Community Update 03/14/10

[Bulbous]

Let me rephrase, then.

The thing to avoid is worrying about alienating people in general. Some people bring nothing to the table except misery and frustration. Such people, while members of the forum and account-holders, are not true members of the SWGEMU "community".

You could easily boot 20% of the people for a variety of reasons (hacking, spamming, complaining, griefing, or just general immaturity) and the "community" would be better off. This isn't a business - the goal here isn't to maximize subscribers.

[Van]

Originally Posted by Bulbous

Let me rephrase, then.

The thing to avoid is worrying about alienating people in general. Some people bring nothing to the table except misery and frustration. Such people, while members of the forum and account-holders, are not true members of the SWGEMU "community".

You could easily boot 20% of the people for a variety of reasons (hacking, spamming, complaining, griefing, or just general immaturity) and the "community" would be better off. This isn't a business - the goal here isn't to maximize subscribers.

Oh I agree with that, you will always have people that you can't tiptoe around, but "swing that ban-hammer hard" is not a good policy, except in cases of exploiting and cheating. Then in some cases those people are truly helpful at helping the devs find holes in their code to fix so those issues don't go live.

And you are also correct that this isn't a business, however you want to maximize your testers.....even the ones who are questionable. People who might actually test and do a good job at it might be turned off by all of the negativity.