Player submitted guides - input requested

[Adhira]

We're considering creating a new form of submission - Player Created Guides.

This section would be designed to display guides submitted by players on different topics. An example is the information sheets that have been put together on the board, we've had others submitted via the mud mail such as Biographies and a Guide to Getting Involved in Plots.

Here's some thoughts/questions on the idea. I'd like to hear feedback on the points raised, notions debunked, or things that we've missed pointed out. I'd also appreciate an indication of yes or no via the poll above.

Ownership - players would need to understand that they give up the 'rights' to these pieces of work. For instance we may choose to edit the work, it may be updated at some point by other players or staff, it may be replaced by a different document.

Authority - if three people all submit a guide for 'Biography' whose guide gets chosen? Should there be a process for players to collaborate officially on documents? Via a gdb thread as previously?

Editing/Checking - All documents will need checking that the information is not too 'IC', for quality and accuracy. One suggestion was that helpers might like to take on this role. Should this be a player role or staff role?

Approval - What about if something get turned down? Are hurt feelings going to be an issue here...

[Cutthroat]

Ownership - players would need to understand that they give up the 'rights' to these pieces of work. For instance we may choose to edit the work, it may be updated at some point by other players or staff, it may be replaced by a different document.

Sounds okay to me. The best possible thing should be up there.

Authority - if three people all submit a guide for 'Biography' whose guide gets chosen? Should there be a process for players to collaborate officially on documents? Via a gdb thread as previously?

A rough draft can be posted up by players on the GDB, while others can post their alternate versions, and still others who don't have a draft to contribute can pick the articles apart for changes they might like to see or make.

Editing/Checking - All documents will need checking that the information is not too 'IC', for quality and accuracy. One suggestion was that helpers might like to take on this role. Should this be a player role or staff role?

It could be for both players and staff. Staff would check over the article for IC information which they may be better at doing than players while players could mostly handle quality and accuracy issues.

Approval - What about if something get turned down? Are hurt feelings going to be an issue here...

I don't think it would be. Again, the best possible things should be up there.

[FantasyWriter]

I like this idea and agree with all the stipulations set forth.

[mansa]

I'd like to see these guides to be publishable similar to a 'wiki' style, where it may be easier to update them on the go.  I'd definitely want to be able to see a change-log, AND to be able to see who approved which change.

I'd also want it to be locked down, and only specific users were allowed to make these changes, via Helpers or Immortal Volunteers or maybe a specific 'Guide Writing Volunteer' position.

That way, when a code change gets introduced, you can easily go to the website, write up your change, and hit submit, and an email gets sent to the immortal staff saying, 'User: Mansa has requested a change to the documents.  Click here to view the change.  Click here to approve the change."

[spawnloser]

My first question is... wouldn't these best, instead of being 'guides', be better labeled as FAQs that are written by players and formatted/edited by the managing staff?

Additionally, are there projected topics that would be requested, or is this going to be a free-for-all sort of thing?

[Wyx]

I'd like to see these guides to be publishable similar to a 'wiki' style, where it may be easier to update them on the go.  I'd definitely want to be able to see a change-log, AND to be able to see who approved which change.

If these are to be accepted they will be posted in some form of CMS, wiki or not.

[Obeliskocism]

Editing/Checking - All documents will need checking that the information is not too 'IC', for quality and accuracy. One suggestion was that helpers might like to take on this role. Should this be a player role or staff role?

I like the idea of letting players take on this role.  I do not like the idea to it being limited to helpers.  I, for one, would be happy to do editting, but I'm not a helper.

[mansa]

I'd like to see these guides to be publishable similar to a 'wiki' style, where it may be easier to update them on the go.  I'd definitely want to be able to see a change-log, AND to be able to see who approved which change.

If these are to be accepted they will be posted in some form of CMS, wiki or not.

Yeah, but -i- would be interested in the change logs.  I don't have access to immortal junk   

[Eloran]

I'm hesitant any time I'm told I'll need to give up ownership of what I write.

There's no harm in working with the player to edit his/her work.

[Cerelum]

I'm hesitant any time I'm told I'll need to give up ownership of what I write.

There's no harm in working with the player to edit his/her work.

Yeah I'm with Eloran here.  I don't care if you use it in multiple places on your website or forums at all, but I would want proper credit paid to me, without it being screwed with by every change happy admin with a nitpick.

Sorta like it being freeware (Use it as long as you want, but pay proper respects in changing or altering it).

[Adhira]

There was never any intention not to give credit to the authors, what we don't want is to be tied in to never altering, not being able to add to a document and so on. Both staff and players, in this instance.

We were viewing these as a collaborative effort, by players, much like some of the documents I've seen being worked on in the gdb. If the integrity of your work is the issue, this may not be something that interests you. If there was an overwhelming feeling that these should be written, edited and updated by one author/owner, we could look at this as an option.

This issue has come up as we have a number of player submitted guides sent in. It would be great to find a way to use the work that people are doing.

[Cerelum]

... If there was an overwhelming feeling that these should be written, edited and updated by one author/owner, we could look at this as an option...

I would think this would be the preferred method instead of a wiki type approach.  I think too much of the original meaning of any authors submitted work would be lost if every tom dick and harry was tweaking and tuning their work.  But I would think if say I wrote something and you suggested something that made sense it would be good.  I just don't think people will just give full rein to anyone with their own thoughts and feelings they's spent time writing.

[Obeliskocism]

I don't think these guides are going to be works of literature that need copywrite protection or restricting edits only for the author. 

If you look at a lot of the documentation on the Website already, many have notes at the bottom creditting one player or staff member at one date, and another at a different date when changes in the game made updates prudent for the document.

This is probably the sort of thing we're talking about here, not things that need protection like the short stories in the submissions section.

I think the way Adhira describes the collaborative effort sounds just fine as is - you'll get a credit on the displayed page, but it's not the kind of writing that you need to get protective about.

[ibusoe]

I'd like to do a guide for thieves.  It would mean a lot to me.

[Northlander]

Hey there. I don't have anything concise to say on all points, but this seems like a fun and good idea, useful for both old and new players.

Regarding 'Authority' and 'Approval', I would like the site to look like this:

Player-submitted Guides
Thief guide by Galahad
Theif guide by ibusoe
Thief guide by Lancelot
Tuluk guide by Amos

Accepting all submissions would make the size and friendliness of our playerbase obvious for potential gamers while also reward everyone who submits a guide with warm fizzy-fuzziness. Though we'd still need edits for IC information.

[Lizzie]

I sometimes get confused reading the GDB, when someone cites or quotes from a player-submitted guide as an authorative "voice" about a topic of discussion. You end up with a few pages of thread saying "oh yeah, well in THAT guide, it says this." and "But the IMM says this, over here on that thread."

You get people who insist, that since this player-submitted guide was approved in 2004 by a staff member who hasn't been on staff for over 3 years, it must be law and you must adhere to what it says. Cause, the staff member wouldn't have approved it in 2004 if that wasn't so, and certainly it would've been updated by a current staff member, if it had changed.

And yet..you'll see a post on the GDB from Sanvean or Morgenes or Xygax in the staff announcements folders saying "This new thing is new and it is true and it is the new rule effective right now."

But not every new player reads the GDB. Some of them will read the docs. And the docs say otherwise. Because those are player-submitted docs, that no one has bothered to update. Or..they'll do the opposite: they'll see only very old references to information on the GDB..while there's a new player-submitted doc that is much more clear and better reflects the current status of the game, but the new player won't know to look at the player submitted guides to read it and get stuck RPing according to outdated information.

So - in summary. If there's consistency or -clear- disclaimers, then yeah I'm all for it. If not, then no.

[flurry]

Lizzie, I think the real problem you're illuminating is that docs, regardless of who wrote them, eventually can become outdated. I agree; it does sometimes lead to inconsistencies. However, whether a doc was player-authored or staff-authored has nothing to do with that. The staff have said, again and again, that documentation written by players (and then approved by staff) is no less authoritative. Who wrote a document and whether the approving staff member is still active both seem like red herrings to the real issue which is the need to update older documents.

If we do go to a system where there are several player-written guides about the same topic, I hope it's done in a way to keep out any glaring inconsistencies.

[Adhira]

One of the reasons we'd prefer this to be a collaborative project with staff acting as editors and so on is for the reason Lizzie expressed. Once a document is on the website it's regarded as authorative, things change and we need to be able to change the documents with them.

With further thought it seems to me that having documents where authors are unwilling to have their work change would not work for this purpose. Submissions such as the stories is likely the best place for this kind of work. Guides on how to play this game need to be flexible.

[Cerelum]

I had no problem with things being changed due to obsolescence.  And I would submit a guide that provide it was only edited for that or IC/OOC info.  But any other edit I think should go through the original poster with a polite email or PM, "hey could you add/subtract this and maybe put this."

[Vessol]

I likes.

[Obeliskocism]

But any other edit I think should go through the original poster with a polite email or PM, "hey could you add/subtract this and maybe put this."

That's assuming the original poster is still around when the edit/update becomes necessary.  I suppose it's not much of an issue if you're assuming arm.2 will be opening in a few months or a year, and your document will then be obsolete, but if arm.1 sticks around a while, or if we carry over this method and some of the guides to arm.2, you'll run into issues where an update is needed two or three years after the original publication was done.  What if the original poster is no longer playing Arm, or hasn't been involved in the clan/issue in the years since they first wrote about it?  Should the staff have to spend time trying to track them down to send an email asking permission to update the guide, or ask that same person to update the guide when they may no longer be among the best authorities on the matter?  

I don't think so.  I'm still with Adhira on this, thinking they need to be very flexible collaborations rather than having rights reserved for an individual author.  Save that writing for story submissions and let this be something more open-ended so we maximize the helpfulness and usefulness (and efficiency of keeping up to date) these guides.

[Thunkkin]

Wiki format removes some of these problems.  Would it be possible for players to be able to submit changes/edits and only staff could approve them?  it would be chaotic at first, but once everything settled down, would be fairly reasonable.  Though ... it would create more staff work ...

Also, if for some reason you want to perpetually own and control your guide to a game that a few hundred people play, don't upload it.  But seriously - it's not a book or a short story.  It's a contribution to the community of your fellow players.  If the community isn't important enough to you to make you want to contribute ... don't.  Flexible collaborations ftw.

[mansa]

I wrote this:
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,33512

I have no problem with it being on the website.   The only issue is that I want it to be able to be updated when new changes happen, and the 'updates' to be quicker than current website docs.  I don't care if other people add to it / change it.

For example, when Morgenes introduced the emote system where you can target multiple keywords, ie emote waves to ~tall.muscular.man, I quickly was able to update the little doc that I wrote and include it in there.

[Jingo]

I was thinking about writing a wilderness survival guide.

But it pretty much just boiled down to...

a. Knowing the dangers of a given location

b. Knowing whether you can defeat/bypass the dangers of that area.

And bring water.

[RogueGunslinger]

Are you serious?

You can find water there.

[Fathi]

One of the reasons we'd prefer this to be a collaborative project with staff acting as editors and so on is for the reason Lizzie expressed. Once a document is on the website it's regarded as authorative, things change and we need to be able to change the documents with them.

With further thought it seems to me that having documents where authors are unwilling to have their work change would not work for this purpose. Submissions such as the stories is likely the best place for this kind of work. Guides on how to play this game need to be flexible.

This pretty much sums up my views on the subject.

I'd gladly contribute to such a project and I think it's a fabulous idea.

[spawnloser]

Ahem...

My first question is... wouldn't these best, instead of being 'guides', be better labeled as FAQs that are written by players and formatted/edited by the managing staff?

Additionally, are there projected topics that would be requested, or is this going to be a free-for-all sort of thing?

...ahem.

[Adhira]

I think these should be guides. They're guides formulated by players that they think would be useful in the world.

At the moment projected topics are not planned. We're doing this in response to the submissions that are getting mailed in, and threads we've seen here on the gdb. Staff will be maintaining the help files and offical guides, these player guides are a reflection of what players feel they'd like to see and also what they'd like to write about.

[Adhira]

Thanks for the feedback.

I'll be putting something together for this and hopefully getting working on adding this section to the website in the next week or two. More info will be given on how to submit an item once it's set up.

[Dalmeth]

Good work!