Staff Replies During the P/S Meeting

[Synthesis]

Is it just me, or did most of the Staff replies seem overly "press secretary-ish?"

"Yes, that's a valid question, and we're addressing these concerns by initiating a planning process to coordinate a proactive approach toward implementing technologies and policies that will facilitate identification and correction of deficiencies in the current model.  Next question?"

[Jingo]

Welcome to the bureaucracy. 

They could have said "Good question, we're fixing it by doing things to make them better."

[AmandaGreathouse]

It's not just you. Though I would have figured with them attempting to work in concert that there would have been more... I guess prewritten stuff said with topics predecided. In any case, I understand it, but yeah, it was all veyr diplomatic.

[Lizzie]

I still think it was cute how they responded as though they were call center reps.

"Unfortunately, we will be unable to do that. However, you will find the answer for this over there."

"Unfortunately, you are required to do this. However, we might be able to provide that for you as well."

It's standard script that all call center ops are required to memorize. Using "Unfortunately" instead of "Sorry but..." and "however, instead of "but." Call center buzzwords. They're great. And I thought it was cute. I didn't mind it at all. It made me giggle cause it meant they all got stuck in the same customer service classes I was in.

[Nyr]

It's not just you. Though I would have figured with them attempting to work in concert that there would have been more... I guess prewritten stuff said with topics predecided. In any case, I understand it, but yeah, it was all veyr diplomatic.

If we had predetermined answers and responses before the meeting, we wouldn't need to have the meeting.  We could do it all on the GDB.

Sometimes, the way questions or suggestions are worded leave no room for anything but a "yes, we will keep this in mind," or "we won't be doing this," or "that's a great idea, thanks," regardless of how flowery the language surrounding it is.

I got the idea to say "Thanks, <name>" from having read recently about AA meeting formats.  (Not that I think you are addicted.)

[Thistle]

Part of what you may have been experiencing was that all of the questions that were asked were followed by a lot of chatter on the staff side.  It can be awfully hard for one person replying to try and make it work with an answer that is essentially a consensus.  While you might have only seen Adhira's, Nyr's, Morgenes's or whomever voice it was usually several of us speaking.

[Synthesis]

That was actually one of my criticisms of the entire idea of having a "player/staff meeting" via another text-based format.

That is, what could possibly be the advantage of a chat room over a discussion board, when matters of some importance are being debated?  The players and the staff already meet every day on the discussion board.  Before I actually started to ask a question, I'd look around on the GDB to see if it hadn't already been answered in one form or another.  Lo and behold, I didn't need to ask any questions.  I think the only new information presented during the chat was within that long computer science-related tangent that Morgenes went off on.

If the Staff are able (or care enough) to comment on anything, chances are, it's already been/being discussed on the GDB.  The P/S meeting chat format is a waste of time and quickly degenerates into uselessly vague generalisms. 

There are a hundred and one different ways the Staff demonstrate their dedication and commitment to the game every single day.  If someone isn't satisfied by that colossal effort, it's hard to believe that a player/staff chat will do anything to change the situation.

[RogueGunslinger]

That was actually one of my criticisms of the entire idea of having a "player/staff meeting" via another text-based format.

That is, what could possibly be the advantage of a chat room over a discussion board, when matters of some importance are being debated?  The players and the staff already meet every day on the discussion board.  Before I actually started to ask a question, I'd look around on the GDB to see if it hadn't already been answered in one form or another.  Lo and behold, I didn't need to ask any questions.  I think the only new information presented during the chat was within that long computer science-related tangent that Morgenes went off on.

If the Staff are able (or care enough) to comment on anything, chances are, it's already been/being discussed on the GDB.  The P/S meeting chat format is a waste of time and quickly degenerates into uselessly vague generalisms. 

There are a hundred and one different ways the Staff demonstrate their dedication and commitment to the game every single day.  If someone isn't satisfied by that colossal effort, it's hard to believe that a player/staff chat will do anything to change the situation.

This is exactly how I felt.

[mansa]

I like seeing staff online, at the same time we're online, and answering questions that we ask.  It shows that they are just like us.

[Rahnevyn]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a different format for a live meeting between players and staff that you think might be more helpful/interesting?

[AmandaGreathouse]

Not particularly. Thank you for asking.

What Lizzie said.

[Lizzie]

Not me, I liked it. If it had been open for anyone to talk, at any time, like a regular chatroom, it would've been chaotic, tangential, and taken three times as long to get the exact same information passed.

I might've liked to see a -little- more freedom of the players who were voiced, to be able to discuss one-on-staff whatever they were bringing up. So in other words, they'd be voiced, the staff would respond, but they'd -still- be voiced so they could continue talking, as though in an actual discussion rather than a Q&A.

[RogueGunslinger]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a different format for a live meeting between players and staff that you think might be more helpful/interesting?

Voice Chat system like Ventrillo?

I'm sure there's a way to mute/unmute people, just like was used in the 2.Arm chat system. Like keeping a text based chat system next to it so we can whisper staff when we want to be unmuted and talk.

[manonfire]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a different format for a live meeting between players and staff that you think might be more helpful/interesting?

I don't know how it would work, really, but I'd love to see the players be able to debate the staff on issues.

Now, ask me if I think that'll ever happen.

[RogueGunslinger]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a different format for a live meeting between players and staff that you think might be more helpful/interesting?

I don't know how it would work, really, but I'd love to see the players be able to debate the staff on issues.

Now, ask me if I think that'll ever happen.

I think this would be absolutely awesome.

[a strange shadow]

I'd be down for a civil staff-player debate on select issues... just so long as nobody tips off psionic fungus.

We'd never get a word in edgewise!

[Nyr]

Not me, I liked it. If it had been open for anyone to talk, at any time, like a regular chatroom, it would've been chaotic, tangential, and taken three times as long to get the exact same information passed.

I might've liked to see a -little- more freedom of the players who were voiced, to be able to discuss one-on-staff whatever they were bringing up. So in other words, they'd be voiced, the staff would respond, but they'd -still- be voiced so they could continue talking, as though in an actual discussion rather than a Q&A.

It's possible we could do this, but note that the variety of questions would be far less, as much more time would need to be spent on each individual question, concern, or suggestion.  We'd have to determine a stopping point for each person, too.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a different format for a live meeting between players and staff that you think might be more helpful/interesting?

I don't know how it would work, really, but I'd love to see the players be able to debate the staff on issues.

Now, ask me if I think that'll ever happen.

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php

[manonfire]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a different format for a live meeting between players and staff that you think might be more helpful/interesting?

I don't know how it would work, really, but I'd love to see the players be able to debate the staff on issues.

Now, ask me if I think that'll ever happen.

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php

Prepared statements do not a debate make.

But thanks for trying.

[Agent_137]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a different format for a live meeting between players and staff that you think might be more helpful/interesting?

Voice Chat system like Ventrillo?

I'm sure there's a way to mute/unmute people, just like was used in the 2.Arm chat system. Like keeping a text based chat system next to it so we can whisper staff when we want to be unmuted and talk.

ventrillo (or teamspeak) is a good idea but free ventrilo servers cap out at 8 users. Free teamspeake users have a higher cap . . . but i'm not sure what that is.

I have admin on a ventserver i pay into periodically. If there is interest, i could discuss this with the lead admin. it would be easy to give a few immortals admin over a specific "arma meeting" channel, andthen have everyone load up into there. the client itself for users is totally free.

[Synthesis]

The GDB is a great forum for debates.  However, it seems like the Staff responses are pretty piecemeal:  each staffer comments on various things that strike their fancy (e.g. Morgenes with code issues), but there isn't any sort of "official response," and not all things are commented on.

Perhaps there should be a Staff position dedicated to presenting Staff views on things on the GDB.  When issues are raised by players, you could consult the experts in Imm-land, then post official responses.  Even if the official response is only, "We're working on an official response."

[FantasyWriter]

If the OP could respond in ask the staff threads.
Then we would have a debate channel.

[Olgaris]

The GDB is a great forum for debates.  However, it seems like the Staff responses are pretty piecemeal:  each staffer comments on various things that strike their fancy (e.g. Morgenes with code issues), but there isn't any sort of "official response," and not all things are commented on.

Perhaps there should be a Staff position dedicated to presenting Staff views on things on the GDB.  When issues are raised by players, you could consult the experts in Imm-land, then post official responses.  Even if the official response is only, "We're working on an official response."

For me, this falls into the realm of unrealistic expectations. I mean, come on. We're people, you're people, we have opinions, you have opinions. Can't we just express our opinions? Does there have to be an official response to everything? Do you have to consult with a team to come up with the Player Consensus on certain subjects?

The reason that you get piecemeal responses is because we run Armageddon very organically. Some things we pretty much agree on, other things we don't. Being the guy in charge of "official responses" to All Things Commented On would be the shittiest job in the world. Nobody would want it, probably even if you paid them. If something is a rule, it's in the rules or documented on the website or in staff announcements. If it's not a rule, there isn't an official response.

I suppose my question to you would be, why do you feel like you require this from us? How would it help you enjoy the game?

[Synthesis]

I don't feel like I require it.

Personally, I'm happy with the way the GDB is already.

I was just suggesting it on behalf of you know...people who want more, more, more.

[Krath]

If the OP could respond in ask the staff threads.
Then we would have a debate channel.

QFT QFT!

[Dalmeth]

How about a player/staff week where specific items for the discussion are agreed upon beforehand, questions are sent in, and the staff respond to those questions on the board?

The original questioner could respond to the staff's response for a total of two, maybe three times before reaching a cutoff limit.

Just create a new forum for it.