Development Teams rule update

#1

[quote=“Taharok, post:1, topic:297296”]This new section is just for development teams. The other section is for everything else development-related.

Like the Tutorials section, every post in this section must first be approved before appearing. Staff members will notify you if your team was denied for whatever reason.

In order to be approved, your team must meet the following requirements:

[ul][li]You need to provide some sort of evidence that your development team will be successful (ie, pictures).[/li]
[li]Your work must be your own. Stealing other people’s work is unacceptable and isn’t tolerated here.[/li]
[li]Absolutely no advertising is allowed in this section. It is simply for recruiting people for your development team. You may discuss development here with your team, as well as discuss other features you plan on developing.[/li]
[li]If you are going to post a website, you must first get it approved with an Administrator or a Global Moderator. Failure to do this will result in an infraction for advertising.[/li][/ul]

Note: This board is unique to other boards on MoparScape. Here, you have privileges to moderate your own topic. Do not abuse this ability, otherwise your topic will be locked. Keep this section for your teams. If you wish to post other related development progress, post it here.

If you have any questions, post them in this topic.

Edit: This section still needs some tweaking. Please give us a little while to perfect it. Thanks. :D[/quote]
Let me start by saying that these rules are outdated. These rules were meant to be for both the Development Team board and Server Development boards, and then the two split. To start, posts no longer require approval to appear in the board. Below I’ve made some rules that I think would be fitting for the section, as well as a few suggestions.

[ul][li]

You need to provide some sort of evidence that your development team will be successful (ie, pictures).

It seems to me that one thread will meet this requirement, while another thread that appears to be exactly the same won’t. Perhaps instead of this vague requirement, set some actual guidelines that threads are expected to have. Examples could be an application template, a brief description of your development’s goals, and a way to contact the thread poster outside and within the forums.[/li]
[li]
Your work must be your own. Stealing other people’s work is unacceptable and isn’t tolerated here.

This doesn’t have a place in the development teams board. That said, it doesn’t have too much relevancy to recruiting developers.[/li]
[li]Clarify whether or not there is a minimal limit to how many developers a person must be looking to recruit before posting a thread, and make a point to outline that in the section rules.[/li]
[li]Allow thread owners to moderate their own threads.[/li][/ul]

That’s all for now. :slight_smile:

#2

I agree with this, I also feel there should be a distinct separation between people looking for 1 person to help them with their server & someone who is actually looking for a team. A lot of people are told to make a development team when in reality they are only looking for one person to partner with and currently we have no place to send them. They are stuck between the two.

Secondly what exactly constitutes as “evidence” a picture of the the client? A picture of an IDE project? I wouldn’t really call that evidence. It seems like it should just be made so all topics & moderated and have to be approved & only topics that have a well thought-out and concise objective should be approved (wasn’t it like this before?) e.g post with effort put into them.

Your work must be your own. Stealing other people's work is unacceptable and isn't tolerated here.
I'm pretty sure nearly everyone in that section is using some sort of server base which I am fine with. I think this is just an warning about claiming others work as your own.
#3

I’ve always preferred the idea that those who put more effort into their threads will get more attention, as opposed to forcing that effort into threads.

#4

[quote=“John, post:3, topic:540108”]I’ve always preferred the idea that those who put more effort into their threads will get more attention, as opposed to forcing that effort into threads.[/quote]Yea I actually like that idea over an approval system, we just need clearer rules over what is or isn’t viewed as “successful”. Keep in mind I feel like this should include people who plan on starting from nothing or close to it. The current rules also state you are not allowed to share your website/forums etc. However I feel these could be used to show evidence of that fact that they will be successful.

#5

The fact of the matter is that the development teams board isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) meant to be a place where you show off your development and that only. Having requirements such as visual proof is rather unnecessary in my opinion considering we have a Development Progress board where you do just that, as opposed to the Development Teams board where your sole intention is to gather developers. As for allowing links the major issue I can see forming is the board turning into the advertisement boards, and eventually rules would need to be shared mutually amongst the two.

#6

[quote=“John, post:5, topic:540108”]The fact of the matter is that the development teams board isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) meant to be a place where you show off your development and that only. Having requirements such as visual proof is rather unnecessary in my opinion considering we have a Development Progress board where you do just that, as opposed to the Development Teams board where your sole intention is to gather developers. As for allowing links the major issue I can see forming is the board turning into the advertisement boards, and eventually rules would need to be shared mutually amongst the two.[/quote]Maybe then it should be if you don’t have media that you can show then you need to pm a staff member links to be approved (similar to showoff board). I still feel like this leaves out people who are starting from nothing or close to it.

#7

What would change between then and after a link is approved? A link leads to the website regardless.
I’m against links within either board to be honest. The development showoff board is meant to be just that (as I see it) - a showoff board.

#8

[quote=“John, post:7, topic:540108”]What would change between then and after a link is approved? A link leads to the website regardless.[/quote]The link wouldn’t be in the topic, it’s simply sent to a staff member to verify the successfulness of the post. It wouldn’t be a requirement just an alternative means to verify that their team has a chance to be successful.

#9

They shouldn’t need to constitute anything as evidence, there should be guidelines on what goes into the section (such as have media, change log etc) but we shouldn’t actively pursue a standard for what a topic must contain for it to be considered a plausible development in the rules. If somebody posts a bad topic then they won’t get any applicants, likewise with server advertisements if they post a bad advertisement they won’t get any players. They’re both advertisements just for different roles. The only exception is if the topic doesn’t contain a link to the server for example with advertisements then it would be considered dysfunctional.

Honestly if the server contains all the core information, where it’s at, and what they need doing then it’s fine. For example (sorry to pick at amy on this one):

https://www.moparisthebest.com/smf/index.php/topic,658928.msg4407445.html

I don’t see the issue with just letting this one slide, it’s functional and people can apply. Basically, the rules should account for the bare minimum and guidelines can account for the rest. Also I think allowing people to look for partners and not just groups of people is fine. What’s the problem with that?

#10

Okay so i’m thinking;

[ol][li]You may post a topic asking for a partner or a development team.[/li]
[li]You may only have one topic. This means that even if you posted a topic a year ago, you must still use the original. If you have changed the contents of your development/partner thread, you must still use that original topic.[/li]
[li]Absolutely no advertising is allowed in this section. It is simply for recruiting people for your development team. You may discuss development here with your team, as well as discuss other features you plan on developing.[/li]
[li]If you are going to post a website, you must first get it approved with an Administrator or a Global Moderator. Failure to do this will result in an infraction for advertising.[/li]
[li]Keep this section for your teams. If you wish to post other related development progress, post it here.[/li][/ol]

#11

I’m not sure why the self-moderation permissions went away but we should still have the permission profile somewhere if we decide to use it.

#12

[quote=“zuppers, post:10, topic:540108”]Okay so i’m thinking;

[ol][li]You may post a topic asking for a partner or a development team.[/li]
[li]You may only have one topic. This means that even if you posted a topic a year ago, you must still use the original. If you have changed the contents of your development/partner thread, you must still use that original topic.[/li]
[li]Absolutely no advertising is allowed in this section. It is simply for recruiting people for your development team. You may discuss development here with your team, as well as discuss other features you plan on developing.[/li]
[li]If you are going to post a website, you must first get it approved with an Administrator or a Global Moderator. Failure to do this will result in an infraction for advertising.[/li]
[li]Here, you have privileges to moderate your own topic. Do not abuse this ability, otherwise your topic will be locked. Keep this section for your teams. If you wish to post other related development progress, post it here.[/li][/ol][/quote]I think zuppers in response to #5, abuse should include removing legitimate criticism. I think it’s important for users to see the criticism of a project so that they can evaluate that evidence for themselves before deciding to join a potentially degenerate project.

#13

[quote=“Pure_, post:12, topic:540108”][quote author=zuppers link=topic=658958.msg4407450#msg4407450 date=1392444253]
Okay so i’m thinking;

[ol][li]You may post a topic asking for a partner or a development team.[/li]
[li]You may only have one topic. This means that even if you posted a topic a year ago, you must still use the original. If you have changed the contents of your development/partner thread, you must still use that original topic.[/li]
[li]Absolutely no advertising is allowed in this section. It is simply for recruiting people for your development team. You may discuss development here with your team, as well as discuss other features you plan on developing.[/li]
[li]If you are going to post a website, you must first get it approved with an Administrator or a Global Moderator. Failure to do this will result in an infraction for advertising.[/li]
[li]Here, you have privileges to moderate your own topic. Do not abuse this ability, otherwise your topic will be locked. Keep this section for your teams. If you wish to post other related development progress, post it here.[/li][/ol]

[/quote]I think zuppers in response to #5, abuse should include removing legitimate criticism. I think it’s important for users to see the criticism of a project so that they can evaluate that evidence for themselves before deciding to join a potentially degenerate project.[/quote]I have no issues with legitimate criticism.

#14

I agree with most of these proposals. I think the requirement to include ‘pictures’ and ‘evidence’ is absurd; a screenshot of an Eclipse project means nothing, and the same goes for a screenshot of any in-game activity. We should have basic guidelines that can be followed when making a topic, such as including all relevant information to anyone who wants to make an informed application. The implication that staff should be deciding whether or not a development team will be successful is ludicrous. Lots of projects fail and a few succeed, but it’s not up to the staff to decide on this unless the original topic is severely lacking in information.

#15

It’s inappropriate for people to self-moderate their own threads. Users from this community aren’t mature enough to handle criticism most of the time, and ultimately there’d be a lot of unjustifiable (and non-transparent) censorship of posters who may not agree or see eye to eye with the OP.

Secondly, what are pictures evidence of? Topics with large numbers of images are a pain in the arse (I say this as someone who has to tether off his phone at the moment for internet, and as such only has a 3GB quota per month).

Finally, I don’t see why there should be a minimum threshold as far as team size goes. If I decide tomorrow that I want to start a project then I should be able to post there, even if I only want one person to work with.

#16

The problem is with threads that don’t have enough information in them tend to clutter the sections pages leaving the real, hard working groups ignored. You say people who put more effort in see more results but it is hard when nobody can see your post because every other post with “looking for good coder to help with my project - must know what you’re doing” ruins your chances.

If we had a sectional understanding of what needs to be posted in order to respond it might pick up the sections standards rather then what it is now. It is hard enough to find a group without people knocking you out of the way when they only spend 2 minutes on a project.

Not to mention, having a nicely presented and fully informing thread helps those looking for groups. They get the full information they need, and then they can decide on if they want to apply or not. It makes it so much easier then going out on a limb to see if the project is what you want.

If you don’t want the section to turn into an advertisement section then don’t let it, don’t allow them to show off the server for the servers sake. If the thread doesn’t reflect on what the owner wants to do with it then have the pictures removed until it is changed. It says “this is awesome home, got tones of shops and great features” then take it away, make people say “this is the current home but still undecided, i want to find a place suitable for the layout of the server and hopefully it will be decided within the team”. It shows direction of the team rather then a show off of it, and if it doesn’t then you should be strict.

This being said, i believe all threads should be approved before they’re posted so that they’re moderated effectively, that way you don’t get a thread slipping up and advertising.

I agree that rules need to be changed, however they need to be thoroughly thought out before hand.

#17

Just leave the section as it is. Nobody is really breaking the rules or posting unwanted crap.

#18

I don’t think that’s going to happen, considering the nature of how topics are bumped the bad apples would die and there isn’t enough influx to clog up the pipes. Besides, that’s not what the rule changes would allow. Those sort of topics would still be disallowed. My point was we should have rules that cover the minimum amount of information for a topic to function (contact info, what they’re looking for, some technical information etc) and then anything beyond that should be considered guidelines to improve the chances of acquiring applicants.

We shouldn’t be using the rules to enforce a standard upon topics within the section, it’s not our responsibility to force people to post high quality development advertisements with lots of shiny things if they don’t want to. We enforce what people need to know, and then anything beyond that is at the judgment of the poster. All we need to ensure is that what is posted can be read and acted upon in the way we intended with topics in that section.

I agree with this as well, the staff team is capable of managing the board, especially now we have a more sectional oriented system. We can be quite modular with it so it won’t be an issue.

#19

[quote=“zuppers, post:8, topic:540108”][quote author=John link=topic=658958.msg4407417#msg4407417 date=1392430303]
What would change between then and after a link is approved? A link leads to the website regardless.
[/quote]The link wouldn’t be in the topic, it’s simply sent to a staff member to verify the successfulness of the post. It wouldn’t be a requirement just an alternative means to verify that their team has a chance to be successful.[/quote]
And…? Who would even know that they even sent it to you. Nobody else knows. I gotta be honest, when I hosted my server a while back, I had a website. It still wasn’t remotely “successful” (tons of members can vouch for that). It doesn’t matter whether we think it’ll be successful or not, but if the applyer thinks it is.

We are changing the meaning of ‘rules’ to ‘topic template’.

#20

[quote=“arham 4, post:19, topic:540108”][quote author=zuppers link=topic=658958.msg4407418#msg4407418 date=1392430376]

And…? Who would even know that they even sent it to you. Nobody else knows. I gotta be honest, when I hosted my server a while back, I had a website. It still wasn’t remotely “successful” (tons of members can vouch for that). It doesn’t matter whether we think it’ll be successful or not, but if the applyer thinks it is.

We are changing the meaning of ‘rules’ to ‘topic template’.[/quote]Rules and guidelines are interchangeable. As for the matter of link approval, we could just have moderators comment on the topics and then after your link put a link to the approval message, ie [iurl=#my_site]My Site[/iurl][sup][iurl=#approval_msg][1][/iurl][/sup].