest review for the author of the scenario(s) that you download. You'll like the AAR screen in the discussions area I think.

I would dearly love to know who downloads my mods, but I don't need to know. In fact, I shouldn't be allowed to know. Merely knowing how many have attempted to download is enough to satisfy prurient curiosity. And the designer's need to know doesn't wash: when I play a new scenario I often send e-mails with lists of any glitches I've found to the designer because I'm a compulsive editor. I rarely get a response back. I've taken to simply correcting the file and sending the corrections back with a note explaining what they were. That doesn't get a positive response very often either. What I'm beginning to suspect is that many designers really want adulation rather than feedback or proofreading.

If the mods were reviewed, where a downloader was asked to leave his name, you'd want to make sure that who said what about your mod was really who they say they are. Only way to do this - have them log in and authenticate it before they can leave a review or download the mod. But mods and scenarios are different as you suggest; knowing how many downloads seems to be enough to satisfy the modders. Not so for scenario authors, the really want/need that feedback to help them either improve the scenario or help them with their next project. Hopefully though, the scenario has been playtested thoroughly via sites such as TPG and thus it will gain mostly positive reviews, but whether or not the author decides to go that route will be impossible to control.

So if the rationale behind registration is not standing on as firm grounds as it pretends to, and is somewhat invasive to begin with, do away with it or water it down to the point that the unscrupulous wouln't eventually be able to use the information collected for their own nefarious commercial ends.

I think I've outlined the reasons why registration is needed. Basically, it's identity theft control as far as the reviews go.

Now, I invited you back to TPG, I also invite you to ask anyone of the 2000+ members if I've EVER spammed them with email or commercials or pop-ups or any other commercial information in the 3 years that the site has been running. I'm so anal about this NOT happening that I've taken the precaution to not broadcast a persons email address on the site at any time. You can even DISABLE all notifications from others by deactivating your account (but you can STILL download scenarios - cool, ain't it?).

Phillipe, I can understand the headaches of registering for yet another site - but check this out, if you've already registered at TPG - you wont have to do it again at TSD! Rockin'! And, if you've never signed up at TPG, then the sign-up at TSD will be as painless as I can make it, believe me. 3 little boxes to fill in, that's it. I don't even verify your email address, though I really should.

Suggestions, comments, opinions, bitches, gripes and praise; always welcomed. ;)

[ September 06, 2005, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: GJK ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, I've visited TPG several times and have downloaded scenarios from it. My problem with the site is not really registration in and of itself (apart from the fact that I don't like anyone seeing a list of what I have chosen to download). And if registration is the only way to authenticate reviews, that's fine. Though I would suggest that you require log-in only for review-writing and not for downloading.

My problem is with navigating the site, and with coming back to it when I've been away for a while. And yes, it is a cookie issue. I don't know if that is what makes it so hard for me to navigate from one screen to the next on your site, but I do think that that is the crux of the problem. I'm not going to lower my computer defenses across the board just to visit one site, especially when trips to the web are becoming more and more fraught with people trying to shove things inside my computer without my knowledge and against my will.

I am not a frequent visitor to TPG because it is hard for me to use it (but I do go there from time to time, nevertheless). If it is hard for me to use, it is hard for others like me. And I think my point of view is going to become more prevalent over time as internet security continues to deteriorate.

[ September 06, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Philippe ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Philippe:

The registration mechanic at SDP I, while annoying, was much less of a problem than at TPG. CMMODS, by the way, has the easiest system to work with.

CMMODS has the most annoying in my books; it never seems to remember registration info whereas TPG always does, and CMMODS has that clunky and slow + and - keys to go through the options. TPG has never given me a problem whereas CMMODS is so slow I rarely go there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMMODS is certainly slow once you get inside it, but I think the log-in procedure is pretty good, considering. There's a little box you can check in the lower left-hand corner of the password screen that saves you from having to remember your password and screen name.

I'm not proposing making any changes to TPG. However, the log-in at CMMODS is a lot more user-friendly than cookies, especially if you block most of them and flush the rest once a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Philippe:

Knowing who downloads their scenarios is actually something of an invasion of privacy.

Not if there is a disclaimer in advance. GJK you may want to do that - IF you are providing download lists to scenario authors (which I would love to see). </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Philippe:

Knowing who downloads their scenarios is actually something of an invasion of privacy.

Not if there is a disclaimer in advance. GJK you may want to do that - IF you are providing download lists to scenario authors (which I would love to see). </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throwing in a disclaimer does not change the fact that we are dealing with an invasion of privacy. It's merely a legalistic attempt to dodge responsability on the part of the invader.

What might work for TPG would be to give someone a choice as to whether their downloading would be revealed to anyone. If they can check "no, it's nobody's business what I'm downloading", then that should alleviate the problem somewhat if their specific data were not added to the lists when they downloaded.

But it doesn't belong in TSD II in any form if the idea is to create a replacement for TSD I. TSD I was a universal resource that wasn't pandering to any particular group. TSD II should be the same if it is going to fulfil a useful purpose.

[ September 06, 2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Philippe ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Philippe:

Throwing in a disclaimer does not change the fact that we are dealing with an invasion of privacy. It's merely a legalistic attempt to dodge responsability on the part of the invader.

Is it an invasion of YOUR privacy when you're downloading stuff from GARY'S site? No, it isn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Philippe:

Throwing in a disclaimer does not change the fact that we are dealing with an invasion of privacy. It's merely a legalistic attempt to dodge responsability on the part of the invader.

What might work for TPG would be to give someone a choice as to whether their downloading would be revealed to anyone. If they can check "no, it's nobody's business what I'm downloading", then that should alleviate the problem somewhat if their specific data were not added to the lists when they downloaded.

This line of thought strikes me as idiotic and unnecessary. If you want to protect your "privacy", don't use the internet, and don't use private websites that require registration, or simply use a false registry name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The invasion of privacy does not come from the act of downloading. It comes from the act of collecting information about a third party and disseminating it against their will. And the point is that your personal habits are being monitored and tabulated and then distributed to others without your knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Philippe:

Throwing in a disclaimer does not change the fact that we are dealing with an invasion of privacy. It's merely a legalistic attempt to dodge responsability on the part of the invader.

What might work for TPG would be to give someone a choice as to whether their downloading would be revealed to anyone. If they can check "no, it's nobody's business what I'm downloading", then that should alleviate the problem somewhat if their specific data were not added to the lists when they downloaded.

This line of thought strikes me as idiotic and unnecessary. If you want to protect your "privacy", don't use the internet, and don't use private websites that require registration, or simply use a false registry name. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Philippe:

The invasion of privacy does not come from the act of downloading. It comes from the act of collecting information about a third party and disseminating it against their will. And the point is that your personal habits are being monitored and tabulated and then distributed to others without your knowledge.

So download your scenarios from CMMODS, SZO or any number of other resources - no big deal. I can respect your privacy, and if you don't want the authors to know that you're taking a look at their work, that's cool. Be anonymous, leave no feedback, and don't support the authors, just do your leeching elsewhere.

Sorry to sound harsh, but this is just ridiculous. This is one of the reasons why I was hesitant about taking on this project - I can't satisfy everybody. I know that the logging in is going to be an issue (obviously) and so is the rating system, how scenarios are displayed, what's displayed in the "lists", etc, etc, etc. I should of really thought hard before I so readily accepted. But, I did say I would do it, so I'm going to do it as best I can, the best that I know how.

P.S. If you didn't use IE, you wouldn't have to tighten the screws so hard on your browser and you'd have a much more enjoyable (and still safer) surfing experience. My opinion of course. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GJK - you know that you can't please everyone, and so do we all. Heck, you'll do somethings I don't like, probably. At least if you asked and listened before making the decision then no-one can complain.

Indeed - I hope we all also enthusiastically support your taking on this project and any decision you make in the process.

- For every decision you make there will be someone who doesn't like it... but there will be many who do.

- Having the TSD built by you with whatever decisions you make is better than not having it at all.

We'll all give you our strong opinions strongly - just like Phillipe & I are now, but we'll all also back up whatever decision you make and use the resource you provide gratefully. Or at least, I will and most of us will... there will inevitably be someone who'll bitch & moan beyond what's reasonable, but just ignore them smile.gif

GaJ

( 25 / 30 people in this poll said GJK should just GO FOR IT ... whatever he thinks we'll love!)

[ September 07, 2005, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks GaJ - good stuff and you're right.

I hadn't seen nor heard of that poll; very supportive, thanks for posting the link. For those interested, I'll try and put together a list of "features" that I have in mind. I'll start a new thread with it and then if there's some requests that others have that I have not thought of I'll see about adding those in as well.

Philippe, sorry about the "leech" comment yesterday, but really, I think it's stretching it a bit to call it an invasion of your privacy if the authors of the scenarios that you download have your name in a list amongst others that have done the same. And since you've already registered at TPG, the new TSD will already recognize you as a member, so there will be no new sign-up for you or 2500 other CM players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Philippe:

The invasion of privacy does not come from the act of downloading.

It's not a part of your privacy, and no-one's INVADING it. It's your choice, and arguing against that is legalism itself at worst. Don't let the terrorists win. :mad:

But, as for TSD, this isn't needed like the case is with TPG - I'm just interested if people who have downloaded a scenario that is out for testing, has been played by people who dl'd it. A scenario that is in SD is, hopefully, finished from my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day the only way to get anything done is to do it yourself. Only go the advise and consent route if you're really, truly out of ideas (which you aren't).

There's a poem in spanish that says something to the effect that:

Bullfight critics ranked in rows

Crowd the enormous plaza full.

But only one is there who knows

And he's the one who fights the bull.

I bet if you check your hands you'll find you're holding a sword and a cape...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:

Panther Commander,

if you've played against humans, you know, where you stand.

Judging a scenario easy - medium - hard - very hard should be for scenario designers with some experience no problem.

To have at least a subjective rating from the designer is better, than absolutely no knowledge.

I don't understand the, "played against humans" comment. I've playtested dozens of scenarios against people, many of them in this thread, and have often found that we differ on how we view the results of the battle.</font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Philippe:

At the end of the day the only way to get anything done is to do it yourself. Only go the advise and consent route if you're really, truly out of ideas (which you aren't).

There's a poem in spanish that says something to the effect that:

Bullfight critics ranked in rows

Crowd the enormous plaza full.

But only one is there who knows

And he's the one who fights the bull.

I bet if you check your hands you'll find you're holding a sword and a cape...

That doesn't help with testing a scenario, I'm afraid. I don't make scenarios to play them against the AI, and by myself cannot guess how others would play it, not to mention that I have likely become blind to my stoopid mistakes and omissions. Such things. Especially I have learned while making scenarios that writing briefings is an art which very much dictates how the battle is fought, and that's where testers are particularly important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Testing a scenario is a TPG issue. I'm not really talking about what goes on at TPG, my only concern is with TSD II, which has a whole different gestalt. What might be kosher at TPG, a closed circle of consenting adults, is not necessarily appropriate for a universal site.

As for testers, I couldn't agree more that they're necessary. I was part of the CMMOS cabal, and the whole point of having the cabal was to make sure that everyone in the group looked at everything. And we killed a lot of pink spots (a common side-residue from mod-making), among other things.

I gather that posting a scenario at TPG triggers comments from the active members, which is a good thing. They're known quantities, and if one of them makes a comment about one of your scenarios I'm sure you know how many grains of salt to take it with. The problem with unsollicited comments is you have to evaluate the critic before you can take his comments seriously. I would think that recruiting a few experienced testers by a one-on-one e-mail campaign would ultimately yield better results than dealing with a lot of unknowns.

But as I said earlier, this thread is not a critique of TPG. If what goes on there works for you, great. It doesn't really matter whether it would work for me or not because I don't design scenarios. Please don't mistake my concerns for how things should be done at TSD II for an attack on TPG.

I suspect that my biggest practical concern is really about cookies. It's not a matter of what I do or don't do, or what I would be better off doing. What I can or shouldn't do is irrelevant. I'm not thinking about myself - I'm extrapolating from my own internet behaviour and concluding that there will be a class of users with similar quirks who will become easily discouraged. That's fine for a site like TPG where I would think that you only really want the committed anyway. Not so good if you're trying to serve the largest possible audience (who don't post messages on this forum and probably wouldn't know how to loosen their screws with Netscape anyway). If you must have registration, I would suggest doing it CMMODS-style so you don't have to bother with cookies. I don't mind logging in there every time because, having checked that little box on the pop-up I don't have to remember my screen name or my password. And yes, I agree with Michael that CMMODS is slow. I usually read a book and visit other sites while I'm waiting for the pages to load.

As an aside, I believe that people who live in Europe tend to have a different concept of the appropriate limits of privacy from North Americans. I think it better that we agree to disagree, because arguing about that kind of thing is really more suitable to the old General Forum prior to the ban on politics. But just remember what I said twenty years from now when they're grilling you on your moral fitness to be a memeber of the Supreme court, and someone pulls out a list of all those games about Nazi's you downloaded in your youth. One of the many differences between Finland and the U.S. is that witchhunting has been a national sport over here since the 17th century: we just don't call them witches anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can respect that Philippe and I had a feeling that you might eluding to something like that (type of scenario or rather, who is involved in the scenarios). I can make the storing of the cookie optional, no problem at all. I'll put that on the list of proposed ideas thread that's located in this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...