Clan SEN. You can have multiple operators for the staff, so moderating is less hectic.

Warcraft. III. Only.

Non WAR3 can join Clan channels.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 18 2010, 5:03 pm by DevliN. Reason: Removed minor flame. Maybe he just forgot. :P

We've discussed that in the past and have definitely considered it. I think the consensus was that everyone knows Op SEN already, but theoretically we can have a greet to redirect.

If we get enough War3 keys involved, I say we do it.

I have all the keys/proxies needed to create the channel. If the community and staff agree to the idea, I'll easily create the channel for you guys.

As for my thoughts on the original thread, I think it's completely asinine. Map creators create maps to be played. Gamers come to Op SEN to play these maps. Fortunately for some, TS and HS have become popular enough to have its own following and numerous tourneys. In retrospect, I personally think that there should not be another channel.

Fix'd.

In all seriousness though, while op SEN may be the de jure channel for mapping and SEN-related business, its actual state sees little more than spam and Temple Siege hype from pubbies who do not know what SEN is and couldn't care less. Half of the TS players that pop in do not even know that SEN stands for StarEdit Network, and many people who hang out there are either pubbies or people who came because it's one of the few remaining active and moderated channels on Bnet.

It's difficult to ask mapping questions or find willing map testers in Op SEN; no one wants to play anything other than temple siege.

I still vote that we run a channel for serious mapping business and other non TS-related items, despite the additional effort that would be required, simply because it's better to have two channels for two disjoint purposes, rather than have one channel with its purpose nebulous and mashed together with people trying to carry on four or five conversations and once and getting nothing done except pointless AoS matches.

You're wrong.

You could at least say why he's wrong.

I'll have to agree with HCM™Aristocrat, if the channel is getting to clogged up with outside people, we should create different channels. Back in Warcraft 3 there were dedicated channels which were exclusively for DOTA. Maybe a specific channel should be made for Temple Siege? Have all those people go in there and discuss the game, try to create games with others, etc...

He didn't give his reasoning for why he "fix'd" my preceding post. I also don't have to explain why 1 + 1 = 2. It's plain logic.

As for your idea on separate channel for Temple Siege games, that has been tried. Op TSC, Op Sta, and I'm sure there are even more attempts at a Temple Siege channel. Obviously, they all failed. If I get proposals from more people and support from others in creating a channel solely for Temple Siege (and Hero Sanctuary?), I'll gladly set up a channel of my own.

Pretty simple situation. Heinermann was banned from the channel, obviously something is being done wrong.

I don't see how having the tournament in a different channel makes us "lose out on advertising," considering Op SEN is advertised right in the force names and anyone who has played TS more than 3 times knows of the channel already. That also doesn't bring them to this site, the news post in the portal is more likely to attract newcomers than the channel this is hosted in.

Realistically, these tournaments should either be held in a tournament-specific channel, or the channel should continue to be moderated by normal staff. Not having the staff to moderate the channel during the event is not any excuse, that just reinforces that it should be held in another channel.

Don't be surprised if letting people be randomly banned from the main channel by non-staff members for trivial reasons ends up driving away more people than it attracts.

I agree with Nerdy. If you have the member base, then a three channel system would work out perfectly. One for tournaments, one for mapping specific, and the last for social. Whoever is in charge here should just pick a solution, stick with it, and make it work. Easy fix.

SEN has the member base, but not all of them frequent Battle.net. The channel is rarely full, and the complaint in OP is because of the tourney. A 3rd channel, not even a 2nd one, is necessary. A temporary channel is the solution here, in my opinion. It's not that complicated; just have people join some other channel for the duration of the tourney. I remember CAFG directed all those in tourney (#5 I think?) to "scum" or whatever it was. It's a simple solution. There's no need for a huge debate over a small matter as this.

I understand where you are coming from, but I have to disagree. If SEN isn't the peoples' plaything for them to put up whatever sub-par shit they want, why should op SEN be that place (specifically shitty tourneys)? The tourney itself wasn't shitty at all (as far as I know). The behavior after/before a match was only crap for the people who were caught in CAFG's way or were spammed into submission. The point I'm trying to make here is, is that just because something bad happened (lol scmdraft) doesn't mean that something bad happened to the tourney-goers, who are likely to return to the next tournament simply because they suffered nothing, while the bystanders did, therefore there is a shitty tourney that was successful and will continue to be shitty. Also, aren't these two a little contradictory? "You can make whatever shitty tournament you want, but doesn't mean it will keep running" "We set a standard that you have to follow"

I see no reason to have three channels as we only have problems when there is massive TS spammage (which doesn't have to be during a tourney). Even if we did have these three sections, how would it be even enforced? Should we ban anyone who tries to do anything OT? What if someone comes into op SEN (likely either to be the mapping or the social channel) and starts talking about TS (TOTALLY 100% IS GOING TO HAPPEN)? Is he banned? Do we have to ask him to go to another channel just because he wants to talk about temple siege? Maybe I'm thinking about it too much, but idk. On the other hand, if we were to not enforce it at all, what would even be the purpose of having the channels? Everyone would just go to op SEN and do whatever they want. It's a loss-loss situation.

This awfully reminds me of the map night issue I had a while back, when it was always the same map hosted over and over that had nothing to do with map night at all. Now it's just plain inactive.

Map night is on saturday, not friday.

Edit: finished post


Here I go again, dissecting flawed logic.

You said he didn't give any reason, yet he did, if you read it again he clearly says afterwards
Denoting that the previous "fix'd" was for humor, not seriousness, which played off of common prejudices against Temple Siege.

Something cannot be wrong just because "I say so" unless the thing in question follows no logic in the first place. To construct an argument that counters another argument, rather than saying "you're wrong", you point out flaws or exceptions in the logical thought process that the person had originally posted or provide counter-evidence that debases their sources or their facts. All you did was just say "you're wrong." Second of all, what is he wrong about? The whole thing?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 19 2010, 3:23 am by TiKels.

Having a temp channel during tournaments seems like the way to go. It's easy to "maintain" and you don't have to hand out banning power in the official channel to every random person that feels like holding an event.

I agree azrael, but only because you said "temp channel." SEN in itself garners nothing of value, if anything, from tournaments. There is no advertising because the maps that are played already have SEN on them, and most people going to the tournament already know that SEN is hosting it.

The only question now is, should Map Night be in op SEN still?

Solution: Temple Siege finds new home. It attracts only the overly aggressive AoS players, let them fight over power in their own channel. Most of the semi-decent players that aren't overly aggressive quit the damn map already.

And if I gotta make a map that attracts friendly, efficient, decent gamers, then I fucking will.

I'd love to see you finish such a map.


@The topic in general, (Tikels I'm sorry you're not going to get an invidual response.):

Guys, we're bordering on over-discussion and over-complication here.

Lets establish a few things:
Who on staff is likely to be handling this?
Myself. And why? Because Farty is the only other member we've had running a bot for us (SEN is his.), and I'm not sure if Farty wants or has the resources to run two or three more. When the pleas first came about Op SEN needing TS out and needing some more moderation I was the first one to saddle up a bot and step in. No one else really wanted to go near it IIRC, and thus its sort of been an automatic channel issues go to Ex sort of thing.

What is likely to happen?
Op SEN will remain Op SEN and do all the things it does, and tournaments will do one of two things:
A. Be moved to a SEN-variant name (SEN-T, SEN[Tourny], ect.)
B. Be moved out of a SEN-named channel entirely and thus not have our moderation/support on Bnet. We'll just support the topics for organization/advertisement/results purposes.

Notice in both instances I use likely because neither of these are set in stone. Another staff member could come up, present a bunch of keys and a bunch of bot experience that I'm not aware of, and handle it themselves. We could also decide to run more channels or we could decide that since tournies are so few and far between that some people are over-reacting and being over dramatic and not do anything. But those are both unlikely.

I hope that clears things up, and this over-discussion and over-complication will stop. This is a very simply cut and dry change or not issue and I believe we have the feedback we need at this time to make our decision. I'm leaving this open, but I really don't see the need for further reply.