VBB (or other) Forums for the Riptide Lab?

[Jason Waddell]

It appears I'm not the only Magic writer with some serious issues with the MTGS forums! Kranny is a member here, but never posts. He says he doesn't like Google Groups, and I agree that there are some issues. That said, I've really grown to like this place, and I like that it feels different than a traditional forum. I don't know if it's all the users or the medium, but something about the combination makes this place a great place to have respectful cube discussions. Groups can be unwieldy at times though, especially with longer threads. 

Do other people have strong opinions? I don't know the first thing about setting up a site to host forums. So if we wanted to change, I would need some help on the tech side (or somebody else to spearhead it entirely). 

[Eric Chan]

Maybe it's because I've settled in here, and the place feels nice and cozy now, but I think we have enough momentum going - however little that may be - that it's not worth uprooting at this point.

Google Groups does have limitations, though, one being that it doesn't seem like it's possible to set up subforums. The post count isn't high enough here yet to warrant subforums yet, but that may come up at some point. The other is that at least one person has had some technical issues with being able to post at all, and that might mean other people are hitting the same problems and not posting as a result.

If there's enough of these kinds of hitches, we might have to consider setting up shop using some actual forum software. I actually really like the feel of this group as it is now, though, so I guess you can count my vote for staying put.

[Dom Harvey]

Google Groups are... unwieldy, to say the least. I think a forum of some sort would be much better (as long as it wasn't subdivided into lots of subforums). It's pretty easy to set one up but idk if it's possible to transfer the existing discussion here over.

[tomc...@gmail.com]

Two notes: First, I agree that navigation is a bit of a pain here, and that if this place grows it will get worse as the posts accumulate. It's fine now, but could really be an issue in the future.

Second, I'm curious why so many dislike the MTGS cube forums. Is it just the unyielding groupthink, or is there more to it? Frankly, given the general tone of internet forums, I've found it fairly hospitable.

[Jason Waddell]

I wrote a long post then deleted it. I've received many messages about people's complaints with MTGS, and many of those people are now here if they care to share. For me, it just wasn't a productive place for me to have the kind of cube discussions that will push me forward as a designer. 

On a positive note, I really appreciate all the energy you guys have brought to these forums. Everybody posts so intelligently, and even when I disagree I learn so much. Thank you all for being here!

[Eric Chan]

I don't want to bring too much anti-salvation energy to this place, either, but for one concrete example of what I've observed, take a look at Jason's thread here, where he takes feedback on one of his CFB articles. I would argue that there is a lot of hostility against trying new ideas, thinking outside of the box, and breaking out of the confines of standard cube design.

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=495861

Posting here has been a lot more refreshing. It's a welcome change of pace to not have to affirm that your basic assumptions on cube design are valid in every thread, so that we can get to addressing what matters - designing good cubes. Like Jason, I'm enjoying the differing and dissenting viewpoints expressed in this group, because I'm absorbing a ton from the open-minded discussion here.

That, and I feel dumb. I feel like I'm the dumbest person here, and I love that.

[Rob Dennis]

There's nothing about google groups that is inherently beneficial to this discussion group to me, other than the lack of setup time or need for infrastructure that would have kept this from happening. A member of the group, I care most about being about to quote other people's post and respond to it in a clear/concise way, and would like the option to edit my post in the event of typos/forgetting to complete my thought.

[Eric Chan]

It's been pointed out to me that if you're not logged in, and then you click on a thread, you have the pleasure of looking at all 30+ posts or whatever, rather than being directed to the newest posts. That does seem unwieldy, and I think would be a good reason to consider moving.

Could folks post some of the other technical hitches they've run into? I'm not getting the full experience of Google Groups, being always logged in and all, so there's probably other issues I don't see.

VBulletin looks..  expensive. phpBB is probably the most popular free forum software available. Does anyone on this list have any experience with setting up and running forum software?

[Rob Dennis]

On Monday, April 15, 2013 5:19:03 PM UTC-4, Eric Chan wrote:

Could folks post some of the other technical hitches they've run into? I'm not getting the full experience of Google Groups, being always logged in and all, so there's probably other issues I don't

I mentioned in my last post, but I've been unable to make edits to an existing post (which is understandable since this is more of a newsgroup model) and that definitely gets in the way. This post also illustrates my other gripe: quoting other folks isn't particular clear.

[tomc...@gmail.com]

Yep, I agree with everything you said. (Well, except for your purported dumbness). Two more quick comments, since I don't want to provoke people into dwelling on stuff that annoys them. First, I've seen the MTGS cube forum to be useful precisely for its hivemindiness--it's where you go if you want to find the base-level, standard consensus. I look elsewhere for new ideas and thinking outside the box, so it doesn't bother me as much. (I realized this when I noticed I only really cared about the cards in the Cube Comparison database that weren't being played by many people.)

Second, looking over that thread that you linked, I'm incredibly impressed with Jason's restraint. I work as an editor, and find that most people don't pay attention to the tone of their writing online. So far, I've been very happy here with both the cube content and the tone of the discussion.

[Dom Harvey]

Right. If I was just starting to build a Cube, or I was a new player being introduced to the concept and wanted to learn about the format at it's commonly conceived, MTGS would be a great place to go. The problem comes for people who are trying ideas that don't fit the traditional mould; if those ideas are even given the time of day, it's only because they have piqued the attention of the respected poster(s) there. There's also the fact that the consensus there tends towards smaller Cubes, which is understandable given how common those are but not conducive to considering non-staples or borderline cards.

[Jason Waddell]

Rob, can you click the down-arrow in the top right corner of your posts to edit? I can edit my posts, but maybe that's an administrator-only ability. 

[Rob Dennis]

here's what I have. delete/repost is similar, but I've found you'll send subscribers 2 emails when you do that (along with losing your formatting)

[Jason Waddell]

Apparently that was an option I could change in the settings. Try again, should work now. 

In the meantime, Eric and I are looking into options for an alternative home for the forums. 

[Peter Angell]

On a high level, the MTGS forums (as a whole) are popular because of the rumor mill.  Anyone can join, anyone can post.  They've got a wide variety of forums, which get a lot of traffic as a side-effect of the rumor mill being so popular.  Moderation for "obvious" problems is good across the board, and some of the boards (and further sub-boards) have good moderation and a stated direction: Standard competitive deck-construction boards require you to message a mod asking for permission to post.  If you don't follow the rules of the sub-forum (discussion must focus solely on winning), your posting privileges to it can be temporarily or permanently revoked.  I haven't paid much attention to the forums to see if it's helped that specific community as I'm not playing Standard or Competitive, but a couple of years ago I was, and I realized that people with valuable opinions and points of discussion were being drowned out by the tide of players who wanted to brag that they 3-1'd their FNM.  So I can't comment if the new rules have been successful or not, but they are there, and they have a purpose.

The MTGS cube forums seem to lack any sort of high-level direction, other than "this is where cube talk goes," so they are susceptible to group-think.  Additionally, there seems to be a few posters with strong opinions who seem to monitor the boards frequently, and quickly respond to virtually any topic they think they can chime in on.  They heavily favor power maximization, and are casually dismissive of any sort of outside the box thinking.  When confronted with well reasoned arguments and/or attempts to broaden the scope to beyond power maximization, they either ignore those posts, or state that for them, power maximization is the most fun for them.  Personally, when I post on forums, I try to make a logical, completely thought out statement.  I spend a lot of time making sure my words carry the meaning that I intend them to, often making further realizations as I see my text appear onscreen.  I feel that my type of post is not often appreciated; and perhaps I sometimes become too personally invested in my posts (relevant: http://xkcd.com/386/).  But for me, the alpha-personalities in the MTGS cube forum and the power-maximization group-think that follows is infinitely frustrating.  When I discovered this community, I stopped visiting and posting there almost completely.  I don't think that the MTGS cube forum is completely devoid of value, as personally I'll always be interested to see fully power-maximized cubes, but it's not where I care to spend my time anymore.

I would happily follow Riptide Laboratory to any forum system that is selected.  I only ask that in addition to basic forum moderation, there is some discussion in the early stages regarding rules that the founders of the forum wish to enforce; ideally rules that encourage and reward discussion about making the "most fun magic experience" possible.

[Jason Waddell]

Hi Peter. Great post!

Do you have any suggestions for rules? I haven't really thought much about it. So far this place has grown fairly organically, and there hasn't been much of a need for any rules. Obviously I want people to be respectful, open-minded, and willing to agree to disagree. I also want everything to be done with an eye towards "fun maximization" (whatever that means). 

As far as "the founders" go, that's you guys. I may have been the one who clicked "create group", but it's the posters that bring it to life. Right now we're at 29 members. 12 hours ago we were at 20 members. If anybody has some vision or opinion on how they'd like a cube discussion group to operate, feel free to step forward and present those ideas. 

[Eric Chan]

Superb post, Peter. I don't know if there needs to be a set of rules in place, so long as the community is flourishing, people are expressing well-reasoned thoughts, and posters don't feel frustrated that a louder, more persistent voice is drowning them out. (We all know who you're referring to on salvation, Peter.) If I could put forth one simple rule, it would be: "Don't be a dick."

I think a cube forum mission statement would be welcome, though. Something to express the forum's vision and goals, and to give direction to both new posters and to prospective members. I think a mission statement might set the tone better than a list of rules, which serve more to discourage bad behaviour, but may not necessarily promote the type of quality posting that we're seeing. Jason, I think you're the best person to lay out this vision for the group. You already have a strong theme running through your set of published cube articles; I think that distilling that theme into a couple paragraphs of text might be useful.

[Christopher Morris-Lent]

i like this format but it's not important. having no rules is very important. mtgs is stupid because it's for stupid people who want to be told they're smart. riptide laboratory is awesome because it contains smart people who want to be told they're stupid.

On Saturday, April 13, 2013 11:10:18 PM UTC-7, Jason Waddell wrote:

[Peter Angell]

Currently, the group is at a size where rules aren't necessary; this is true for many small sized groups of people in all walks of life, the social contract usually allows for things to run smoothly.  But as the community grows, differences in expectations and desires and turnover can morph it into something else.  And like the mechanic, there's no responding to that morph once it happens, it's done.

I feel like this group currently emphasizes a revolution in cube design - "fun maximization."  It's not in any way a new concept; from the little I know about the academics of game design, it's very important there.  Fun can be a subjective concept, and there are many layers to it; just like with cube design and game design.  But I think a detailed mission statement would be appropriate, and rules should exist to help keep the creativity and discussions positive.  I'm not sure what all the rules should be, but you can probably copy/paste a basic set of rules for basic "don't troll/flame/spam" type stuff.  Then, once the mission statement is decided, create rules that help foster the environment you'd like to create (this is the hard part).  Finally, as part of the mission statement you say that the rules are subject to change based on the needs of the group, and you create a forum for meta-discussion about the community itself.

Jason, I feel like YOU captured lightning in a bottle with Riptide Laboratory.  Obviously, everyone contributing is what makes any forums good or bad.  And others may have directly or indirectly supported or even came up with the idea for making this group.  But YOU are the person who clicked create, and that does count for a lot.  It essentially makes you the benevolent dictator of this group.  Of course, you don't have power over us, as we have the power to leave and form our own community (or join another, or whatever).  But by continuing to participate in this community, we all are at least partially accepting your leadership.  In my opinion, there are two important components to being an effective leader: subject matter knowledge, and people management.  You've got the subject matter knowledge, as your posts and published articles speak prove.  Your people management skills have not yet truly been tested here as groups this small are self managing.  But if you want the group to grow (and I'm presuming the open membership policy means you do), you've got to lead by getting some rules in place; or it'll take on a life of it's own, and likely not in a good way.  Personally, I don't want our Riptide Laboratory to suffer the same fate as the original.

Short Version: I think Riptide Laboratory is awesome.  Because I like it so much, I think Jason should lead us on forming some more rules/guidelines so that it continues be awesome and grows to be even more awesome.

[Christopher Morris-Lent]

peter -- if fun is a subjective concept, surely civility is too. the way i see it, 'inclusivity' and 'making people feel comfortable' doesn't mean creating a PC environment where all ideas are created equal, so much as it does letting everyone do anything (aside from NSFW and the like) without fear of 'official' sanction. rules intrinsically stifle discussion. freud and foucault would have a field day with mtgs! 

to further the point, friends are people that can say anything to each other, and similarly people on mtgs are never really 'friends' -- because the respect is enforced and meaningless, and terrible ideas are prized over posts that explain why those ideas are terrible. of course it's a little more complicated than "anything goes" but i think it's much more difficult to err on the side of laissez-faire.

On Saturday, April 13, 2013 11:10:18 PM UTC-7, Jason Waddell wrote:

[Rob Dennis]

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:50:07 PM UTC-4, Peter Angell wrote:

Short Version: I think Riptide Laboratory is awesome.  Because I like it so much, I think Jason should lead us on forming some more rules/guidelines so that it continues be awesome and grows to be even more awesome.

I'm in agreement since I tend to believe that a community growing while keeping the same feel is best supported by providing an example of the kinds of things that community prizes.

If there's a certain level of discourse you're going for, it might be as simple as linking to an example thread. I do think it's important that there's something though

[FlowerSunRain]

A Michel Foucault reference?  I thought I was the only one who ever made those.

Best forum ever!

[Peter Angell]

Christopher:  I'm not advocating rules for the sake of rules.  I believe in a mission statement that says "this is what the community is about," and having rules that help keep the community on that track.  Now I'm not talking about a laser-focused mission statement, but generally something along the lines of "This is where we discuss how we make our cubes more fun."  Now, I'll be honest, I'm not sure what rules would specifically support that.  And rules might be more important on a subfourm to subforum level rather than on a global scale.  And I think that the rules should themselves be up for scrutiny, once they are in place.

Also, I'm not part of this, or any internet community, to make friends.  I do make friends online, and it's bound to happen when talking to people of similar interests.  But it's not WHY I'm here.  I'm here to talk cube design, with fellow cube fans.  I respect and place high value on the contributions of those who are passionate about cube design, are able to effectively communicate their ideas and have productive discussions about them.  I want a system that ensures people can have discussions without getting drowned out by group-think.  Group-think seems to be common in communities that don't have enforced rules, thus my advocacy for them.

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:03:14 PM UTC-4, Christopher Morris-Lent wrote:

[Christopher Morris-Lent]

Peter: I'm with you on the ends of the group, but I do disagree with the means. I think formalizing things is a bad way of encouraging quality; for example, since this is a sweet group, a mission statement shouldn't be necessary, as it's self-evident. The "make friends" thing I meant more as a metaphor; I won't ever meet most of you in the real world, but, as in the real world, I do want anyone to feel comfortable saying more or less anything to me and vice versa.

The statement "group-think seems to be common in communities that don't have enforced rules" seems insane to me. For counterexamples school, work, medicine, law, North Korea, Kafka, and Orwell come to mind, but of course I'm being hyperbolic. A more relevant example is easily at hand, though! MTGSalvation not only has a "group-think ethos" and a "ton of enforced rules," but it has a group-think ethos because it has a ton of enforced rules, and vice versa. These things tend to reinforce each other (thanks, Freud) and stuff like the abominable incarceration rate in this country teach us that this kind of cycle is far harder to break than a chain of increasingly outrageous behavior in a "state of nature," with what are in my opinion more dire consequences. I recognize that my preference for "anything goes" is largely just that -- a preference -- but I do think being closer to that extreme is more likely to produce rich and spirited debate -- or, if you prefer, "fun."

[Eric Chan]

The salvation forums sprung to mind for me, too, as an example of a place with a lot of rules, that directly or indirectly leaves to a hive mind, groupthink mentality. There was a blog post out there from an active salvation poster who lamented that, for all the rules the forum had in place, none of the rules could actually lead to a troll getting banned, so long as the troll were to avoid the obvious infractions.

To me, rules set the boundaries of discussion. They tell you the places that you can't go, that are off limits. But the space inside of the boundaries is still near limitless. Rules aren't very good at setting direction, imparting a vision, or encouraging intelligent, thoughtful discussion. They're better at telling us what not to do, at telling us what kind of things will bring upon enforcement. Again, if I could put forth just one rule, I'd want it to be "Don't be a dick". It's clear what that means, but it's purposefully broad enough to encompass any kind of trolling behaviour, whether or not it's something that's obvious harassment, or something more subtle and insidious.

Beyond that, though, I don't much like the idea of having too many rules. This forum is as good as it is right now because of the quality and thought behind each and every post. The signal to noise ratio in this group is way, way beyond anything I've ever observed, so much so that I feel the need to read all the posts. But how do you set a rule for that? How do you enforce a blatant law that states, "No mediocrity"? How can we encompass in a rule that posts should be thought provoking, that respectful disagreements are not only allowed, but encouraged, that out-of-the-box thinking is the de facto form of currency?

I'd much rather there be a brief mission statement from our fearless leader, Jason, to guide the group down the path he's laid out for us. More important than that, though, is the example we all set for new and prospective forum members. It's amazing to me that Jason's little forum has blossomed so quickly, and I'd like to think his high quality of posting has attracted a similar contingent of like-minded, thoughtful cube designers, like bees drawn to nectar. Now, it's possible that this forum will grow large enough to reach a point where a more rigid, firm structure is required. But I'd rather let this place grow organically for as long as it can.

[Jason Waddell]

Alright, let's see if we can weave the needle a bit. We all want this place to stay productive and civil, and it feels like you guys are agreeing for the most part. 

I think the key here is to lead by example, and a good mission statement feels well within that framework. It's about focusing on a "list of do's" mindset rather than "a list of don'ts". I don't know that any rules enforce any ethos on MTGS so much as the people there enforce an ethos. 

There was a terrible book I read when I was a teen. It was about some post-apocalyptic world where almost everyone died, and some survivors formed a nice little Utopian community. They lived peacefully and had no real rules. Then some violent vagrant came along and disrupted everything, and they didn't really have any rules or philosophies in place to deal with it. Eventually they became overwhelmed and had to execute him or something. I don't really remember. Anyways, I'll draft up a mission statement thing and see where that gets us. 

[Jason Waddell]

I posted a draft "mission statement" that tried to be a middle ground here. I agree that direction is good, but also don't want a long list about how people should avoid trolling, reposts, etc. 

So many forums have rules threads that are so long and obtuse the I don't even read them. Maybe something like that will become necessary later. I remember once I even tried to make an SCD thread on MTGS and specifically tried to follow all of their steps to format it as desired. Then I got a message from a mod about some small detail that was not in line with the standards. That didn't really make me feel like contributing and starting more discussions. I see the role of some standards (card pics in the OP for example), but once any rules get in the way of productivity we have to start to question them. 

Otherwise we start running functional reprints but no "duplicates". :P

[Christopher Morris-Lent]

i dig the statement.

[Christopher Morris-Lent]

(to resolve tonal ambiguities: well done!)

[tomc...@gmail.com]

That could be the mission statement right there: "Don't be the violent vagrant in our little post-apocalyptic cubing utopia." Gets right to the point.

[Jason Waddell]

This is where we need a forum with a "like" button. I want to let the world know that Tom's post was spectacular without clogging up the thread with a new post. 

[Peter Angell]

I've read over most of MTGSalvations forum rules, as a result of this discussion.  I actually think their rules have their heart in the right place.  You could summarize their rules as: Don't be a dick.  Don't promote or discuss illegal activity.  Don't image leech. Post discussions where they belong.

The problem is they are mired in bureaucracy, explaining out everything in exasperating detail.  Furthermore, their enforcement lacks teeth.  By trying to make sure they don't piss off anyone, they don't make anyone happy.  That might be a bit of over generalization, but I feel like it's what's going on.

Any rules should be simple and powerful: You act like a dick, you get banned.  No warnings, no appeals, etc.  Maybe not for life, but at least the smallest chunk of time should be two months.  Everyone knows what trolling and flaming is, and everyone knows that'll get you banned from most civilized forums.  The only time warnings are appropriate, might be for new users who place their post in the wrong sub, or image leeching.

I know you started another thread for this Jason, but selecting a forum software and it's settings also go a long way to setting the tone and "rules" of how the community interacts, like if you can vote on the quality of a post, and how posts are sorted by default.

[Jason Waddell]

We've got a domain name purchased and forum software and hosting picked out. In the next couple of weeks we'll make the leap. Once there we'll hammer down some exact settings. I'm a big fan of keeping things clean (no signiatures, static images only for avatars). 

There will be a break-in period, but hopefully we can find a balance that makes most people happy. 

[Jason Waddell]

Sneak preview: 

[Christopher Morris-Lent]

peter: i find the legalism you advocate terrifying. beyond being based on misconceptions -- the mtgs forums are over-modded (i've grown up with internet communities and can smell a bad one); the enforcement is therefore arbitrary and copious; the kinds of people (morons) that those forums attract is a direct result of these rules, and the two reinforce each other -- it just gives me a bad vibe. over there, they may 'have their heart in the right place' (no, they think they do, and are concerned exclusively with showing that they do), and how many times has that been used as an excuse for the most egregious intolerance of dissent. enforced civility is the appearance of civility, it's not civility at all and has no meaning beyond childhood. i'd rather think of y'all as friends and not children.

[Jason Waddell]

Well, I think both of you want the same thing. That is, to keep Riptide Lab a productive and fun place for cube conversation. 

Rules have value, but so do the people in the community. Perhaps the best thing we can do is to set a strong example. Part of the reason MTGS suffers is that there is a core of posters that drive people away, and nobody really stands up and says "this is not okay". So many bright thinkers shy away from there, and when the attacks start coming their way there's nobody around to defend them. I was very grateful when FlowerSunRain and Eric made supporting posts, but ultimately it was a losing battle. If a community accepts bad behavior as the norm, then that's what they'll get. 

Anyways, we are launching the new site TODAY. Eric will make a post in a few hours with the details, but in the meantime I have the following advice: be there, be present, and set a good example. We're going to have disagreements, and eventually trouble makers, but the best thing we can do is to cultivate a positive environment. Set the tone. The people define a place more than its rules, and its our role to create the kind of forum that we're proud to call home. Newcomers will follow our lead. 

As with any forum, you can set your user name to whatever you want. Eric and I are using "Eric Chan" and "Jason Waddell" respectively. If you prefer anonymity, I respect that and place no pressure on you to do otherwise. For the rest, I think using real names establishes an air of civility (or at least the two have been correlated in my past experience, e.g. Facebook vs. MySpace). 

Looking forward to seeing you all at our new home!