What If: User Support Intermediary Organization

[DasValdez]

Yea, time to get back on topic

...snip...

But, how formal does it need to be in order to get any of the advantages of being formal at all?

It shouldn't be formal at all.

• An email/post for modders telling them they can do this (if they want) is all it needs to be (which has already happened, above).
  
• People can hop into threads and try to help out (which is already happening).
  
• If the modder thinks certain people being particularly helpful, he/she can add their name to the OP (which is also already happening).
  
• If a modder wants, they can use bug trackers, wikis, whatever (which is already happening).
  

If you try to make it complicated (wiki templates and bug trackers and official lists and formats and recommendations) no one is going to do it. Better to let a couple respected modders lead by example, if they think they'll benefit from it.

Your work here is done.

[TheAlmightyOS]

Could we be... over-thinking this? To quote Rick Cook:

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

For the mod authors themselves, why not adopt a "Don't sweat the small stuff" approach? There is no way to stop users from making those beginner mistakes and posting about it looking for help. Just going to happen over and over again. Why respond? Let the community respond:

<reg_user> "Hi, Welcome to the forum! I see you are having issues installing MechJeb2. Did you try <insert basic answer here>?"

Modder does not get involved. The community steps in (and this could be any user) and handles it. Now if it is big, a break or something else, then the modder can interact directly.

I am not saying that the begining users should be ignored. But known issues should not be addressed by the modder (opinion)

EDIT: DasValdez, I am thinking along your lines

Edited August 7, 2014 by TheAlmightyOS

[sumghai]

I'm perfectly fine with users coming into my add-on releases threads and providing informal, ad-hoc support to other users.

My only peeve is users who don't read the documentation provided for them, and ask the same questions over and over again.

[DasValdez]

My only peeve is users who don't read the documentation provided for them, and ask the same questions over and over again.

I've been involved with support, training, and user documentation for a long time... you're never going to fix that problem. "Click here to upgrade your wetware with instructions on installing [modname]!" Man, we'll be rich, and then everyone will die.

KSP Plug-in Installation has caused a General Protection Fault in module [Heartbeat]. We are sorry for the inconvenience.

In all seriousness, mod users voluntarily "returning the favor" to mod makers by providing some front-line thread assistance is probably the best bet. Until they start teaching "Installing Mods" in primary school, right along side "How to do your Taxes" and "Boarding Public Transit", there will always be newcomers who trip on what we consider to be the most basic steps.

[Garoad]

What TheAlmightyOS described, modders not trying to address EVERY little question, is pretty much how this stuff works in most modding communities. If there are many complaints here about "too much support work" answering simple questions--the dedication is great and all--but publishers don't have time to waste on the minor stuff. Why try? Explicitly ask for help handling support volume, if it's really needed.

I've never tried to answer every question posted about something I've contributed to a game community. Just give it time, and if it's a popular -whatever-, someone will usually jump in to help OR the "problem" will solve itself (user figures out their own dumb mistake).

Note I'm not attacking the concept of the thread--if enough people want to do it, go for it.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Garoad

[TheAlmightyOS]

I'm perfectly fine with users coming into my add-on releases threads and providing informal, ad-hoc support to other users.

My only peeve is users who don't read the documentation provided for them, and ask the same questions over and over again.

That, I am afraid, will never change no mater what you do.

[TheAlmightyOS]

Ok, I had some sleep, a constructive talk with a modder (thank you Nathan for your time) and I am now in the loop. I get it. I am starting to understand the reasons behind the responses I am reading. I know why things are the way they are and now I can help.

(again, the following are OPINIONS. Not telling anyone to do anything here)

Scrap the informal community support idea. If you are in a semi-hostile community that isn't going to help.

Knowing what I know now I think I would have to back a formal "Mod Support" subforum or even a ticket system. To see how a really good support forum functions, check out TechSupportGuy.org. Might give some ideas

[RoverDude]

Ok, I had some sleep, a constructive talk with a modder (thank you Nathan for your time) and I am now in the loop. I get it. I am starting to understand the reasons behind the responses I am reading. I know why things are the way they are and now I can help.

(again, the following are OPINIONS. Not telling anyone to do anything here)

Scrap the informal community support idea. If you are in a semi-hostile community that isn't going to help.

Knowing what I know now I think I would have to back a formal "Mod Support" subforum or even a ticket system. To see how a really good support forum functions, check out TechSupportGuy.org. Might give some ideas

We already have an addon support forum, and can see how well that is working out

So to add something to the mix... my main issue is folks can't be bothered (fair enough) to read like... 100 pages of posts. A thought I had at one point was that it would be nice to have a Stack Exchange type format specifically for mod questions. but usual deal, adoption, etc.

[diomedea]

I am very much in favor of the idea of a select few "volunteers" who could alleviate the real modders from the daily task of supporting users, in particular with usual repetitive issues that cost a lot of time to address and were already dealt with. Some form of support from users to users is already visible, in particular with some well established mod with a large enough userbase.

While not required to make this form of support in any way "formal", it may help if those users who are considered "experts" with the blessing of the modder, were also recognised as such, as new users may find more easy to distinguish their advice. Also, such "experts" may be more willing to keep an eye with that mod threads (and possibly with the general "Add-on Requests and Support" subforum) if being recognized. Each modder can decide on his own how to make for that, I believe an effective way could be to publish the nicks of the "experts" with the OP of that mod.

Such experts may also serve to actually filter the "real issues" and present them to the modders, possibly in such a way to really help with bughunting and even with testing the new versions.

[regex]

A thought I had at one point was that it would be nice to have a Stack Exchange type format specifically for mod questions. but usual deal, adoption, etc.

A knowledge-base of some sort would be great, something that was easier to search for those not familiar with how to use Google.

[TheAlmightyOS]

We already have an addon support forum, and can see how well that is working out

So to add something to the mix... my main issue is folks can't be bothered (fair enough) to read like... 100 pages of posts. A thought I had at one point was that it would be nice to have a Stack Exchange type format specifically for mod questions. but usual deal, adoption, etc.

Yes, but one of the first rules of that forum is NO MODDED INSTALLs and it is basically an arm of Squad's support architecture. What we are looking for is supporting mods. It would be slightly easier in this case as almost all issues would be those with installation. I am sorry I completely missed the "ADDON" portion of your post and was thinking of the KSP support subforum. I took a look. Yeah it's bad. Yet it is very unorganized and that is something we could fix.

Hate stackexchange, however your idea has merit, as do many of the others that have proposed wikis and other forms of reaching out and taking large threads and extracting the relevant data for easier use. I believe this idea needs to be discussed more thoroughly. Possibly in another thread cause it is not support per say, but an enhancement or project. But I will leave that decision up to the OP. If they think it is off topic I will make a new one for the project.

I am very much in favor of the idea of a select few "volunteers" who could alleviate the real modders from the daily task of supporting users, in particular with usual repetitive issues that cost a lot of time to address and were already dealt with. Some form of support from users to users is already visible, in particular with some well established mod with a large enough userbase.

While not required to make this form of support in any way "formal", it may help if those users who are considered "experts" with the blessing of the modder, were also recognised as such, as new users may find more easy to distinguish their advice. Also, such "experts" may be more willing to keep an eye with that mod threads (and possibly with the general "Add-on Requests and Support" subforum) if being recognized. Each modder can decide on his own how to make for that, I believe an effective way could be to publish the nicks of the "experts" with the OP of that mod.

Such experts may also serve to actually filter the "real issues" and present them to the modders, possibly in such a way to really help with bughunting and even with testing the new versions.

Diomedea, you are a part of the staff so maybe you can answer this: Is there a user field (or, could Squad be convinced to create such a user field) or could a user-type be created to distinguish a normal every day user from an "Expert"? I am talking about something a user can't just switch on in their profile and say "Yep, I am a MechJeb expert now!" but something that the mod Author would have to request from a moderator for that user?

If we do not have that, ANYONE could be an "expert"

Edited August 7, 2014 by TheAlmightyOS
merged my two posts and fixed an error

[Greys]

I think working on a knowledgebase very much fits within the job description of a support group, developing and exploiting resources makes everybody's job easier, even if they still have to walk users over to the information on the wiki, if it exists there they can, and they can refine the page over time when people have trouble understanding it, and continue to help people as they follow the wiki's recommendation; but it will also eliminate some problem cases because the user did find it, and it will reduce some cases because the user did understand it; and hopefully over time, just as the modder can train the support to be more correct, over time the support can train the userbase to use, improve, and inform about the wiki. If done right it will snowball and you'll have a small team of official helpers, and a large core userbase who are also able to help maintain, develop, and direct to the wiki.

I've always found that if you just have a wiki, it will almost certainly be unused, underdeveloped, and because of those two, frequently incorrect. By The Way, reference KSP's wiki, which is all of that. By having a wiki and a group pushing it's use and actively developing it, you can give it the kick start it needs to become worth using, and once it's worth using it's worth anonymous investing in to make it even better, and worth anonymous using as a source.

[TheAlmightyOS]

I think working on a knowledgebase very much fits within the job description of a support group, developing and exploiting resources makes everybody's job easier, even if they still have to walk users over to the information on the wiki, if it exists there they can, and they can refine the page over time when people have trouble understanding it, and continue to help people as they follow the wiki's recommendation; but it will also eliminate some problem cases because the user did find it, and it will reduce some cases because the user did understand it; and hopefully over time, just as the modder can train the support to be more correct, over time the support can train the userbase to use, improve, and inform about the wiki. If done right it will snowball and you'll have a small team of official helpers, and a large core userbase who are also able to help maintain, develop, and direct to the wiki.

I've always found that if you just have a wiki, it will almost certainly be unused, underdeveloped, and because of those two, frequently incorrect. By The Way, reference KSP's wiki, which is all of that. By having a wiki and a group pushing it's use and actively developing it, you can give it the kick start it needs to become worth using, and once it's worth using it's worth anonymous investing in to make it even better, and worth anonymous using as a source.

OK. So point of topic: WIKI!

Wiki's are stupidly easy to set up. Just about every CMS out there has a wiki element. Even sharepoint. I could have one up by the end of the weekend (would be end of today but work and relationship get in the way). But as it has been said, you can set it up but maintaining it? That's the.... hard part. (so is not cussing for me but moving on...)

We need some volunteers to not only populate it with data, but keep it up to date. Who has the time and resources to do that? Seriously asking. Do we have a group that is willing to devote their time to this because if so I will start work on it.

ALSO: What else we want in there? I am working on a project currently as an extension to the Community Mods and Plugins Library that allows AUTHORIZED users to keep up to date information about mods in categorized, indexed and browse-able catalog. To do this I am using Drupal which is a very flexible CMS. Because of its flexibility I could add just about anything you guys could think of.

Edited August 7, 2014 by TheAlmightyOS

[diomedea]

Is there a user field (or, could Squad be convinced to create such a user field) or could a user-type be created to distinguish a normal every day user from an "Expert"? I am talking about something a user can't just switch on in their profile and say "Yep, I am a MechJeb expert now!" but something that the mod Author would have to request from a moderator for that user?

If we do not have that, ANYONE could be an "expert"

No such field currently exists, though it could be possible to make one. But then it would require an admin to manage that field (quite cumbersome if those experts are changing frequently), and it would not distinguish among the specific mods an user is to be considered an "expert" with.

No, my idea is to actually have the modders establish who are to be the "experts" with a mod, and they themselves can provide recognition with that mod OP. So, there would be no action required from the staff to make anybody an "expert". But, if anybody was to self-proclaim an expert with a mod, and the modder asked the staff, we would consider action to keep things true to the modder intent.

Still, this is new ground, no specific rules are set yet. It is my opinion that, if some form of improvement of the services to the community are possible within our grasp, sure we would like to consider them.

[TheAlmightyOS]

No such field currently exists, though it could be possible to make one. But then it would require an admin to manage that field (quite cumbersome if those experts are changing frequently), and it would not distinguish among the specific mods an user is to be considered an "expert" with.

No, my idea is to actually have the modders establish who are to be the "experts" with a mod, and they themselves can provide recognition with that mod OP. So, there would be no action required from the staff to make anybody an "expert". But, if anybody was to self-proclaim an expert with a mod, and the modder asked the staff, we would consider action to keep things true to the modder intent.

Still, this is new ground, no specific rules are set yet. It is my opinion that, if some form of improvement of the services to the community are possible within our grasp, sure we would like to consider them.

I understand the concept of your idea. It isn't a bad concept. Modder designates an "Expert" though OP. Expert helps out. HOWEVER, let's go over a few known variables with this plan

We are talking about users. In tech support, customer service, health and human services, the "USER" remains the same. They are like a mythical being in their exploits, yet they are very very real and very very hard to deal with. We are having these problems because of the user. Namely, the user's unwillingness to read the OP. So we are going to designate Experts by... putting their name in the OP? If a malicious user messes with a clueless user and the clueless user screws up their install or worse their computer, they are going to blame the author for choosing that "expert" when they were never chosen in the first place.

The user is a lazy beast. But also a simple one, and their eyes can be attracted to certain things. Such as changes in color for one example. Which, is one of the reasons why your name is in green, diomedea, to distinguish you as a moderator. A user is not going to go look at a list to see who is a mod and who isn't which is why such a distinction is necessary. So, we need something that the user can see in the experts post info that distinguishes them just like the color distinguishes you. A title or a badge. But one that has to be given. Not one that can be edited by anyone and allow for impersonation

OH! and I forgot to mention that I am not implying that we do this and cause hours and hours of work for the staff. I am saying that if we do this we need a surefire way to let the users know that who they are talking to is legit at a glance. as it is, not sure there is a way without causing a lot of headaches

Edited August 7, 2014 by TheAlmightyOS

[Master Tao]

In most cases of user-provided support on these forums, no one questions the assistance. In the rare cases where someone questions the user's expertise, we can refer them to the OP. If they don't believe that, they may well be beyond help, anyway.

I also doubt that a designated expert would provide malicious support, but it would be easy enough for the modder or a moderator to remove them from the list for abuse.

[ferram4]

We're going to end up with this being a big official thing, aren't we? Alright, let's play ball.

So, how do we set things up so that an "expert" for one mod can't impersonate an "expert" for another? Otherwise experts for competing mods might decide to cause trouble for their competitor.

Who decides and how do they decide whether a mod gets to have "experts" or not? Or will the admins / moderators issue "expert" status at modder will to anyone they deem, regardless of how many users their mod has / how much support it actually needs? If it's the former, what about mods that would be able to make use of "experts" but can't get them sanctioned for whatever reason? If it's the latter, doesn't that dilute the effectiveness of the approach and result in lots of people gaming the system to have a title (because let's admit it, being acknowledged by a modder to know what you're doing wrt support for their mod is kind of impressive)?

And then there are the issues where users will cross wires and try to get support from an "expert" for mod A in a mod B thread, because that "expert" happened to post there for whatever reason.

This sounds like it's designed to smash into all the things I was worried about when I mentioned not wanting it to become too official.

[TheAlmightyOS]

In most cases of user-provided support on these forums, no one questions the assistance. In the rare cases where someone questions the user's expertise, we can refer them to the OP. If they don't believe that, they may well be beyond help, anyway.

I also doubt that a designated expert would provide malicious support, but it would be easy enough for the modder or a moderator to remove them from the list for abuse.

I bolded the important bit of your post. No one asks, no one looks. No one knows. they just blindly follow the advice which could be bad advice from an unauthorized source. However you could very well be right and I might be making a fuss about nothing. I am just worried about a situation between a self proclaimed expert and a clueless user. The SP-Expert gives unintentionally harmful advice to the user and the user comes back and gives the mod author an earful. Maybe the SP-Expert thought they were helping. Maybe they just think they are an expert on everything KSP cause they have 100+ mods installed. Who knows. That is the nature of the user. And it is not something that is easily policed ether if you think about it. The moderators and mod authors can't be checking the support threads all the time looking for unauthorized experts. Then you are back at square one.

But I completely agree that malicious intent would not come from a designated expert. Or from an unauthorized one ether. I guess I was using the wrong word. More like harmful/unintentionally harmful?

[TheAlmightyOS]

We're going to end up with this being a big official thing, aren't we? Alright, let's play ball.

So, how do we set things up so that an "expert" for one mod can't impersonate an "expert" for another? Otherwise experts for competing mods might decide to cause trouble for their competitor.

Who decides and how do they decide whether a mod gets to have "experts" or not? Or will the admins / moderators issue "expert" status at modder will to anyone they deem, regardless of how many users their mod has / how much support it actually needs? If it's the former, what about mods that would be able to make use of "experts" but can't get them sanctioned for whatever reason? If it's the latter, doesn't that dilute the effectiveness of the approach and result in lots of people gaming the system to have a title (because let's admit it, being acknowledged by a modder to know what you're doing wrt support for their mod is kind of impressive)?

And then there are the issues where users will cross wires and try to get support from an "expert" for mod A in a mod B thread, because that "expert" happened to post there for whatever reason.

This sounds like it's designed to smash into all the things I was worried about when I mentioned not wanting it to become too official.

Your concerns are my concerns, ferram. Right now this is all just talk. Throwing ideas like tennis balls.

I am very concerned about making sure experts can not be impersonated. While I am unsure why competing mods would sabotage one another (is it really that cutthroat here?) my thought is to have a badge or identifier for the modder. The badge is more elaborate so lets go with the simplified identifier. Let's say you, ferram4, designate me, TheAlmightyOS, as an expert for your mod. Though some magical process we have not completely discussed yet, I would get a "ferram4 Mod Expert" under my name designating me as your "staff".

As for the questions for who gets to be an expert, I think it was implied by all that it would be the modders choice and the modders choice alone to chose their people.

Like I said, all just ideas we are throwing around. But I just want to make absolutely clear that I understand your concerns. (except the sabotage thing. Did that actually happen?!)

[ferram4]

I am very concerned about making sure experts can not be impersonated. While I am unsure why competing mods would sabotage one another (is it really that cutthroat here?)

It's not, but impersonating is probably not going to happen either. Still, if we want to cover all bases, we have to cover all the bases and all the details, right?

The badge is more elaborate so lets go with the simplified identifier. Let's say you, ferram4, designate me, TheAlmightyOS, as an expert for your mod. Though some magical process we have not completely discussed yet, I would get a "ferram4 Mod Expert" under my name designating me as your "staff".

If it's right below the name, then the flair field can be used to easily impersonate that. So it's got to be somewhere else. But now, how do you convince users that this is actually someone who knows what they're talking about and not some fool proudly boasting about how leet they are with this mod? Because I'd (personally) be more likely to suspect the latter myself; people like to brag.

As for the questions for who gets to be an expert, I think it was implied by all that it would be the modders choice and the modders choice alone to chose their people.

So Joe and Jake Newb show up, and Joe makes a mod that is only a config edit and posts a thread. He then demands that someone designate Jake as the Mod Expert for his mod. The moderators must suddenly jump to confer that on this person, right? But that's ridiculous, so the moderators won't; so at that point, who decides when a modder is able to exercise the privilege of appointing Experts? Or should moderators be at the beck and call of Joe and Jake "Rule Exploiting" Newb?

Like I said, all just ideas we are throwing around. But I just want to make absolutely clear that I understand your concerns. (except the sabotage thing. Did that actually happen?!)

No. But if you don't like a person / mod, and you have the power to raise hell for them under the guise of being helpful, how many people would take that?

[TheAlmightyOS]

It's not, but impersonating is probably not going to happen either. Still, if we want to cover all bases, we have to cover all the bases and all the details, right?

If it's right below the name, then the flair field can be used to easily impersonate that. So it's got to be somewhere else. But now, how do you convince users that this is actually someone who knows what they're talking about and not some fool proudly boasting about how leet they are with this mod? Because I'd (personally) be more likely to suspect the latter myself; people like to brag.

So Joe and Jake Newb show up, and Joe makes a mod that is only a config edit and posts a thread. He then demands that someone designate Jake as the Mod Expert for his mod. The moderators must suddenly jump to confer that on this person, right? But that's ridiculous, so the moderators won't; so at that point, who decides when a modder is able to exercise the privilege of appointing Experts? Or should moderators be at the beck and call of Joe and Jake "Rule Exploiting" Newb?

No. But if you don't like a person / mod, and you have the power to raise hell for them under the guise of being helpful, how many people would take that?

I am thinking it would have to be below the avatar, something to distinguish it from other items. Something that can not be changed

As for the extra overhead on the mods/admins, yeah. That is a big problem and one I am not sure we can work out and just might be what ends this particular train of thought. Even if you gave Mod Authors privileges, then everyone with a modded part will want those privileges. Personally I have no ideas on this one.

And you are right. I did not see it from that angle.

[diomedea]

I understand the concept of your idea. It isn't a bad concept. Modder designates an "Expert" though OP. Expert helps out. HOWEVER, let's go over a few known variables with this plan

We are talking about users. In tech support, customer service, health and human services, the "USER" remains the same. They are like a mythical being in their exploits, yet they are very very real and very very hard to deal with. We are having these problems because of the user. Namely, the user's unwillingness to read the OP. So we are going to designate Experts by... putting their name in the OP? If a malicious user messes with a clueless user and the clueless user screws up their install or worse their computer, they are going to blame the author for choosing that "expert" when they were never chosen in the first place.

The user is a lazy beast. But also a simple one, and their eyes can be attracted to certain things. Such as changes in color for one example. Which, is one of the reasons why your name is in green, diomedea, to distinguish you as a moderator. A user is not going to go look at a list to see who is a mod and who isn't which is why such a distinction is necessary. So, we need something that the user can see in the experts post info that distinguishes them just like the color distinguishes you. A title or a badge. But one that has to be given. Not one that can be edited by anyone and allow for impersonation

The current situation is that already users answer to other users, trying to provide help within their possibilities. I did so a number of times, many others do more than me. Quite often, such help is useful with basic issues. I won't say the "malicious user" can't exist, but the KSP community is extremely helpful and positive: if anybody was to try and willingly provoke damage to others, somebody would intervene to warn in-thread, and most probably the wrong-doer would be reported to the staff. To this day, never heard of anybody giving bad advice on purpose, that proves this community and this system work (though, improvements are always possible).

I would not worry much if an "expert" is shown on the OP by a modder. First, modders have no obligation to designate anybody; if they do, it is because thay already had some experience with those users and can feel they will do the right thing acting in a support role. But, in case, modders will hold no responsibility if issues are not solved (or worse), as there is no obligation at all to provide help with mods.

Yes, I note (again) you would like some evident form of recognition be given, like with the status of a user (so, color-coding the username). Please, note I am not ruling it out, but have to make clear user statuses and groupings are only managed at the top level of authority with this forum, so the implementation of such a system may prove to be impossible. And even if it wasn't, we would need to implement a whole new set of rules, in some ways more complex than they are now. Not everybody is happy with too many or too complex rules. At the very least, we should first provide a recognition to the modders (but, anybody can become a modder just by publishing an add-on, the staff has nothing to do about that role now, and probably better so). Then we should configure what form of authority is tied to modders and experts, and that would certainly limit the choices of those who really should be helped with this system (the modders).

[TheAlmightyOS]

The current situation is that already users answer to other users, trying to provide help within their possibilities. I did so a number of times, many others do more than me. Quite often, such help is useful with basic issues. I won't say the "malicious user" can't exist, but the KSP community is extremely helpful and positive: if anybody was to try and willingly provoke damage to others, somebody would intervene to warn in-thread, and most probably the wrong-doer would be reported to the staff. To this day, never heard of anybody giving bad advice on purpose, that proves this community and this system work (though, improvements are always possible).

I would not worry much if an "expert" is shown on the OP by a modder. First, modders have no obligation to designate anybody; if they do, it is because thay already had some experience with those users and can feel they will do the right thing acting in a support role. But, in case, modders will hold no responsibility if issues are not solved (or worse), as there is no obligation at all to provide help with mods.

Yes, I note (again) you would like some evident form of recognition be given, like with the status of a user (so, color-coding the username). Please, note I am not ruling it out, but have to make clear user statuses and groupings are only managed at the top level of authority with this forum, so the implementation of such a system may prove to be impossible. And even if it wasn't, we would need to implement a whole new set of rules, in some ways more complex than they are now. Not everybody is happy with too many or too complex rules. At the very least, we should first provide a recognition to the modders (but, anybody can become a modder just by publishing an add-on, the staff has nothing to do about that role now, and probably better so). Then we should configure what form of authority is tied to modders and experts, and that would certainly limit the choices of those who really should be helped with this system (the modders).

As I mentioned above to farram4, I am in agreement with you about implementation of the recognition of who is an expert and who isnt. I do not think it is feasible. The reason I had pointed it out a second time was to address the concern that the modders (namely farram4) have about impersonation. Without the distinguishing characteristics, would this be considered a viable option? without it I do not know how to address Farram4's concerns.

[smart013]

I believe your second post and your attitude there explains why you come off as so arrogant in the first. I'm sure next you will show me your A+ cert or some other such nonsense. You are treating people like children and yourself like a self anointed savior who by your own admission has pretty much zero experience in this community.

Thanx. I follow these threads only as a "forumer" with very mixed feelings but without professional credibility, and i`m very thankful to see these concerns voiced by you and others in this informed and spot on way. Again, thank you.

As a sidenote: it is not impossible that the current, potentially "golden age" of mod development for KSP is exactly this - the golden age on which we will sadly look back after some people with "the best intentions" corrupted a lively and extremly creative modding community. I hope it will continue to be one where incredible stories like Kerbonite (outstanding pace and quality) can still happen, but its existence is no law of nature but something that should be protected.

my 2c, youre mileage may vary

[ferram4]

Honestly, I don't like how this went from being a not-official, only-sanction-helpful-users-within-thread idea to a full-blown change the forum hierarchy and rules to explicitly set up a group of extra privileged people. Frankly, I can't think of a better way to set modders and users against each other than create an official-modder-and-forum-sanctioned group of people for support, which will look a lot like modders are trying to avoid engaging with users. One of my concerns was about this becoming too official, with the perception of distance between users and modders, and it's been going down that path for the last few pages.

I don't think there's much value in pursuing this much more, and I'm just going to stick to whatever completely informal and un-sanctioned stuff already happens in my mod threads; it's certainly simpler for me to do that than deal with whatever shenanigans are needed for this, and there will be fewer unintended consequences to deal with for me and less work for the moderators.