Suggestions for improvements

[ForceStealer]

Well I would go out on a limb and assume that means he doesn't agree with you regarding a redesign?

 

[X-SOLDIER]

This precisely. I was working for Microsoft when the extra flat interface stuff started coming around and became common in Windows, and I have a deep-seeded loathing of that "Metro" visual style.




X

 

[Starling]

I see people suggesting the removal of the FAQ and I can't help but wonder how providing less information about the forums is supposed to help in any way. I specifically brought up posting information in a stickied thread as an alternative to putting it in the FAQ, so it's not the sole option for adding information. What's important here is that members have some means of looking up all the information they should know about the forums if they don't want to ask someone about all the different things, particularly things pertaining to privacy, dealing with problems with other members including staff, etc. The circumstances in which staff posts a member's PMs addressed to a staff member in the staff section but that they should only do so with the member's permission really needs to be stickied somewhere so everyone can look it up.

When I suggested making improvements to it, I figured the search option would still be available for those who want to use the FAQ, while providing some kind of menu that'll make it easier for members to look through the available information than if all they had was the search bar. Can you imagine if the only way to get to threads on the forums was to use the search function instead of looking through the section you know it should be in? It would also make it easier to tell if what you're looking for is actually in the FAQ to begin with instead of wondering if you just didn't search the right word.

I'm getting the impression some people misunderstood the part about how different methods of contacting staff are processed and specifying which method is preferred in what circumstances and such. I wasn't talking about explaining how to PM people, which I believe is already in the FAQ. To clarify, I've been told the different methods of contacting staff differ in apparent efficiency, which has been given as reasoning to require contacting staff through a particular method instead of another, regardless of opinions and preferences on the member's side of things. That situations where someone is forced to switch methods to have something addressed can and have happened gives reason for such information to be provided from the start to avoid their recurrence in the future.

Another point that seems to require elaboration is information about staff conduct. While staff is held by the same rules as everyone else on the forums, their position as staff allows them to do things other members cannot and puts them in a position of authority where they're expected to do things like enforce the rules and resolve conflicts between members. As such, occurrences of misconduct within staff has the potential to be a lot worse than the same with someone who isn't. What do you do if someone who enforces the rules misuses their authority or exhibits exactly the kind of behaviour you wouldn't want to see from someone with that authority? Additionally, how does staff treat issues concerning their fellow staff members fairly and without bias if there aren't any set standards on how to deal with it while maintaining objectivity? Making it clear what is and isn't tolerable behaviour from staff would make it easier to verify that the reasoning is sound and free of bias towards either end, especially with the low transparency impeding member input on whether or not the matter was dealt with fairly.

Spoiler: @Claymore:

The problem with the thanks thread is the exact opposite of running on too much community input happened. I list the various problems in more detail in my response to X but the gist is that a decision was made based on a minority opinion of a poll that doesn't accurately reflect opinions on the proposed solutions, since said solutions were proposed after the poll was made and one of the options was too vague to be representative of a specific solution. Too little time was given to proceed from bringing up anonymous complaints about the thanks system to changing the forums to implement a supposed solution. In doing so, doubts about the association of the thanks system to problems in debates went unheeded and it was just assumed that the thanks system needed to change. Now, my attempts to have those issues addressed are met with people telling me to let it go, to stop bringing it up, that there's no issue and so on.

How do we know that the thanks system is what's causing the issues brought up in debates? What are the other factors in the problems people have associated with the thanks system? What about looking at the moderation aspect of dealing with problematic behaviour in debates? Who says better moderation of conduct in debates isn't the way to deal with it? There are plenty of questions that should've been asked and answered before reaching a conclusion on what problem we were actually dealing with instead of doing what was done in that thread.

I figure the stuff you're probably referring to as descending into chaos isn't so much from everyone having their way as no one having their way or member input not being taken into account the way it should be, such as disregarding rule of majority, not giving people enough time to voice their thoughts, going ahead and doing something that affects the whole forum without listening to what the members have to say about it and so on.

Spoiler: @Lic:

Having someone for that is nice in theory but I don't think it'd work well in practice. Giving a specific person the task of greeting new members and answering all their questions risks becoming tedious for whoever has to do it, the new member may have to wait if they're not on at the time and greeting new members is generally a community thing to begin with. Having the information available in the FAQ or a stickied thread would allow people to let the new member know they can check there if they ever find themselves wondering about something or to better answer the questions personally if it's something they don't remember off the top of their head, which I've seen happen. You're definitely right about people being embarrassed or simply preferring to find things themselves if they can. I for one took a long time before I actually asked someone how to make the spoiler tags say whatever you want and generally prefer to look things up if I can before I resort to asking people about stuff.

Spoiler: @Octo:

What you said as well as elaboration on when PM exchanges warrant posting it in staff and staff policy about notifying the member that their PM will be posted in staff before actually doing it is exactly the kind of thing that should be easy to look up. Private messages are private and you make a big deal about not breaching that privacy unless it's necessary to conduct and investigation (which could use some elaboration too), so that privacy shouldn't be suspended with interactions between members and staff just because no one ever told them PMs they sent to a particular staff member may be posted in the staff section if staff decides it needs to go there. No one has the means to know it's always been the case if that information isn't readily available in a place dedicated to providing that information and not knowing something concerning the privacy of PMs is a pretty big deal.

Spoiler: @Gabe:

If you were sober enough to be aware you weren't being polite but too drunk to care, then you should've waited until later to post so you'd word your thoughts more politely. I made this thread so people can suggest improvements for the forums and generally give more feedback on this kind of thing. Starting your post by calling my opening post (which is shorter than yours, btw) TLDR and saying the entire purpose of this thread is useless because the forums are fine as they are, as well as wondering in your second post why people are taking a topic meant to be serious seriously as if it shouldn't be is incredibly rude.

Regarding the reasoning that making changes to the FAQ isn't worth it because it takes time and effort, if everything operated on that logic then nothing on the site would ever change and it would eventually stagnate. Theoretically, we don't need to change the site as is being worked on right now but we are because it's good to improve it in any way we can. Likewise, improving the forum so that members both old and new have better access to information they ought to know about the forum is definitely an improvement worth making. Just so you know, I'd be willing to type the whole damn thing myself if that's what it takes to make all that forum info readily accessible, provided someone can sticky the thread or put it in the FAQ depending on which option is used. The problem with that is that this is something staff should be doing and the staff related info would obviously have to come from staff themselves.

I don't get why you act like I constantly bring up the thanks thread considering I've only done it one time. My points about the problems surrounding it were never properly addressed and I wanted to suggest ways to avoid a repeat of what happened in the future. We might as well learn from it and avoid making the same mistakes.

Spoiler: @X:

1. Stop accusing me of misrepresenting the situation when I'm listing facts instead of actually addressing those facts. It's condescending and indicates that you aren't actually acknowledging what I'm saying. If you were, you'd treat my input with as much value as you expect yours to be treated in return. Saying I'm wrong and that I'm presenting an inaccurate picture of the situation without even elaborating on your reasoning isn't conductive to that.

2. There are several problems with citing that poll to defend your claim that things were handled properly:

a) Polls are supposed to be handled as rule of majority. 24/40 people voted they didn't want anything changed, which is 60%. That's quite plainly the majority. The option of restrictions was also vague and could mean a number of different things not everyone in that category would necessarily agree on, making opinions on that matter ambiguous without dividing it into specific options.

b) That poll was meant to gauge general opinions on the thanks system without intending to make immediate changes. People voted on it before the intent to make changes and what those changes would be were actually suggested. Therefore, it's not actually representative of which option members want and shouldn't have been used as the basis for going through with changes. If you wanted a poll that's actually representative of that, then it should've been a poll listing the specific options available such as no change, thanks free subforum, member specific option to not see thanks while allowing everyone else to keep using them, etc. You're affirming the consequent (If people voted for restrictions on the thanks system, any option given under that category is approved by those people, which assumes they all agree with the suggested application of the opinions they expressed even if they weren't aware of the manner of application when voting, or even that it would be applied at all. There's no way of knowing if they had the same thing in mind or something different.), which is a fallacy.

c) Elaboration on specific options and what they entail, as well as discussing the nature of the problem can affect opinions and cause them to change. I started out open to the idea of a trial run, where thanks would be temporarily absent from some threads until I thought about the problems with its implementation and further discussion indicated changes would be made without actually discussing the root cause of the thanks issue. I recall a few people saying they voted for something they didn't want due to misunderstanding the options or changing opinions so redoing the poll would likely lead to different results.

3. You still haven't addressed the issue of not giving people enough time to actually discuss the matter before making changes. 2 days simply isn't enough. All the other stuff like mod nominations and the various polls voting for the best FF song were done over a far larger period of time specifically to give people the time to think things over before making their final decisions and those aren't even things that involve lengthy discussions between members to reach a consensus. Doing all that in 2 days, especially when the aim wasn't to change things immediately is far too quick and is therefore rushed. Rushing solutions simply isn't conductive to ensuring that the problem's been correctly identified and solved with majority consensus of the community.

4. Treating absence of specific input on something as indication that there isn't any, or as justification to skip to solving a problem that hasn't even been properly discussed is fallacious (Argument from ignorance), especially given the issue of low member participation on most matters concerning feedback, which is one of the reasons I made this thread in the first place. I want to know why so few members regularly give input about matters that concern them and how that issue can be improved. Given opinions I've heard expressed about the thanks thread, one reason in that case seems to be that the thread in general is simply too unpleasant to go back to. You claim we lack sufficient information to discuss the underlying problems concerning debates and whether or not they're related to thanks but discussing the matter at all isn't dependent on input, not to mention hardly any time was given for said input to be given to begin with. Such reasoning also doesn't justify skipping that step of the problem solving process.

5. While changes that add an optional feature that doesn't affect anyone not using it such as giving members the ability to not see thanks if they don't want to is fine, changes such as moving threads to a thanks free section that will be permanent despite prior discussion being about a temporary feature to test how lack of thanks affects people needs re-verification of member input before you go through with it, which is what I meant by it in the first place. Doing it afterwards is too little too late.

6. As said at the start of this thread, steps were skipped in dealing with the thanks issue. There was no need to go from Ghost making a thread about trying to figure out what everyone's opinion on the thanks system based on a few mentions of people having problems with it to assuming the issues brought up with debates are automatically caused by the thanks system without examining the various factors surrounding the debate problems, whether or not they actually are caused by thanks instead of mistakenly associated with it and only move on to proposing solutions after making sure the real problem's been correctly identified.

7. The thanks free debate section was touted as a test/trial run, which it isn't as there's no intention to remove it after the supposed trial period, which hadn't even been given when it was put up. The details of how it would be implemented weren't even ironed out until it was already put in place. We could've tested if the invisible thanks option was sufficient to satisfy some of the people who wanted restrictions before assuming something like the thanks free debate section was necessary. It could've even been tweaked to allow members to choose which sections to make thanks invisible in and which to show them. Seems like it'd make a better trial run, in any case.

Spoiler: @Yop

Seems like a pretty solid list of things to add to the FAQ. When you say the restrictions aren't just there for spambots, do you mean for people who sign up to spam, troll or generally be nuisances?

I recall mention of what software the forum would be moved to and how that was planned to happen at the same time as the site update. Not much has been said about the forum change and things have been pretty quiet about the site update for a while. Any chance some kind of progress report on where it's gotten so far will be made? If you need regular reminders, maybe setting an amount of time after which a reminder so they won't be excessively frequent. Sometimes it's hard to tell if progress stopped completely or if everyone's just being quiet about it.

Wasn't the forum running basically running on forum culture back when the rules were still being set up? I skimmed some threads further back in this section when checking if anyone had ever made a general feedback thread and saw some posts that suggested as much. The way you currently describe the moderation system highlights that it seems to be obstructive to actually doing something about certain problems on the forum. A mod saying the infractions are useless is a bit worrying and I'd like some clarification on what you mean by that.

Personally, at least warning people when they're being disrespectful of others and then keeping tabs on the situation, as well as setting up some means of having members with disagreements talk things out in a way where a neutral party such as a mod can make sure it doesn't get out of hand would likely help as well. Communication is key to conflict resolution and leaving people who disagree to do it on their own won't really work if one of them isn't listening.

I figure acting according to someone's history of behaviour seems like it ought to deal with people who've been dickish repeatedly, given repeated issues of that nature after having been warned about it shows they haven't learned anything. That's already in the rules though so it's just a matter of whether or not that's being done effectively at the moment and whether that part of the rules needs clarification on anything.

Spoiler: @Lex:

What's the point of having a FAQ that can't effectively answer frequently asked questions or be navigated properly? I figure even just making its whole contents visible by default if you scroll down from the search bar would likely be simple enough even if you aren't going to change the contents of it. That still leaves the stickied thread option, like with the forum rules.

Regarding the rules, adding some clarification on parts of the rules isn't going to turn the whole thing into obstructive bureaucracy. If anything, the vagueness of some parts combined with a lenient approach causes too much disagreement over what does and doesn't fall under a particular rule.

When there's a rule that amounts to don't be a dick and someone comes to staff about someone being a dick, it shouldn't become a matter of "sorry, that wasn't dickish enough to warrant intervention." and then leaving that person to deal with it on their own. That kind of thing would lead to people being dicks as much as they want as long as it's not something staff thinks is worth doing anything about. When stuff like that happens, it's generally because the rules are applied more narrowly than the problems they encompass, leading to conflict over what is and isn't a reasonable application of a rule with a broad spectrum of applicability. The rules seem to have been made the way they are so they'd be simple without excluding any situations where they'd apply. Leniency regarding the rules is all good and nice but too much leniency inevitably becomes complacency.

Spoiler: @Tel:

I don't really think whether or not something looks modern matters much as long as it's intuitive, easy to use and does a good job at what it's made for. Your example looks like you want to remove the ability to close the different sections so they don't take up as much space, which is a feature I find to be very useful when navigating from the main page. Generally, site skins are just different colour options and occasionally some adjustments for mobile compatibility and such. What you're asking for seems to involve redesigning the main page's overall layout everyone will have to use, which would be a redesign rather than a forum skin. If you don't like the colour, there're already a number of options aside from the default dark green, though the mobile and narrow themes still suffer from bugs that have been brought up in the bug report thread and really should be addressed.

What is it exactly that you dislike about the current forum design and what do you want to change? Just calling it ugly isn't very informative.

 

[Geostigma]

@TLDR.

The usage of TL;DR especially in the context I framed it in was in reference to my own posts. You can see it used often on boards and Reddit as a preface to long posts so that people can get the gist of the post without spending 10 minutes reading it.

TL;DR the TL;DR was in reference to my own post


@Drunk. I think we both know I was going to be blunt drunk or sober. In fact IMO I was quite reserved in that post

Regarding the reasoning that making changes to the FAQ isn't worth it because it takes time and effort, if everything operated on that logic then nothing on the site would ever change and it would eventually stagnate. Theoretically, we don't need to change the site as is being worked on right now but we are because it's good to improve it in any way we can. Likewise, improving the forum so that members both old and new have better access to information they ought to know about the forum is definitely an improvement worth making. Just so you know, I'd be willing to type the whole damn thing myself if that's what it takes to make all that forum info readily accessible, provided someone can sticky the thread or put it in the FAQ depending on which option is used. The problem with that is that this is something staff should be doing and the staff related info would obviously have to come from staff themselves.

I mean if you completely ignore the context of my reasoning sure you could argue that regarding work ethic etc. But you would be completely missing the point either intentionally or not.


Your still completely ignoring the point that doing that work for a very minor portion of our forum is not worth while. We don't get many new members and much of the stuff in the FAQ is common sense to begin with or useless information that is literally shits and giggles (user titles etc.)

All for what? Maybe. MAYBE 20 people who will sign up here in 2016 and stick around? That's also being rather optimistic. It's already half way through the year for the most part. How many actual new active members have we picked up so far? Like 4 or some shit right?

Regarding stagnation etc. You do realize you are posting in a community that is at least 10 years old right? I met some of the people on this board in like 2002 or 2003.


I really doubt TLS not having a hail corporate onboarding package and wealth of useless information is going to bring this site down.
Honestly your taking this way to seriously.

All we do is shoot the shit and provide worth while content for fans of this series and company. It isn't a Job. It isn't the most important website on the net. It isn't the end of the world.

It's literally a site where we argue with each other over who a fictional character may or may not love in a silly love triangle.

@Thanks. Well the Majority disagree with you. It was resolved well enough and tbh I've seen you bring it up several times and you always frame the situation in some disingenuous and underhanded way that is in no way reflective of how the situation actually happened. And then to compare that situation in a biased light to the biggest massacre in US history? Honestly I'm surprised I didn't tell you to go fuck yourself in that drunk post

It's one thing to bring up a situation you are displeased with. It's another to bring it up in a biased way to push an agenda while being pretty passive aggressive and compare what is tantamount to literally chatting with friends online to the politics of 50 people being murdered.

That conversation is played out and I know for a fact I'm not the only one who's sick and tired of hearing about it especially in that context.

 

[Starling]

Whether you were referring to your own post or mine,

Spoiler: this

I'm going to preface this by just giving you a tl;dr : I think the majority of this is useless

is still a rude way to start a reply.

Drunk or sober, neither excuse being rude and disrespectful. You're still treating suggestions to improve the forum as something not worth taking seriously, undermining discussion on possible improvements to the forum and being generally unapologetic about it all.

It's not just about making it easier for new members to learn basic stuff about the forum they wouldn't know, but rather providing all members with the means to look up information they should know about the forum, such as what situations staff can look at member PMs, that they may post those in the staff section under certain circumstances and a bunch other stuff that's pretty important for members to know. Those changes would benefit all members, not just new ones later on. Not everyone remembers every single thing relevant to them pertaining the forums without having to check on occasion and some important stuff (again, the whole PM thing) isn't listed anywhere people would check for that kind of information, such as the FAQ or a stickied thread, which people do, in fact, read. Additionally, a lot of my suggestions are ways to address problems that have occurred so that they won't happen again.

The age of the forum has no bearing on whether or not changes need to be made. A forum of any age should strive to make improvements, from fixing bugs to ensuring members have access to information that concerns them. The same goes for the importance of the site. Sites and forums don't last long by never updating anything.

Cite the "numerous" times I brought up the thanks thread, as well as what was so disingenuous or underhanded about it. Believe it or not, the example you're referring to has nothing to do with the recent shooting in Orlando, but rather the usual discourse in gun debates, which was meant as an example of illusory correlation and how making assumptions prevents the real issue from being dealt with. I've been working on this thread since before that happened. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure there isn't any situation that would have excused insulting me in such a manner on the forums, no matter how drunk you were. Also cite what part of my reasoning for the thanks thread you consider biased and what agenda you think I'm pushing. Passive-aggressiveness is defined as indirect resistance to something, so I don't think it applies to explaining exactly why I have a problem with the way the thanks thread was handled and wanting those points to be addressed instead of dismissed without actually talking about it.

Saying the majority disagree without a means of verifying the ratio of agreement/disagreement to determine whether or not those who disagree actually consist of the majority is inaccurate, so until then you should be saying some people disagree, such as you and X. That also doesn't address the points I've made about why the thanks thread wasn't handled well and why measures should be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.

That conversation is played out and I know for a fact I'm not the only one who's sick and tired of hearing about it especially in that context.

This is a prime example of argument from repetition, a fallacy in which something is dismissed due to being discussed extensively rather than by actually addressing what's been said. I'd really appreciate it if people stopped using that as a reason to disregard what I'm saying about the thanks thread.

 

[Octo]

Believe it or not, the example you're referring to has nothing to do with the recent shooting in Orlando, but rather the usual discourse in gun debates, which was meant as an example of illusory correlation and how making assumptions prevents the real issue from being dealt with. I've been working on this thread since before that happened.

Well, even if it wasn't in relation to the recent shooting it was still in extremely poor taste to draw such an analogy shouldn't have been included at all.

 

[Lex]

I'll respond to the part directed specifically at me and leave it up to others to respond to the rest of your post if they so choose (because to be frank most of us have already addressed the points you've brought up).

Spoiler: @Lex

What's the point of having a FAQ that can't effectively answer frequently asked questions or be navigated properly? I figure even just making its whole contents visible by default if you scroll down from the search bar would likely be simple enough even if you aren't going to change the contents of it. That still leaves the stickied thread option, like with the forum rules.

Please tell me specifically what questions are frequently asked enough to warrant us revamping or updating that section, because literally the only thing I can think of is BBCode and how to use it. We have posts/ a thread on both that and the "when can I post x" type-questions that are easily findable using the regular forum search function, as well as just asking somewhere in a thread like chit-chat.

Spoiler: @Lex

Regarding the rules, adding some clarification on parts of the rules isn't going to turn the whole thing into obstructive bureaucracy. If anything, the vagueness of some parts combined with a lenient approach causes too much disagreement over what does and doesn't fall under a particular rule.

To be frank, there are some members that treat the current rules like an obstructive bureaucracy already, forgetting that mods don't need to list one off and "quote a violation" if someone has Been a Dick. We only use the rules if they're going to be helpful in explaining why something has been dealt with in a certain way. It's vague on purpose/ for that reason. Making it more specific just results in trolls trying to find loopholes. If we're doing anything to the rules, we're completely rewriting them (and it won't be any time soon) to account for the experiences that staff have had in recent years trying to deal with certain situations which the rules do not effectively cover. But don't be surprised if all this means is we delete 75% of what is already there and replace it with "Don't Be A Dick", because that's how we currently operate. The people who pretend not to know what that means are trolls trying to find loopholes, and doing that is also against the rules

Spoiler: @Lex

When there's a rule that amounts to don't be a dick and someone comes to staff about someone being a dick, it shouldn't become a matter of "sorry, that wasn't dickish enough to warrant intervention." and then leaving that person to deal with it on their own. That kind of thing would lead to people being dicks as much as they want as long as it's not something staff thinks is worth doing anything about. When stuff like that happens, it's generally because the rules are applied more narrowly than the problems they encompass, leading to conflict over what is and isn't a reasonable application of a rule with a broad spectrum of applicability. The rules seem to have been made the way they are so they'd be simple without excluding any situations where they'd apply. Leniency regarding the rules is all good and nice but too much leniency inevitably becomes complacency.

Well it's actually a matter of the reporters opinion of what makes someone a dick vs. the staff's opinion of what makes someone a dick. This is why everything is looked at on a case-by-case basis and we discuss every situation before taking action (and what I mean by that is that if someone reports a person and says "this person is being a dick" then there are at least four or five people who have disagreed with that assessment before you're told "no they're not"). There are unfortunately cases where the so-called "dick" has actually done nothing wrong except express an opinion the person reporting the post has disagreed with. There are also situations where staff have closed an issue and a person is unhappy we haven't immediately (for the purpose of this example) destaffed and banned the so-called offensive person, and so decided that they'd become trolls on the forum. This happened a few times with a previous staff member you're very familiar with. We don't string people up because there are members baying for blood, we do it only when it needs to be done.

There's a reason we give second (and third, and fourth) chances to people, and it's because we would expect the same from anyone else. People make mistakes. I've broken the rules myself, I've acknowledged it, apologised, and moved on. Then I've been good for months. Then I've got drunk and pissed off at something and vented and pissed everyone off (then acknowledged it, apologised, and moved on). As long as that part in the brackets happens and people aren't constant assholes (read: trolling), staff generally don't give a shit.

 

[Carlie]

Another point that seems to require elaboration is information about staff conduct. While staff is held by the same rules as everyone else on the forums, their position as staff allows them to do things other members cannot and puts them in a position of authority where they're expected to do things like enforce the rules and resolve conflicts between members. As such, occurrences of misconduct within staff has the potential to be a lot worse than the same with someone who isn't. What do you do if someone who enforces the rules misuses their authority or exhibits exactly the kind of behaviour you wouldn't want to see from someone with that authority? Additionally, how does staff treat issues concerning their fellow staff members fairly and without bias if there aren't any set standards on how to deal with it while maintaining objectivity? Making it clear what is and isn't tolerable behaviour from staff would make it easier to verify that the reasoning is sound and free of bias towards either end, especially with the low transparency impeding member input on whether or not the matter was dealt with fairly.

Staff members are subject to the same rules as everyone else, if a staff member is seen misbehaving and/or breaking a rule anyone can report them. Starling you were here when we demoded Aaron and there was an announcement explaining he had been demoded for a long string of misconduct, that several members had reported his behavior and that staff had discussed it for a long time and came to an unanimous decision on the matter.

 

[BetaRayBill]

Yep. And if you do make another non-orthodox post you'll be banned from this thread. You've had your say.

Quoting this for future reference, it was in the political forum
Got to leave now for a few mins, will come back and post later.

 

[Geostigma]

is still a rude way to start a reply.

Not really. It perfectly summed up my entire reply to you in a simple and quick way so as to save people time in having to read a ridiculously long winded post.

If anything it's blunt but your just nit picking tbh.

It's not just about making it easier for new members to learn basic stuff about the forum they wouldn't know, but rather providing all members with the means to look up information they should know about the forum, such as what situations staff can look at member PMs, that they may post those in the staff section under certain circumstances and a bunch other stuff that's pretty important for members to know

Good grief. Who actually thinks about that? Who actually cares about that. I mean not gonna name names but I full on traded nudes with someone on staff here via pm. Fuck it #Baylife. Who is actually sitting at there desk browsing TLS and wondering about the implications of what they send via PM or any other interactive platform how it may be shared etc ?

Like unless your full on trading your SSN or CC info with someone here why would you ever
think up a scenario where you are curious about what can and can't be shared via pm?

Is TLS SERIOUSBIZNESS where you have to consider the words you choose in a private conversation lest the ramifications result in death , or worse forum closure?

Common sense. It's the internet. First rule of the internet is don't share anything you aren't comfortable with everyone seeing. Even with the Don't be a Dick guidelines and writing down the does and don'ts of inter-staff/member private messaging nothing really stops them from being able to share what you say in private with each other anyway.

Those changes would benefit all members, not just new ones later on. Not everyone remembers every single thing relevant to them pertaining the forums without having to check on occasion and some important stuff (again, the whole PM thing) isn't listed anywhere people would check for that kind of information, such as the FAQ or a stickied thread, which people do, in fact, read

And will the world end or worse will the forum close down if we don't have a system in place to answer silly questions like "What's great old one?". Will Yopy lose access to the admin control panel if someone doesn't answer that question with in 10 minutes of"Hypothetical newbie who is incapable of using the forums because reasons" asking it?


Also I'm like 98% sure your like one of three people in TLS history who clicked the FAQ button on purpose prior to this thread being made.

The age of the forum has no bearing on whether or not changes need to be made. A forum of any age should strive to make improvements, from fixing bugs to ensuring members have access to information that concerns them. The same goes for the importance of the site. Sites and forums don't last long by never updating anything.

You're taking my posts way out of context. I'm all for advocating change and improving these forums and this community as a whole. Heck I've even put my money where my mouth is when I bought a vB license to try to make Somewhat Obsessed's spin off site happen.

I never once said lets all be lazy and do nothing. What I'm about is enacting meaningful and worthwhile change that is worth our time and talent.
Quite frankly I believe defining increasingly arbitrary guidelines and what if scenarios is not worth that time.

Not defining the parameters of how PM'ing and Privacy etc work isn't going to destroy TLS.

Cite the "numerous" times I brought up the thanks thread,

Why? You , I and several staff know you have tried to use it as a way to nitpick a few times since that thread happened. I'm not gonna play your little game of hunting down posts we all know you made.

as well as what was so disingenuous or underhanded about it.

Why don't you just re-read your 5th point in your OP and then go back and read the Thanks thread Ghost X made instead? One is not like the other.
Either you have remember it turning out completely differently or your being intentionally disingenuous when you frame your point like this :

Establish some basic guidelines about making changes to the forums that'll prevent a repetition of how the thanks thread was handled.

Your instantly settings the tone of the point with a spun negative light. Reread the thread you are literally the only person who is unhappy that Blind Debate was made.
You are literally the only person who looks at that thread and sees a negative outcome.

I'd go further on this subject but the prospect of repeating things multiple people have told you just doesn't tickle my pickle this early in the morning.

Passive-aggressiveness is defined as indirect resistance to something etc...

Or you know you can just define it in the way everyone does when they think of the term passive aggressive?

and how no one in the mod nominations had any suggestions for improvements when asked

Like come on. That's passive aggressive as fuck.

It's also a blatant lie considering in addition to Vader (as you noted) , Channy and Splintered did suggest changes. But I guess you had to start off the thread with a little bit of that bias spin huh.


@Rest of your post. Were not directly addressing your points regarding Thanks anymore because we already have the last time you tried to nitpick about it. Sorry for not wanting to repeat our selves. Again.



You know what though. The reason were not taking this seriously and not wanting to go balls deep with mega defining these rules , and setting up these safe spaces etc. Is because this community is old. Your new. You don't get it.

I know that's a fucked up thing to say and it's incredibly dismissive and you want to do good by this site and take the politics of how everything works super duper serious and you want to HR the fuck out of it.

But were old. We did that. We did that for over 10 years. There are pages on pages on ED dedicated to how fucking serious we took this community in the past. We took it to serious and a lot of stupid shit happened. For fucks sake we had Moderators who were in charge of moderating Moderators at one point.


So excuse me and others when I say it's no big deal. Because it really isn't. Don't get me wrong I care about this site and am always down for helping out where I can but getting bent out of shape over so serious it's silly scenarios and everything else you bring up isn't my and others cup of tea anymore. We just wanna talk about video games with friends that's it.


TL;DR . It's not a big deal.

 

[Lex]

I desperately wish all of ACF had been archived so we could link to chunks of it (not the shitty bits only available with wayback machine, the big juicy bits that would illustrate some of the points being made).

 

[Geostigma]

I desperately wish all of ACF had been archived so we could link to chunks of it (not the shitty bits only available with wayback machine, the big juicy bits that would illustrate some of the points being made).

IIRC Yopy archived a chunk of it during the first great closure. Though I doubt he still has that stuff. ACF was a silly silly time.

 

[Elessar]

Starling,

1. I'm not pursuing it anymore. Decided that it's not worth my time after seeing some of the replies here. Fangu was right.

2. Why hasn't Yop admin'd you yet? I'm not kidding. Just from that one post alone, in my eyes, you're way more qualified than some of the mods/admins here.

Whether or not you get banned for that post, I fuckin salute you.

 

[BetaRayBill]

anyways maybe if I started using the terms SocialJusticeWarrior or moral-relativist or maybe used the term anti-Liberal Marxist instead of say "REGRESSIVE LEFT" maybe some of you guys would not be so offended

 

[Keveh Kins]

anyways maybe if I started using the terms SocialJusticeWarrior or moral-relativist or maybe used the term anti-Liberal Marxist instead of say "REGRESSIVE LEFT" maybe some of you guys would not be so offended

What has that got do with anything in this thread? O_o

 

[X-SOLDIER]

1. Stop accusing me of misrepresenting the situation when I'm listing facts instead of actually addressing those facts. It's condescending and indicates that you aren't actually acknowledging what I'm saying. If you were, you'd treat my input with as much value as you expect yours to be treated in return. Saying I'm wrong and that I'm presenting an inaccurate picture of the situation without even elaborating on your reasoning isn't conductive to that.

It's not an accusation at all. It is a fact that you're misrepresenting it, that is backed up by the data points that I listed in bullet points AKA "elaborating on [my] reasoning" like you continue to claim that I'm not doing.

The fact that you've avoided responding to the SPECIFIC parts of my post to detail what you actually found issue with – like I'd asked is irksome but completely expected from you at this point.

2. There are several problems with citing that poll to defend your claim that things were handled properly:

Here we go.

a) Polls are supposed to be handled as rule of majority. 24/40 people voted they didn't want anything changed, which is 60%. That's quite plainly the majority. The option of restrictions was also vague and could mean a number of different things not everyone in that category would necessarily agree on, making opinions on that matter ambiguous without dividing it into specific options.

To start with the bit I bolded: No. You are flat-out, 100% wrong.

Any poll with multiple options is completely allowed to be conducted to gauge opinions from those multiple options, and implement multiple solutions based upon how it's responded to. Even a close A&B poll can have a change that matches the fact that it's close, rather than just falling into which side got the most voted.

That's what was done here. You're just wrong, and you're stating your OPINION of how you wanted this poll to be run as if it were an ultimatum of our misconduct, which is absolutely is not.

THAT is what I mean when I say that you're continually misrepresenting what happened.

b) That poll was meant to gauge general opinions on the thanks system without intending to make immediate changes. People voted on it before the intent to make changes and what those changes would be were actually suggested. Therefore, it's not actually representative of which option members want and shouldn't have been used as the basis for going through with changes. If you wanted a poll that's actually representative of that, then it should've been a poll listing the specific options available such as no change, thanks free subforum, member specific option to not see thanks while allowing everyone else to keep using them, etc. You're affirming the consequent (If people voted for restrictions on the thanks system, any option given under that category is approved by those people, which assumes they all agree with the suggested application of the opinions they expressed even if they weren't aware of the manner of application when voting, or even that it would be applied at all. There's no way of knowing if they had the same thing in mind or something different.), which is a fallacy.

c) Elaboration on specific options and what they entail, as well as discussing the nature of the problem can affect opinions and cause them to change. I started out open to the idea of a trial run, where thanks would be temporarily absent from some threads until I thought about the problems with its implementation and further discussion indicated changes would be made without actually discussing the root cause of the thanks issue. I recall a few people saying they voted for something they didn't want due to misunderstanding the options or changing opinions so redoing the poll would likely lead to different results.

Well, it's pretty damn clear that:

• Option A: Required No change.
• Option B: Required Partial Change.
• Option C: Required Entire Forum Change.

What was done with the results of that poll:

• Solution A: We made no significant change to the forum.
• Solution B: New sub-forum that can be utilized by minority members feeling underrepresented in certain threads that is dynamic to specific threads: i.e. it only gets used when they feel they need it, and the threads can come and go as their users please.
• Solution C: User-specific, browser-based plugin to hide the thanks option, which makes no change to the forum itself.

Should we have had a poll to see how many people are utilizing the browser plugin? Should we have had a poll letting people know that nothing was going to change on the forum and see how they felt about that? Should we have had a poll to see who was aware of and or utilizing the Blind Debate section? Should we have had a poll for every thread that might be moved to see who uses it and who doesn't?

There comes a point in time where, if you've been around an internet community for long enough, you can't split down EVERY, SINGLE, POSSIBLE contingency into a user-facing poll. That's why staff exists at all is to interpret what the forum could used based on sufficient information from polls, thread posts, user conversation, and direct interaction with the users. It's those later four options that you are continually ignoring were ALSO factors in that decision.

Again, this is so heavily based on your completely incorrect assumption that you've somehow got a direct tap into the wants and needs of our userbase that goes above and beyond our own. I have very clearly explained to you that multiple people had contacted me via PM during that time since they weren't comfortable posting at length or going off into more detail in front of other members – specifically because this issue dealt with people who held a minority opinion & weren't being heard in the normal channels of communication.

Guess who really NEEDS the Blind Debate sub-forum – very, VERY few people, because they represent a minority opinion on the boards in threads that an even smaller subset of users directly participate in. That's why the system is built the way it is, so that both sides can reach a consensus on a more neutral ground that requires a small amount of user input, and not something that the majority of the forum may ever need to utilize. That's something that a simple poll WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY REPRESENT OR CAPTURE (especially if polls are used like you suggested, as a simple majority rule).

The fact that any thread can come and go makes its implementation a trial run by nature on a thread-level basis, and from the minority groups who feel like they need those options, they're VERY much appreciated that section for having them.

What's still not clear about all of this is what while you may bemoan that the process didn't go the way that your idealized imaginary internet forum utopia would've conducted it, you have yet to state ANYTHING about what you actually want from it NOW, or why this has actually been problematic, or in any way more harmful than not putting it in place.

• What did it HURT by putting a quick solution in place for the minority group?
• What is it that you actually WANT by continuing to talk about this ad nauseum?

3. You still haven't addressed the issue of not giving people enough time to actually discuss the matter before making changes. 2 days simply isn't enough. All the other stuff like mod nominations and the various polls voting for the best FF song were done over a far larger period of time specifically to give people the time to think things over before making their final decisions and those aren't even things that involve lengthy discussions between members to reach a consensus. Doing all that in 2 days, especially when the aim wasn't to change things immediately is far too quick and is therefore rushed. Rushing solutions simply isn't conductive to ensuring that the problem's been correctly identified and solved with majority consensus of the community.

No, I have. You're just still ignoring it, so let me be exceptionally blunt.


I made an EMPTY SUB-FORUM WITH RULES after two days.



Clear enough?


After that, the Presidential debate thread was moved there almost immediately, because it was a large catalyst in the entire Thanks-related discussion that I was actively having with multiple members via PM during that time, and they expressed huge interest in putting that in place as soon as possible.

Moving that thread immediately was important, because discussions like that are live and have a lot of potential things happen throughout a single day, and again – the minority representation who stood to benefit from it expressed an overwhelming desire to have it done.

Anything else put in there was either done at the request of the thread's active discussion based, or it was left as a part of a larger user-input-based thread move that waited for two weeks. This is, once again, a soon-to-be classic example or you misrepresenting what was done in favour of your narrative of events.

4. Treating absence of specific input on something as indication that there isn't any, or as justification to skip to solving a problem that hasn't even been properly discussed is fallacious (Argument from ignorance), especially given the issue of low member participation on most matters concerning feedback, which is one of the reasons I made this thread in the first place. I want to know why so few members regularly give input about matters that concern them and how that issue can be improved. Given opinions I've heard expressed about the thanks thread, one reason in that case seems to be that the thread in general is simply too unpleasant to go back to. You claim we lack sufficient information to discuss the underlying problems concerning debates and whether or not they're related to thanks but discussing the matter at all isn't dependent on input, not to mention hardly any time was given for said input to be given to begin with. Such reasoning also doesn't justify skipping that step of the problem solving process.

Again, we're NOT skipping that stop in the problem solving process. However, that hasn't stopped you from going on incorrectly touting that talking point like it's fact.

We're interacting with members both within that thread AS WELL AS OUTSIDE OF IT. Polls that deal with a minority group needing help don't always address their concerns adequately (especially since you think that polls only show flat majority opinion). This is why members also directly converse with us, and did so during the time that the Blind Debate section was established.

In short: You're looking at a fraction of the picture, and assuming that that's the only thing that drives our decisions. It's not. You're woefully off base, and poorly informed about the bigger picture, and overly interested in making accusations based off of that, rather than gaining an understanding of the real process.

5. While changes that add an optional feature that doesn't affect anyone not using it such as giving members the ability to not see thanks if they don't want to is fine, changes such as moving threads to a thanks free section that will be permanent despite prior discussion being about a temporary feature to test how lack of thanks affects people needs re-verification of member input before you go through with it, which is what I meant by it in the first place. Doing it afterwards is too little too late.

Now you're just flat-out making things up to fit your version of the story.

• Where exactly did we state that the section was permanent?
• Threads moved there can also be moved out at any time upon request.

Are you saying that everything that you're going on about is, "too little too late"? Then why are you even still going on about it. WHAT. DO. YOU. WANT. TO. HAPPEN. WITH. THIS. NOW.?

Be specific.

6. As said at the start of this thread, steps were skipped in dealing with the thanks issue. There was no need to go from Ghost making a thread about trying to figure out what everyone's opinion on the thanks system based on a few mentions of people having problems with it to assuming the issues brought up with debates are automatically caused by the thanks system without examining the various factors surrounding the debate problems, whether or not they actually are caused by thanks instead of mistakenly associated with it and only move on to proposing solutions after making sure the real problem's been correctly identified.

No they weren't. Again, this is another part of your misrepresentation of the events that you wouldn't've made if you'd actually had the courtesy to respond to my specific points like I'd asked.

Ghost's poll WAS NOT the only conversation being had, but rather a part of an ongoing conversation that was meant to focus on a different systemic issue that was displaying itself through Thanks (like I'd stated before). That's why that thread is still sitting there waiting on user evidence of that specific issue.

7. The thanks free debate section was touted as a test/trial run, which it isn't as there's no intention to remove it after the supposed trial period, which hadn't even been given when it was put up. The details of how it would be implemented weren't even ironed out until it was already put in place. We could've tested if the invisible thanks option was sufficient to satisfy some of the people who wanted restrictions before assuming something like the thanks free debate section was necessary. It could've even been tweaked to allow members to choose which sections to make thanks invisible in and which to show them. Seems like it'd make a better trial run, in any case.

I absolutely cannot deal with being blunt any longer, so I'm moving on to use obvious, italicized, scathing sarcasm in hopes that it makes this so abundantly clear that you'll finally stop it with this tweaked little version of events you keep spouting.

I'm so glad that you're able to make definitive claims like this, without talking to literally anyone about it. So, since you're so well-informed – Please do inform us where it's stated that it's a permanent fixture and not a trial run. I'll be waiting...

After all, I mean, it's not as if there's some sort of current-event-driven-participation-in-a-hotly-divisive-thread that would serve to live out its lifecycle in a sub-forum that would allow us to speak definitively on the effectiveness of a Thanks-less Sub-Forum or anything.



Now it's time to address the next point:
The complex details of implementing a Thanks-less system on the forums.



To do this, you'll need...

1) A Sub-forum where Thanks is disabled.
- Oh my god, it's almost as if I made one very early on, because that's literally the sole necessary component to test that system. The mind absolutely boggles at why this was done so quickly without user input! There are literally zero other ways that this could have been tested, and I should have made a poll to determine what other things should have been painstakingly researched before such a drastic measure was taken!!

2) Threads to put in that forum.
a) Users communicating directly with staff requested that one thread be moved there immediately because it involves current events, and it stood to benefit greatly from immediate implementation, rather than lolly-gagging about to be voted upon by folks who possibly don't even participate, by using a user poll that doesn't adequately express the wants of the minority!
b) Some users chose to just make NEW threads in that section because they were excited about testing out an immediately available system. They should clearly have waited to see what everyone else thought before doing so.
c) The system was in place for two weeks awaiting this cool, hip, and radical process (that you seem to be incapable of seeing when it's actually done) called "USER FEEDBACK" where the people who actually participate in those thread get to say whether or not a small list of pre-prepared threads should be moved, or should remain where they are.
d) The Subforum is left in place to allow threads that need it to interact organically. Users can move threads to and from the section at their leisure. Being as it's something that impacts an exceptionally small userbase within the already small chunk of active forum users, it doesn't make sense to set a hard limit, but rather check threads for their natural activity and lifecycles to determine if the test of said system is helpful, harmful, or neutral for those involved.



The very last bit to hopefully condense all the tl;dr here is this:

Without talking about a single thing in the past, and focusing in only from this current day on the planet Earth, June the 18th, 2016: WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY WANT NOW IN REGARDS TO THE THANKS SYSTEM, STARLING?

Why hasn't Yop admin'd you yet? I'm not kidding. Just from that one post alone, in my eyes, you're way more qualified than some of the mods/admins here.

Whether or not you get banned for that post, I fuckin salute you.

Ummmmmm ...because that's not at all how we elect Admins on the site? Don't you know that there are user-polls and other things that we do when promoting Moderators and other members of the Staff? There's this cool thing we do called communicating with our user-base before making massive decisions - especially ones that ACTUALLY affect the entire site.

Also, why are you implying that she'd get banned for posting something like that?
That's a totally fucking absurd thing to even insinuate (which is why I didn't Thanks your post).





X

 

[Tetsujin]

anyways maybe if I started using the terms SocialJusticeWarrior or moral-relativist or maybe used the term anti-Liberal Marxist instead of say "REGRESSIVE LEFT" maybe some of you guys would not be so offended

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

I think it's fair to assume that if people don't get involved in an issue, despite being given the opportunity, it's because they don't care about it enough to make their feelings known. To take me as an example, I don't care about the thanks issue either way; I can't even remember if I commented on the discussion, but if I did it was because I felt it was my duty as a citizen of this community to contribute to the debate.

FWIW, what I think is this: we elect the mods/staff to run the site and make decisions and they should be allowed to get on with that. We don't need referenda about everything, and by that I mean most things don't require a referendum.

 

[Shademp]

1. Basic information like new members not being able to edit their posts and how long it takes before they gain full member status to do that, upload images and such should be easily accessible for the benefit of new members.

Anything to make new members less confused about their initial inability to edit posts, post links and send private messages is good in my book. This could be anything from expanding a FAQ to n00b members getting an automatic private message when they join the forum (describing the "you-must-make-ten-posts-before-you-can-do-this-and-that" shindig) to a combination of solutions.

That is all I have to say.

 

[Carlie]

anyways maybe if I started using the terms SocialJusticeWarrior or moral-relativist or maybe used the term anti-Liberal Marxist instead of say "REGRESSIVE LEFT" maybe some of you guys would not be so offended

Is it time to ban the troll yet? Shit was only funny for about 5 seconds.

 

[Geostigma]

Starling,

1. I'm not pursuing it anymore. Decided that it's not worth my time after seeing some of the replies here. Fangu was right.

2. Why hasn't Yop admin'd you yet? I'm not kidding. Just from that one post alone, in my eyes, you're way more qualified than some of the mods/admins here.

Whether or not you get banned for that post, I fuckin salute you.

 

[Channy]

n00b members getting an automatic private message when they join the forum (describing the "you-must-make-ten-posts-before-you-can-do-this-and-that" shindig)

This entire thread could probably be solved with just that. I know when I sign up to forums you get a welcome message which is basically a link to an admin for questions or the site rules. Said welcome message could probably be sweet, brief yet informative with:

"Welcome, O' Flunky of Sephiroth, rejoice in our Mako springs!

While you may have access to all of the Gaia sub forum continents, you may find your abilities limited at this time. You must first make 10 posts within the forum to gain access to Skills such as:

- Posting Images
- Private Messaging
- Other shit I don't know they're limited to

And if you have any other concerns with unlocking your limit breaks, visit the [link to certain sticky thread of rules].

If this displeases you or you have need to consult the President, please contact [link to designated Mod here].

Thank you and please, don't be a dick "

 

[Geostigma]

The Don't be a Dick part should be bold and like at least size 6 font fgj

 

[Channy]

There's room for some edits/suggestions

 

[Ghost X]

*Enters thread* *relevant Indiana Jones gif*

Starling asked me about my intent with the thanks thread "to clear up some disputes" here, so...

My intent, as clear as I could possibly make it, was said in at least a couple of posts in the thanks thread itself. I perceived there was an issue, and let the forum decide if I was right or wrong. That's basically it. I have no covert / personal interests, as some continue to believe :p. As has been said (IIRC anyway... seriously too much TL;DR in here[/disclaimer]), there'd be a review soon, so what the forum thinks about the changes made will be determined then, such as what the forum thinks of the no thanks subforum presumably. I have no issue with this process, given we're all volunteers. If you want something better, minimum wage in Australia is about AUD $17.50 last I checked. I happen to be looking for work too :p.

@thread: Being unable to write points concisely is a sign of bad writing. My suggestion to the forum is that people write more concisely in this thread . Relevant quote: "The medium is the message." :p.

I've really nothing else to say. I think the forums are quite tolerable, but I recognise I exist on at least the fringes of privilege, which may blind me (:p), so... if you are lurking this thread and haven't said anything yet and feel otherwise, speak up. Nothing to fear. You can't be banned for trolling by making a single post. There's enough evidence of that in this thread and others :p.