[Rejected] /lfg, /trading, and /chat?

[Etro]

[quote][/quote]With the new channel rule that is being implemented, i've seen a lot of discussions and raging in a very little while. People who doesn't like the new rule, and people who does like it. Clearly, those who don't want the rule are the problem, because they don't want to be forced to how communicate. So this is my idea: Along with the new(old?) /trading and /lfg channels, add a 3rd channel; /chat. /chat channel could serve as /world is wanted to be now, just for chatting. And leave /world chat multipurpose as it is for whoever wants it that way. And make the transition voluntarily.

.Someone who is interested and likes the new rule will join either /lfg, /trading, and /chat, if not all, and they'll leave /world channel.
.Someone who is not interested and dislikes the new rule won't join /lfg, /trading, and /chat and will stay in /world, or join the new channels too,for the sake of reach.
-None of the new channels will be left out of information. Because people that are interested in getting their message recieved by much people as possible will use all the channels they can. Of course, they should follow the exclusivity rule of the new channels if they want to type in there.

That way, groups with true common interests on what they are looking for will be pure. And, if the new rule is followed by the majority then those who are in /world channel will follow because of need and not because of force. No one is carried away by the wishes of the other.

Please, comment. And lets try to have an insult-free discussion.

P.S: GMs could try to whisper more often to avoid public confrontations with players.

[Shaeligator]

The idea isn't bad in itself, however having two channels for the same thing would be stupid. Imagine explaining that to some. "Okay so that /chat channel is for trading, finding groups and general chat, /world is for general chat, /trading is for trade and /LFG is for finding groups." Doubling up on these things isn't really a good idea, it would also split the population into two unnecessary groups. For the sake of one extra keystroke, I don't think it really matters that we have our three channels. It's not a big deal.

[Etro]

My idea was to let /world be the multipurpose channel and /chat as the chat exclusive.

My point is to give options to the players. To not force anyone under other's preference.

good idea, it would also split the population into two unnecessary groups.

It is already splitting the population, but by force. Such transitions are never easy, simple or completely succesful. By making it willingly you would create core groups with common interests. And as i said, people that are interested in getting their message spread as much as possible will use both channels (/world & /trading, /world & /lfg). I was told that such was the dynamic between /alliance80 and /horde80 with the dedicated channels. I assume they were created under the same enforcement circumstances and reasons.

[Intervention]

It's a good idea in theory but then there's too many channels and people will complain about there being too many channels.

In addition, /world will still be flocked to.

I believe, before you came here, Etro, we had alliance80 and horde80 channels which were indeed, multipurpose. But these channels got big, not just 80s were in it, but new players to the server. The channel became public because it was so large and people didn't like that it was beginning to get moderated. On top of that, it was multipurpose as i mentioned before which means /world died and in turn, those that came to the server and logged in for the first time said "hello" on world and received no response. Soon after, they declared the server a ghost town and left.

Months later, we removed the alliance80 and horde80 channels and moved everyone back to /world to help increase chat flow on a public channel. This worked, essentially but we have hit another brick wall. High population has caused a bit of channel flood.

So what to do?

a) split channels - good idea, pisses off some, not others
b) don't split channels - good idea, pisses off some, not others
c) split channels, but make it optional - good idea, pisses off only a small number of players and not the majority of others however has very little effect. In the end, why use 3 channels when you can just use one where that one channel has double the number of players in it than the other two.

Am i rambling?

[Etro]

It's a good idea in theory but then there's too many channels and people will complain about there being too many channels.

Well, for those that would leave /world there'd only be 3 channels, like now. The only players that could say "there are too many channels" are those who will stay in /world and join the new channels. But as it is optional it wouldn't be an issue to deal with unless it is wanted.

I believe, before you came here, Etro, we had alliance80 and horde80 channels which were indeed, multipurpose. But these channels got big, not just 80s were in it, but new players to the server. The channel became public because it was so large and people didn't like that it was beginning to get moderated. On top of that, it was multipurpose as i mentioned before which means /world died and in turn, those that came to the server and logged in for the first time said "hello" on world and received no response. Soon after, they declared the server a ghost town and left.

According to what you just said, i think that it was troubled because it wasn't initially supported by the staff. It was a custom player channel, the staff 'invades' it and applies their rules because of the channel's high population, ruining the reason of why people joined it in the first place. It wouldn't be the same this time, since /world is already supported and, until now, has served with multipurpose.

Months later, we removed the alliance80 and horde80 channels and moved everyone back to /world to help increase chat flow on a public channel. This worked, essentially but we have hit another brick wall. High population has caused a bit of channel flood.

If you make /world, one of the global channels' most common IDs between private server players, exclusive to chat, it will bring its activity downhill all over again. Channel flood is a problem but not as severe as looking like a dead server to new players.

So what to do?

a) split channels - good idea, pisses off some, not others
b) don't split channels - good idea, pisses off some, not others
c) split channels, but make it optional - good idea, pisses off only a small number of players and not the majority of others however has very little effect. In the end, why use 3 channels when you can just use one where that one channel has double the number of players in it than the other two.

Am i rambling?

Well, if the reasoning behind this new rule is that a decent number of players are bothered by the spam of things they're not interested in is true, then the option C shouldn't have a problem of population. If not, then the rule is not really useful.

In my opinion, if you have to choose between options and you're not sure of which one, you choose the one that causes less harm (i strongly believe it is the option C), or to change nothing and leave everything as it was.

And honestly, i can't really see that an important number of people that play this game wouldn't be interested in trading, raiding, or partying. It is very hard to believe for me.

[Mythilogic]

Well, if the changes makes more than 20% of the truewow population unsatisfied, the change will erect.

[Shaeligator]

Well, if the changes makes more than 20% of the truewow population unsatisfied, the change will erect.

What? :s

[Intervention]

It wouldn't be too bad to make it optional. But i would prompt staff to promote the usage of other channels.

In other words, if you say LFG ICC in world i would strongly suggest staff just ask them to move to LFG as a suggestion. However, it would not be punishable if you do you use world to LFG and trade. Unless of course, you are disturbing the peace by advertising too constantly.

[Etro]

In my opinion, i would just inform players that they have an alternative to control the flooding of their chat boxes. Also, add more detailed information to the welcoming guide. Add it to the policies when someone is registering an account. Make a sticky topic in the forums about it. Advertise it madly.

A 'short' autobroadcast idea: "Remember you can always join the /chat, /lfg, and /trading dedicated channels if you don't like the fast pace of the /world multipurpose channel. Visit our forums for more information."

To suggest a channel over the other is not impartial if all of them are being supported.

[Intervention]

Well it's advertised on the home page, on the forums as an announce but that announces section will be undergoing an overhaul soon. It's already in the autbroadcast from memory and the edit of the welcome letter is on the to-do list.

[Shaeligator]

Hmmm, I kind of like the idea to be honest.
All that worries me is that some things that are advertised in the Trading channel won't be advertised in the multipurpose channel. You said people that want to sell things can advertise on all channels. This means they'd have to join the Trading and multipurpose channels, which defeats the purpose of having four separate channels and will evidently be more hassle than having the three. Is there a solution for this?

[Etro]

I understand that the purpose of having separate channels is to let people choose what channels they want to join and not. Those that choose to join to all channels for advertising reasons must be aware of the double sentences they'll see. But it still remains as an alternative, and they could only use /world. It is still better than to have muted people and confrontations all over the place.

[Etro]

Is this going to be implemented? You all pretty much agreed with me at the end. And, since /trading and /lfg channels seem decently populated now, it would be a good idea to just stop moderating for this rule without an announcement about it.

I know you're busy with the current situation, so i understand if you won't look at this yet.

[Shaeligator]

We'll have a talk about this in more detail once we've figured out everything, just give it a bump every now and then. I'll put it up on the staff forums for the other staff to look at too as it looks like only Inter and I have looked at this.

[Etro]

Thank you :3