- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 2,744
- Reaction score
- 1,835
Level of Site-Wide Activity:
Level of RP Activity:
Effectiveness:
Member Relations:
Overall Performance:
Suggestions for Improvement:
Overall I would say the staff is both visibly present and active in their duties. Notably, content submissions seem to be handled quickly, preventing a backlog of user submitted content from languishing for months on end in limbo. The only exception to this seems to be the Tech Boards, yet I am in between sentiments with regards to this. On the one hand, the Tech Boards are by far the most active of the content submission boards. So by virtue of the sheer weight of content, it is understandable to have backlogs from time to time. On the other hand though, it is the only board with three dedicated Moderators and two pages worth of unapproved content still awaiting verdicts.
Whether this is because reviews have been submitted by the Mods and people just haven't gotten around to answering them, or a lack of activity on behalf of the Tech Mod team, I can't really say. Even so, with the recent rule changes the Tech Boards are nowhere near as backed up as what we saw during the last Timeline or even the beginning of this one. So there has been at least some decent progress with regards to trimming the fat.
Whether this is because reviews have been submitted by the Mods and people just haven't gotten around to answering them, or a lack of activity on behalf of the Tech Mod team, I can't really say. Even so, with the recent rule changes the Tech Boards are nowhere near as backed up as what we saw during the last Timeline or even the beginning of this one. So there has been at least some decent progress with regards to trimming the fat.
Level of RP Activity:
Much improved form what I have seen in the past. During the last Timeline I could scarcely recall a handful of threads where staff members were actively participating in the RP. And of those threads, most of their activity was confined to important story threads and seldom did we see them interacting in the wider RP. Now it is not uncommon to see one of our resident RP Admins participating in anything from run of the mill faction missions, to social threads, to main battle threads. So here I would give the staff top marks for drastically improving over past examples.
Effectiveness:
Overall I would say the staff is effective as a team: which is important. Even though everyone has their own assigned areas of expertise, there seems to be a fair deal of overlap in shared knowledge.
Member Relations:
I'll admit, even after three years here I still view some of the Administrative staff as a tad unapproachable. I won't name names, and much of this perception could simply be chalked up to my own lack of interaction with the staff overall.
Overall Performance:
Overall, I would say the staff is doing an admirable job of keeping things in order.and running smoothly. There is, however, on area which I would recommend adjustments be made which I will outline in my next comment.
Suggestions for Improvement:
With regards to suggested improvements, I wouldn't call this an improvement so much as it is an adjustment to practices.
With the recent time skip I noticed a bit of disorganization amidst its roll out, most notably the lack of a refined battle system at launch. Even now this system is undergoing tweaks and modifications, and furthermore none of the main factions seem equipped with the write ups and content necessary to support it. In effect, this has hobbled the war story and prevents factions from doing overly much until they can implement the organization necessary to be up to the task of working within the framework of this new battle system.
My suggestion to curb issues like this in the future: don't tie yourself to a deadline. Don't say, for example, "May 4th will be the launch date for our timeskip!" Not only does this set expectations and place immense burden on yourselves to churn out a product to meet those expectations, but it reflects poorly when you launch the timeskip with a system which is still (by the staff's own admission with regards to the battle system) a work in progress. A tenet which I have long held myself to is "quality takes time, and I'll be done when I'm satisfied."
I feel that if the staff were to take a similar approach in the future, then you can give yourselves crucial leeway to produce a quality product that everyone can enjoy on day one. You can announce your intentions, certainly, but I personally wouldn't announce any concrete launch dates until you are satisfied with the content you have. Then you can make the announcement of an intended launch date to give the community time to make the necessary adjustments.
Think of it this way: if a game developer announced the release date for a game, but then didn't have any multiplayer modes included at launch, then a month later allowed you to download a "trial version" of their multiplayer mode to be implemented in the game in full at a later date, I doubt that developer would be in business for long.
Just something to think about.
With the recent time skip I noticed a bit of disorganization amidst its roll out, most notably the lack of a refined battle system at launch. Even now this system is undergoing tweaks and modifications, and furthermore none of the main factions seem equipped with the write ups and content necessary to support it. In effect, this has hobbled the war story and prevents factions from doing overly much until they can implement the organization necessary to be up to the task of working within the framework of this new battle system.
My suggestion to curb issues like this in the future: don't tie yourself to a deadline. Don't say, for example, "May 4th will be the launch date for our timeskip!" Not only does this set expectations and place immense burden on yourselves to churn out a product to meet those expectations, but it reflects poorly when you launch the timeskip with a system which is still (by the staff's own admission with regards to the battle system) a work in progress. A tenet which I have long held myself to is "quality takes time, and I'll be done when I'm satisfied."
I feel that if the staff were to take a similar approach in the future, then you can give yourselves crucial leeway to produce a quality product that everyone can enjoy on day one. You can announce your intentions, certainly, but I personally wouldn't announce any concrete launch dates until you are satisfied with the content you have. Then you can make the announcement of an intended launch date to give the community time to make the necessary adjustments.
Think of it this way: if a game developer announced the release date for a game, but then didn't have any multiplayer modes included at launch, then a month later allowed you to download a "trial version" of their multiplayer mode to be implemented in the game in full at a later date, I doubt that developer would be in business for long.
Just something to think about.