On Apr 13, 2020, Sven Hartge wrote: > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > > On Apr 13, 2020, Sven Hartge wrote: > > >> And I've also witnissed this in other contexts, be it in an > >> Enterprise setup (where one group flocks to Confluence and the other > >> stay in the mailinglist) or a MMO guild, where one group prefers to > >> converse in Teamspeak and the other uses the forum. > > > forum-only people are filthy casuals and should be shown the door :) > > Well, no. In my experience it always depends on what medium was first. > This one will have the most experienced users. Everything coming later > will most likely having a harder time getting (fully) integrated. I was specifically taking the reference of your guild / mmo context. In my case, we would always spin up both a forum and TS (or the experienced were always on both). In fact, I think a forum account was more often than not required in order to even get on TS in the first place. TS was basically *required* while in a big engagement though. If you weren't on TS, you weren't in the raid / fleet / whatever the game at hand called it. > > Again, in my experience, YMMV. > > >> In all cases it lead to rifts and problems down the line. > >> > >> As hard as it is, one should commit to *one* communications channel > >> and only one, as to not create parallel "societies". > > > In the groups I've been in, it was always that a formal discussion > > (e.g. a quarterly state-of-the group / planning session), if held on > > teamspeak, was recapped on the most permanent thing -- that is, the > > forums/mailinglist/etc. > > Different subject here. Sure, you want to have the meeting minutes and > the decisions from the meeting somewhere to be referred to, be it a > website, a forum, a mailinglist (which feeds into an archive, which is > most times a website again). > > But that comes *after* the fact, after the discussion and the decision > has been made. > > In your example, everyone not participating in the meeting in TS is cut > off and only gets to read it in the minutes. Well, TS or ingame chat or whatever "realtime medium" was used. To be fair though; it's been like 10 years since I've been heavily involved in MMOs, and I'm probably forgetting a bit. I seem to recall that the discussions were more just a realtime review of a longer-standing (say a week?) forum thread to hammer out the issues people raised over that time; and a bit of "what're we gonna do to make the game fun again for our people". > > There was no live TS-to-IRC/forum transcriber active at the meeting and > nobody that read the IRC channel/forum back to the TS to get the other > people involved directyly. > > What I am saying here is that by having multiple channels of > communication you naturally get different groups of people in them which > tend to drift apart sooner or later, because each group isn't > represented in the other media. And then you get the "forum casuals" > against the "mailinglist greybeards" against the "IRC noobs" in the end. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that idea :) -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature