Aksel Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 As someone who disapproves of PC culture and bending over because someone is offended, I personally welcome this alliance. Many alliances, groups, games, etc hold alliances, nations, and the such with themes derived from a multitude of cultures, government types, and history that all include bad shit. Being an American and someone who not only celebrates history, but enjoys history as a thing that shouldn't be forgotten, erased, or shit on - but remembered, celebrated, and learned from - there ain't nothing wrong with a confederate themed alliance. Just like there ain't nothing wrong with a soviet, chinese, communist, socialist, nazi themed alliance. There is a line between a theme and actually pushing rhetoric of hate. Just because you as a person are weak and are told something is bad and should be erased doesn't mean it needs to be. You can disagree and share an opinion, but pushing for something to go away because you are awfully uneducated isn't how it works. Additionally, shouting at newer alliances that happen to be small isn't any way to act in a community - micros quite literally never appear on the radar of larger alliances in terms of actual gameplay unless they do some dumb stuff and raid - in which case, just play the game. New people and new alliances should never be made to feel unwelcome in this community. The community should grow and prosper. That being said, there needs to be a way to organize. Back in my day of moderation, albeit there were some shit moderators who moderated incorrectly, things were kept pretty simple. This new moderation team has allowed for certain things to happen which in my experience only happens when someone cannot separate their moderation identity from their in-game identity. Swifter moderation and moderators who actually cruise the forums is what is needed to move things before they derail out of control like this thread. Separating forums was something I've always been against, however at this time it would seem that it is the best option - My suggestion would be to separate by alliance rank. Normally, those within the higher ranks are more relevant politically with relevance dropping as you move further down the list. The issue here would be alliances dropping in rank in war...but if you did something like top 50 alliance affairs forum vs the next 50, that covers 100 alliances. So maybe just 3 forums tiered by rank for news. This should create an easy system for moderators to simply move to the desired category.............instead of micro tags or a simple micro forum, because as @Alex said, which I agree, defining micro is a bit broad. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasky Darkfire Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post deletethisaccount Posted August 4, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 4, 2019 4 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Riddle Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 15 hours ago, Buorhann said: Not championing your cause, simply because it's not just your cause. Are you also still an anthropologist while running a experiment in this game too? No biggie; and I was with Rough Riders, technically I'm still gathering tertiary data but for most part the experiment is over. Now with ironfront there's a decent amount of stuff I learned that I can apply to create a good community. It's frickin fun. 1 1 ^ NO LONGER^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest San Fortunado Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 On 7/30/2019 at 3:02 PM, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: Making a micro affairs similar to National Affairs essentially segregates them off, and the main players can ignore the spam. Yeah then the OWF goes from a thousand points to five a year. Also, sorry reviving a dead post just like they revived a dead alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts