Thanks System Referendum.

[X-SOLDIER]

Didn't I just provide an example of that? The problem attributed to the thanks system is the feeling of being ganged up on or like no one is supporting your opinion. A lack of verbal support won't really be fixed purely from removing thanks from the equation. That kind of thing occurs in heated debates, which involves additional factors not being considered. They're still tied to debates, which is what prompted the thanks talk to begin with. Because of that, I wouldn't say it's an entirely separate issue. The whole point of bringing this up was that the thanks system might not be the real problem to begin with. If we don't talk about other debate problems and how they relate to each other, how would we know? Right now it's largely assumed the thanks system is the problem without really bothering to check if there's a deeper problem to deal with and it'll continue to be ignored if you dismiss it as a separate issue instead of actually talking about it.

That doesn't quite encompass the issue I brought up. Not everyone has to fully agree on something but they may not agree point for point with either "side" of the opposing opinions discussed. There would be some in the middle. Just having those people in the middle can make a difference and make debates less polarized. Likewise, things like someone speaking up when they see what someone is saying get dismissed without really being addressed can make a difference too.

The way I see it, the debate issues all come into play when things start to get heated. Thus, you need to ask why things get heated. It seems that debates get heated when people feel aggravated. Why do they feel aggravated? For a number of reasons that include things like the argument going nowhere, feeling like they aren't being listened to, feeling talked down to or otherwise disrespected, etc. Wouldn't that make them feel the same way as what people have been attributing to the thanks system? So then how would dealing with the thanks system actually solve that? We need to look at the bigger picture.

The issue that we have been seeing (and are testing with the Blind Debate forum) is largely what was being seen in the Presidential Debate thread: i.e. most all of us here're fairly liberal, so the more conservative viewpoints are visually less supported by the Thanks system, and it's a little more tough for those users to keep making them and feel that they have the same level of validation in their opinions. There IS a reason to support that more neutral mindset in the trial that we're doing with the removal of the Thanks system for it and various other debate threads as a test run.

Additionally, we're not ignoring the other potential issues that have been raised of people's misconduct in heated debates. That's... literally the whole job of the Moderation Staff, and we're still doing it. If something's getting out-of-hand there's a whole system that's already in place of taking care of that. No one's even remotely suggesting that what's being done with the Blind Debate section is a magical fix-all for having wonderful debates that will be perfect and fair and never become heated.

These are completely different things, and I've re-stated a few times that we're waiting on more information for what the "other issues" are by the folks that are experiencing them. Again - without specific examples, we can't do anything meaningful to fix them. Lastly, people who're of the mindset that they just dislike the Thanks system in general also have an option for just disabling it, so that it's not there for them for all intents and purposes.



tl;dr - This thread has fractured into 3 different things:

• People who dislike the Thanks system entirely:
- These folks are the vast minority, and have the option of removing the Thanks system for just themselves.
• Debates that could use a more flatly objective interaction:
- This is what the trial of the Blind Debate section is for
• Clique-y or other ganging-up-type behaviour:
- This's what we're still waiting on more information for before suggesting potential ways to alleviate the issues being felt by whomever is feeling them.

I was a bit preoccupied with keeping up with the discussion on this thread so I wasn't clear on the details of what you were planning on doing with the subforum. I wouldn't call closing a thread a disrespect, considering some threads simply get closed due to sheer length and then a new thread is made to continue the discussion without having to deal with that. That said, I got the chance to read up on how you're using it and the fact that the threads will be moving around as needed suffices to explain why a fresh start wouldn't make sense. I initially had the impression threads were permanently being moved to the subforum and that simply making new versions of the threads in that section would allow people to get into the topic without being weighed down by prior out of hand portions of those debates.

No worries. This thread's been a tiny little bit nuts.




X

 

[Tetsujin]

I like the Thanks button because it has a cookie monster on it

 

[Channy]

I'm intrigued by the whole "TLS is getting a bit cliquey" argument because as far as I know, TLS is and has been the least cliquey in all its years since its inception. But maybe I'm missing something here or not reading inbetween the lines of the thread.

 

[ForceStealer]

^I definitely agree there.

Furthermore, I find that this thread going 11 pages seems to make the whole idea that having a Thanks button makes people less likely to add their own discussions to a debate a bit...suspect.

 

[Unit-01]

Man I didn't know this was going to be a topic for discussion. I would've actually checked the forum in the last two days.

But I'll go through and see what everyone else has said, seems to be a very hot topic.

So this Thanks system is something that is new to me, coming from two other forums that had no such system. And I do like it, cause at the very least if no-one responds to you, but someone thanks your posts, you know that people have at least read it.
The BIG issue for me on the other forums is that they aren't as active as TLS is, but there tends to be times when i will post this huge thing and no-one responds to it. Which sucks... a lot.... it really does. Hell even making my Hello thread when I first joined a few months ago, it was awesome to see everyone say "Welcome" to me and for people to acknowledge that I was here now.

But at the same time, now that I've been here for a little while, people will get more Thanks than me, which is to be understood since I'm new. And some of the posts I've made have been in confusion and really don't warrant it. But at the same time I'll make a post agreeing with someone who got a lot of thanks, and then I'll maybe get one or two which doesn't make a whole lot of sense since in those cases I'm expanding on what person A had already said, and it seems no one acknowledges it. Maybe that's still because I'm new, and I just need to spend more time here. Either way, that's my two cents on it.


Also I just try to avoid the serious topic discussions like Religion, etc. But I can't agree with one opinion being favored over another, due to the Thanks system. If anything it should be removed from those topics.

They aren't like Final Fantasy discussions where even if we do have disagreements in those threads, it isn't too much arguing and if now deals solely with Remake content and boils down to what we think is good for the game vs what someone else thinks is good. Which is never as serious as what one might think on Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders or whatever you guys discuss on that thread.

 

[Geostigma]

I'm intrigued by the whole "TLS is getting a bit cliquey" argument because as far as I know, TLS is and has been the least cliquey in all its years since its inception. But maybe I'm missing something here or not reading inbetween the lines of the thread.

Best example of TLS cliqueyness would probably be like 2011 , 2012-ish off the top of my head? I think if you go scanning around the archives for big threads around that time you can probably see a pattern emerge.

FWIW I would say its a very stark difference in tone comparing TLS then to TLS today.
That's why I find it hard to believe people legitimately feel there is a clique or group bias going around because as I've said a few times on here things have been pretty lax. Especially compared to back then when things felt very malicious and "Them vs Us"

But I'll give people the benefit of the doubt if there people who feel left out. I won't tell them to get thick skin or say "you don't have it so bad". I'd just like to try and remind them were not trying to be malicious here and we want TLS to be a community and hopefully we can fix it



It reminds me of my guild in WoW. We are a casual/hardcore raiding guild. I know dumb combo. Point is we look for people who want to raid the hardest content in the game but were totally cool with bringing in level 10's so they don't feel lonely and stuff.

Well there was one case where this guy just happened to only log in during our Raid hours and would often say "Hey" in guild chat and not get much response, due to us getting our asses handed to us by the content. Well this went on for awhile till he left the guild since he thought we didn't want to interact with him.

I hit him up in a pm and just let him know that he basically only played when we had legitimately the least amount of focus available to non-raid stuff lol.

TL;DR it's easy to take things personal or feel left out, but sometimes you just gotta consider that there is context you are missing out on and we didn't mean to make you feel excluded.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Man I didn't know this was going to be a topic for discussion. I would've actually checked the forum in the last two days.

But I'll go through and see what everyone else has said, seems to be a very hot topic.

So this Thanks system is something that is new to me, coming from two other forums that had no such system. And I do like it, cause at the very least if no-one responds to you, but someone thanks your posts, you know that people have at least read it.
The BIG issue for me on the other forums is that they aren't as active as TLS is, but there tends to be times when i will post this huge thing and no-one responds to it. Which sucks... a lot.... it really does. Hell even making my Hello thread when I first joined a few months ago, it was awesome to see everyone say "Welcome" to me and for people to acknowledge that I was here now.

Thanks for the post & opinion (and I don't think that ANYONE knew it'd blow up like it did). It's really nice seeing the perspective from some of the newer folk.

But at the same time, now that I've been here for a little while, people will get more Thanks than me, which is to be understood since I'm new. And some of the posts I've made have been in confusion and really don't warrant it. But at the same time I'll make a post agreeing with someone who got a lot of thanks, and then I'll maybe get one or two which doesn't make a whole lot of sense since in those cases I'm expanding on what person A had already said, and it seems no one acknowledges it. Maybe that's still because I'm new, and I just need to spend more time here. Either way, that's my two cents on it.


Also I just try to avoid the serious topic discussions like Religion, etc. But I can't agree with one opinion being favored over another, due to the Thanks system. If anything it should be removed from those topics.

They aren't like Final Fantasy discussions where even if we do have disagreements in those threads, it isn't too much arguing and if now deals solely with Remake content and boils down to what we think is good for the game vs what someone else thinks is good. Which is never as serious as what one might think on Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders or whatever you guys discuss on that thread.

If you do see things like this, and can send me examples, I'd like to take a look at 'em. I think it'll give me a better idea of how to address that sort of thing.

Also, the LTD thread is one that might could've used it, since I think that some folks take that at least as seriously as we take the presidential discussion. That's why the Blind Debate section has the capability of absorbing a thread from any section.




X

 

[Lex]

^As an aside X, be careful if you're deciding to move the LTD threads since they're actually in their own subsection due to needing very particular permissions. I've completely forgotten why, though there's obviously a reason is shouldn't be moved from there. If you're removing thanks from it you'd be better doing so from its own section permissions, since it has its own section.

section section section

 

[Strangelove]

they're actually in their own subsection due to needing very particular permissions. I've completely forgotten why

we no longer speak of the dark place where the wicked things lie

 

[Carlie]

Please don't put the LTD thread in there, I'd like for it to stay where it is and people forget about it existing.

 

[Channy]

^I definitely agree there.

Furthermore, I find that this thread going 11 pages seems to make the whole idea that having a Thanks button makes people less likely to add their own discussions to a debate a bit...suspect.

This was so much like a double negative that I couldn't quite follow... please explain in channy laymans terms.

I'm intrigued by the whole "TLS is getting a bit cliquey" argument because as far as I know, TLS is and has been the least cliquey in all its years since its inception. But maybe I'm missing something here or not reading inbetween the lines of the thread.

Best example of TLS cliqueyness would probably be like 2011 , 2012-ish off the top of my head? I think if you go scanning around the archives for big threads around that time you can probably see a pattern emerge.

FWIW I would say its a very stark difference in tone comparing TLS then to TLS today.
That's why I find it hard to believe people legitimately feel there is a clique or group bias going around because as I've said a few times on here things have been pretty lax. Especially compared to back then when things felt very malicious and "Them vs Us"

That's kinda what I was thinking. There's a few threads from around then when the forum was very divisive into two parts and just continually go at length trying to solve the issues but never actually doing so. I'm trying to brush up on my TLS history of all that I've missed and some of the threads I have bookmarked I still haven't made it through cause it just goes on forever.

I definitely don't think we have that same issue now, if that's what's being inferred. We're definitely a warm snuggly bunch and I think that shows in the skype groups, the shout box, the "say something nice" thread and the awards we just had. And the newbs who have joined since the remake announcement have been so friendly and got along great with everybody that I don't think we even think of them as newbs.

 

[Flintlock]

I kinda wish I'd been around more in the last couple of days to follow this thread more closely, because looking through it now, I'm pretty disappointed in the way it's unfolded.

I'm going to leave my personal opinions aside for now, however, and ask another technical question: what are the parameters of our blind debate section trial? When you're conducting an experiment, you need to know what you're looking for, or in other words, you need to be clear about what the point of the experiment is. What are we looking for? How will we determine if the trial has been successful or not?

 

[Starling]

Didn't I just provide an example of that? The problem attributed to the thanks system is the feeling of being ganged up on or like no one is supporting your opinion. A lack of verbal support won't really be fixed purely from removing thanks from the equation. That kind of thing occurs in heated debates, which involves additional factors not being considered. They're still tied to debates, which is what prompted the thanks talk to begin with. Because of that, I wouldn't say it's an entirely separate issue. The whole point of bringing this up was that the thanks system might not be the real problem to begin with. If we don't talk about other debate problems and how they relate to each other, how would we know? Right now it's largely assumed the thanks system is the problem without really bothering to check if there's a deeper problem to deal with and it'll continue to be ignored if you dismiss it as a separate issue instead of actually talking about it.

That doesn't quite encompass the issue I brought up. Not everyone has to fully agree on something but they may not agree point for point with either "side" of the opposing opinions discussed. There would be some in the middle. Just having those people in the middle can make a difference and make debates less polarized. Likewise, things like someone speaking up when they see what someone is saying get dismissed without really being addressed can make a difference too.

The way I see it, the debate issues all come into play when things start to get heated. Thus, you need to ask why things get heated. It seems that debates get heated when people feel aggravated. Why do they feel aggravated? For a number of reasons that include things like the argument going nowhere, feeling like they aren't being listened to, feeling talked down to or otherwise disrespected, etc. Wouldn't that make them feel the same way as what people have been attributing to the thanks system? So then how would dealing with the thanks system actually solve that? We need to look at the bigger picture.

The issue that we have been seeing (and are testing with the Blind Debate forum) is largely what was being seen in the Presidential Debate thread: i.e. most all of us here're fairly liberal, so the more conservative viewpoints are visually less supported by the Thanks system, and it's a little more tough for those users to keep making them and feel that they have the same level of validation in their opinions. There IS a reason to support that more neutral mindset in the trial that we're doing with the removal of the Thanks system for it and various other debate threads as a test run.

I'm fine with testing out the no thanks thing to see if it makes debates more objective. We'll have to wait and see how that goes to confirm what kind of difference it makes. I just want to make sure other problems don't get overlooked because of that.

Additionally, we're not ignoring the other potential issues that have been raised of people's misconduct in heated debates. That's... literally the whole job of the Moderation Staff, and we're still doing it. If something's getting out-of-hand there's a whole system that's already in place of taking care of that. No one's even remotely suggesting that what's being done with the Blind Debate section is a magical fix-all for having wonderful debates that will be perfect and fair and never become heated.

I'm aware some of that stuff would fall under moderation. It's kinda inevitable when dealing with debate issues. The thing is, going over problems, their root causes and potential solutions can indicate whether or not anything needs to change, whether in moderation, subforums or whatever is being dealt with. Isn't it pertinent to moderation to assess problems of any kind present on the forums? Don't you regularly go over everything to make sure the system is doing a good enough job? Isn't this the kind of reasoning that prompted Ghost to make this thread?

These are completely different things, and I've re-stated a few times that we're waiting on more information for what the "other issues" are by the folks that are experiencing them. Again - without specific examples, we can't do anything meaningful to fix them. Lastly, people who're of the mindset that they just dislike the Thanks system in general also have an option for just disabling it, so that it's not there for them for all intents and purposes.

No, it's not completely unrelated. We may still be waiting on more input elaborating on the problems people have with the thanks system but we also have input about why some people stay out of the debate threads that doesn't have anything to do with the thanks system.

The people who've spoken up about either of those things so far say things about how debates can feel like your opinion isn't acknowledged or that everyone else is agreeing with the opposing argument, or that things get too heated and possibly disrespectful. Why do we have to wait for elaboration on the thanks issue to discuss whether or not what's been said so far indicates a problem that's either unrelated to the thanks system despite being associated with it or that goes beyond it and would require a different solution? More feedback on that front is as simple as asking people if they've had any problems with debates and then whether or not they associate those problems to the thanks system.

I and a few other members expressed feeling that there's a deeper issue that goes beyond the whole thanks thing. I pointed out that having a broader discussion about the issues seen in debates to figure out whether or not the thanks system is really the problem and how to better deal with it was important before we started taking action on the thanks thing. No one really responded to that. I asked whether or not we'll broach the subject in order to figure out if messing with the thanks is even necessary, then later elaborate on why I think it's important to do that and still no one replied to what I said. It wasn't until the subforum was made and Dawn expressed disappointment that no one else was looking into the deeper issues that the topic was finally responded to.

tl;dr - This thread has fractured into 3 different things:

• People who dislike the Thanks system entirely:
- These folks are the vast minority, and have the option of removing the Thanks system for just themselves.
• Debates that could use a more flatly objective interaction:
- This is what the trial of the Blind Debate section is for
• Clique-y or other ganging-up-type behaviour:
- This's what we're still waiting on more information for before suggesting potential ways to alleviate the issues being felt by whomever is feeling them.

I'd say that summation oversimplifies the range of opinions somewhat. It also leaves out the opinion that the thanks system either isn't the problem or not the root cause of it. There were people who wanted a solution to be found without removing thanks, others who wondered if the problem associated with thanks was a matter of perception, etc. Then there's how the thread was originally made to discuss opinions on the matter rather than actually go ahead and do something only 2 days in. There wasn't any need to rush for a solution so quickly, especially when the topic of whether or not the thanks system was the real problem hadn't been dealt with.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Not to sound dismissive, Starling, but the only things you brought up in this post that obviously relate to sentiments people have expressed in relation to the Thanks system are feeling ignored or feeling like everyone is agreeing with the opposing argument.

There's not much that can (or should) be done about the first, since we don't and should not have rules about replying to posts that you don't want to reply to, and about the same can be said for the other matter. At one point or another, everyone is likely to find themselves the sole champion of an opinion or feeling. I certainly have. It's just an inevitability of life, not an injustice.

Like I said previously, I'm sympathetic to feeling outnumbered, unappreciated and exhausted (I've certainly been there as well), but that doesn't mean there needs to be rules in place to prevent it when engaging in debates that ultimately are entirely voluntary.

 

[Clement Rage]

That's fair, but is there any actual downside to making people feel slightly more comfortable with their replies than they might otherwise be, with the cost being at worst an extremely minor inconvenience in one part of a gaming forum?

 

[Roger]

That's fair, but is there any actual downside to making people feel slightly more comfortable with their replies than they might otherwise be, with the cost being at worst an extremely minor inconvenience in one part of a gaming forum?

Shademp isn't the only one with a thread where he posts updates and support is only conveyed through Thanks. There's every thread where images or art is posted, and Pixel's translations. They'd all be more annoying browse through if people were posting their thanks instead. And plenty people that just Thank posts instead of finding something more to say in a thread still won't have much to say without the Thanks system and might end up coming here less frequently cause they aren't at least nominally making their presence known from day to day anymore. Plenty of downsides too it.

 

[Geostigma]

That's fair, but is there any actual downside to making people feel slightly more comfortable with their replies than they might otherwise be, with the cost being at worst an extremely minor inconvenience in one part of a gaming forum?

Shademp isn't the only one with a thread where he posts updates and support is only conveyed through Thanks. There's every thread where images or art is posted, and Pixel's translations. They'd all be more annoying browse through if people were posting their thanks instead. And plenty people that just Thank posts instead of finding something more to say in a thread still won't have much to say without the Thanks system and might end up coming here less frequently cause they aren't at least nominally making their presence known from day to day anymore. Plenty of downsides too it.

Yep. Boobs and Butts thread would suck if every booty was buffered by 10 people saying "Nice ass post Gabe "


I also just have to wholeheartedly agree with Tres last post. Like seriously not every post and point can or needs to be agreed with. Simply put eventually everyone here has and will make posts that just don't resonate with the people here. It happens and honestly it's completely fine in like 99% of cases.

People not mass thanking and agreeing with posts like that isn't evidence that there is a clique , or conspiracy to hate you. It just means it didn't click with people who read it. It's not pee wee baseball not everyone gets a medal and while I appreciate your opinion and value you as a member of the site that doesn't mean I have to agree with you or even thank a post I don't particularly find "good" or w/e. And even then I still sometimes toss a thanks out to posts that I don't agree with just because I value that someone is sticking to their guns.

Sometimes I don't. It's just the way it goes. It's not some deep seeded issue sometimes posts just suck ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Channy]

There's not much that can (or should) be done about the first, since we don't and should not have rules about replying to posts that you don't want to reply to, and about the same can be said for the other matter. At one point or another, everyone is likely to find themselves the sole champion of an opinion or feeling. I certainly have. It's just an inevitability of life, not an injustice.

I kinda glazed over this at first, went back and felt it really resonated with the debates (both in and out of the Debates/Serious section) and feel it should be echoed. Not everybody feels the same way or agrees with you, that's fine. I think we've sort of put that topic to bed but I wanted to diverge a moment and say that it should also apply to posts where people are in heated debates (again, in and out of that section) and someone just quotes sections of your posts, but not all, and doesn't address every point.

I've seen some initial gut reactions turn into "But you completely disregarded the rest of the post and/or dismissed it" when they simply haven't been quoted point for point. I've had it happen to me, and I know I've done it to some, and I think the matter is that people aren't being dismissive of those points but rather just don't have anything to say on it? Maybe someone made a good point on something and you can't counter it, so you leave out that paragraph, either for bruised ego of not wanting to acknowledge they made a fair point (though unlikely as I think we're all pretty mature here and have acknowledged good points to one another) or just laziness of not wanting to quote a paragraph and say "I can't counter this."

I think I've just sorta talked myself in a bit of a circle here... tl;dr when people aren't quoting you point for point in a debate, regardless of the section of the forum, I don't think people are being dismissive or rude; that's a pretty quick assumption. I think maybe they genuinely have been stumped/can't counter it and then are too lazy to say so, so they leave it out.

But... I don't know, maybe I've read too much into that whole thing.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Quick reply:

I didn't mean THE dreaded LTD thing-that-shall-not-be-named specifically, I was more referring to the possibility of those sorts of discussions coming up in places like the FFVII-Remake section, etc. and having that be a potential option.

Additionally, insofar as a trial run: The Presidential Debate thread is our initial metric, since it's got a relatively decent number of folks in it thanks to current events, and I think that once things in that (or in any of the other debate threads) have had a chance to feel themselves out in that section for a while, we'll have the ability to come back and have a conversation with the folks what participated in them to do a sort of "before and after" look at what all JUST stopping the Thanks in those threads did, and whether or not it assisted with the feeling of a lack of support, etc.





X

 

[Starling]

Not to sound dismissive, Starling, but the only things you brought up in this post that obviously relate to sentiments people have expressed in relation to the Thanks system are feeling ignored or feeling like everyone is agreeing with the opposing argument.

There's not much that can (or should) be done about the first, since we don't and should not have rules about replying to posts that you don't want to reply to, and about the same can be said for the other matter. At one point or another, everyone is likely to find themselves the sole champion of an opinion or feeling. I certainly have. It's just an inevitability of life, not an injustice.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I noticed the main issue brought up in reference to the thanks system was feeling ganged up on or like no one else is agreeing with you. I pointed out it wasn't necessarily an issue with thanks and that we should talk about debate problems in general to determine the root problem to find the right solution rather than just assume it's the thanks thing and stop at that. After a while of receiving no responses on the matter, when I finally do the whole thing turns into X saying we don't need to talk about it, that it's a totally different issue, etc no matter how much I stress the importance of having that discussion. Couldn't we have just had a proper discussion about it instead of a discussion about why it is or isn't necessary to have one? Would that have been so hard? X was the one who was discussing this whole thing so I'd still appreciate a response from him.

Like I said previously, I'm sympathetic to feeling outnumbered, unappreciated and exhausted (I've certainly been there as well), but that doesn't mean there needs to be rules in place to prevent it when engaging in debates that ultimately are entirely voluntary.

Your sympathy falls flat when you never apologized for the way you treated me in our previous debates and insulting me on my user page when you so much as thought I mistook your words for an apology, saying I deserved to be treated that way. Imagine how much worse it would've been if staff messages there couldn't be deleted and I would've had that be the first thing I saw on my page every single time I went there until someone else posted something. How do you think that whole thing made me feel? You didn't forget, did you? I'd also like to point out I wasn't demanding any rules or restrictions be made, but rather a discussion to identify problems, their causes and what could be done about them. You can't just assume the solution would be rules and restrictions.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I noticed the main issue brought up in reference to the thanks system was feeling ganged up on or like no one else is agreeing with you. I pointed out it wasn't necessarily an issue with thanks and that we should talk about debate problems in general to determine the root problem to find the right solution rather than just assume it's the thanks thing and stop at that.

Several people -- including Flare, who is something of an expert-by-experience with being outnumbered in debates in that section -- posted in this thread to say it was an issue with Thanks.

After a while of receiving no responses on the matter, when I finally do the whole thing turns into X saying we don't need to talk about it, that it's a totally different issue, etc no matter how much I stress the importance of having that discussion. Couldn't we have just had a proper discussion about it instead of a discussion about why it is or isn't necessary to have one? Would that have been so hard? X was the one who was discussing this whole thing so I'd still appreciate a response from him.

I'll leave him to answer then.

Your sympathy falls flat when you never apologized for the way you treated me in our previous debates and insulting me on my user page when you so much as thought I mistook your words for an apology, saying I deserved to be treated that way. Imagine how much worse it would've been if staff messages there couldn't be deleted and I would've had that be the first thing I saw on my page every single time I went there until someone else posted something. How do you think that whole thing made me feel? You didn't forget, did you?

You mean that one-on-one debate that was a one-on-one debate rather than a case of one person being outnumbered by many -- and therefore isn't applicable to the current discussion?

No, I haven't forgotten how you or I conducted ourselves during that trainwreck, but please, do feel free to continue misrepresenting it in a discussion that has nothing to do with that exchange.

I'd also like to point out I wasn't demanding any rules or restrictions be made, but rather a discussion to identify problems, their causes and what could be done about them. You can't just assume the solution would be rules and restrictions.

What did you have in mind then? Don't just hint and poke around it if you have something you want to suggest.

 

[Starling]

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I noticed the main issue brought up in reference to the thanks system was feeling ganged up on or like no one else is agreeing with you. I pointed out it wasn't necessarily an issue with thanks and that we should talk about debate problems in general to determine the root problem to find the right solution rather than just assume it's the thanks thing and stop at that.

Several people -- including Flare, who is something of an expert-by-experience with being outnumbered in debates in that section -- posted in this thread to say it was an issue with Thanks.

Flint also brought up that the problem's association with thanks might be a matter of perception, while other people have brought up doubts that the thanks system was the real problem and that it could just be a sign of a deeper problem. Keep in mind a variety of opinions have been expressed.

Your sympathy falls flat when you never apologized for the way you treated me in our previous debates and insulting me on my user page when you so much as thought I mistook your words for an apology, saying I deserved to be treated that way. Imagine how much worse it would've been if staff messages there couldn't be deleted and I would've had that be the first thing I saw on my page every single time I went there until someone else posted something. How do you think that whole thing made me feel? You didn't forget, did you?

You mean that one-on-one debate that was a one-on-one debate rather than a case of one person being outnumbered by many -- and therefore isn't applicable to the current discussion?

No, I haven't forgotten how you or I conducted ourselves during that trainwreck, but please, do feel free to continue misrepresenting it in a discussion that has nothing to do with that exchange.

First off, the discussion we're having is about general debate issues. Feeling ganged up on in debates is only one such problem. Feeling alone in your opinions or like they're falling on deaf ears are also related problems.

Second, it was three one on one debates spanning just as many threads that started out separate until they started bleeding into each other, where your replies were posted in fewer days than mine while refusing to acknowledge problems I was having with your behaviour in a similar way you're doing now, even though I tried to acknowledge issues you were bringing up even if they were based on misunderstanding what I'd said. I might as well have been debating with a group of people who all thought the same thing. While it started out as reasonable discussion, having pretty much every other argument I made get unfairly dismissed after spending ours making those posts, having to worry about you disagreeing with me in more threads and add yet another simultaneous debate, constantly having at least one reply pending as I struggled to get them done within a week only to have a new reply to read a day or two later, your increasing disrespect of me and the sleep I lost from all that stress was extremely aggravating. All I wanted was for you to stop dismissing what I was saying as irrelevant and be more respectful. Instead I got insults and your claim that not only did you not owe an apology, but that I deserved all of that, as if you didn't even realize you'd done anything wrong.

Third, I didn't bring it up as an example for the thread, I brought it up as the reason why sympathy from you about debate problems doesn't mean much when you can't do something as simple as apologize, if not for the debates then for the insults on my user page afterward. It seems you're still unwilling to offer an apology for what I brought up and even have the nerve to claim I'm giving an inaccurate summation of how it ended. You seriously crossed a line and as a moderator, you should know better than to deny that kind of thing. You also should've known better than to respond to me in this topic.

I'd also like to point out I wasn't demanding any rules or restrictions be made, but rather a discussion to identify problems, their causes and what could be done about them. You can't just assume the solution would be rules and restrictions.

What did you have in mind then? Don't just hint and poke around it if you have something you want to suggest.

I'm not hinting and poking at solutions, I was hoping to start with discussing what problems occur in debates first, since that has to come before discussing solutions. The intention was also to go over whether or not each issue was caused by having thanks. Given your continued disrespect, I'd rather have this discussion with someone else, such as X, who originally responded to me on the topic or get feedback from anyone still reading this thread.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Starling, I'm going to be as nice as I possibly can at the moment -- and yes, as nice a response as that post deserves -- and say that you and I recall that situation in extremely different ways. And that's where I'm going to leave this.

 

[Lex]

And we're bringing up personal shit that happened ages ago and has nothing to do with this situation because......?

Take it to PM's or something.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I noticed the main issue brought up in reference to the thanks system was feeling ganged up on or like no one else is agreeing with you. I pointed out it wasn't necessarily an issue with thanks and that we should talk about debate problems in general to determine the root problem to find the right solution rather than just assume it's the thanks thing and stop at that. After a while of receiving no responses on the matter, when I finally do the whole thing turns into X saying we don't need to talk about it, that it's a totally different issue, etc no matter how much I stress the importance of having that discussion. Couldn't we have just had a proper discussion about it instead of a discussion about why it is or isn't necessary to have one? Would that have been so hard? X was the one who was discussing this whole thing so I'd still appreciate a response from him.

I preempted my last post in this thread as a quick reply, since it was made from my phone, as I'm not always at a computer where I can make an itemized reply to everything, and I wanted to specifically stop things from revolving around the LTD-thread, and clear up what I'd meant about the Blind Debate section being able to absorb other threads, so that we could get back on topic.

However, I'm REALLY not appreciative of your dismissive and inaccurate summary of what exactly I've been doing in this thread. I'd like for you to let me know where it is EXACTLY that I said that, "we don't need to talk about it" because that is 100% not the case of what's happened anywhere in this thread, but it has VERY much set the tone for which I am going to respond to you.

You want your direct reply? Here it is.

I'm fine with testing out the no thanks thing to see if it makes debates more objective. We'll have to wait and see how that goes to confirm what kind of difference it makes. I just want to make sure other problems don't get overlooked because of that.

Again, we are not ignoring or overlooking the other problems. There are individual issues at play here, and this is a test case for ONE of those things. Not all of them. This ONE case had a pretty cut-and-dry way to test out and see if it would help, which is why I created the Blind Debate subforum. It wasn't a hastily-made decision as you seem to purport, but rather a simple one that we could test, while waiting to hear about the other facets of the issue that lead to this thread.

– Which I should add that I am still honestly waiting on.

I'm aware some of that stuff would fall under moderation. It's kinda inevitable when dealing with debate issues. The thing is, going over problems, their root causes and potential solutions can indicate whether or not anything needs to change, whether in moderation, subforums or whatever is being dealt with. Isn't it pertinent to moderation to assess problems of any kind present on the forums? Don't you regularly go over everything to make sure the system is doing a good enough job? Isn't this the kind of reasoning that prompted Ghost to make this thread?

Yes we DO regularly go over things like this as Staff and as a Community when they come up, so...? What are you getting at here?

No, it's not completely unrelated. We may still be waiting on more input elaborating on the problems people have with the thanks system but we also have input about why some people stay out of the debate threads that doesn't have anything to do with the thanks system.

The people who've spoken up about either of those things so far say things about how debates can feel like your opinion isn't acknowledged or that everyone else is agreeing with the opposing argument, or that things get too heated and possibly disrespectful. Why do we have to wait for elaboration on the thanks issue to discuss whether or not what's been said so far indicates a problem that's either unrelated to the thanks system despite being associated with it or that goes beyond it and would require a different solution? More feedback on that front is as simple as asking people if they've had any problems with debates and then whether or not they associate those problems to the thanks system.

• Opinion isn't acknowledged/everyone is agreeing with the opposing argument: This is what we're testing with Blind Debate to see how this impacts that, and at a wider scale when people can individually disable Thanks for themselves.
• Things get too heated/disrespectful: This is pretty much a case-by-case issue that we'd need to address as mods, since that's basically the whole reason that Mod staff exist on forums. If it's happening all over the place, we'd need to address it as a community, but I really don't see any evidence that that's the case, and I'm waiting on examples of either.*

I and a few other members expressed feeling that there's a deeper issue that goes beyond the whole thanks thing. I pointed out that having a broader discussion about the issues seen in debates to figure out whether or not the thanks system is really the problem and how to better deal with it was important before we started taking action on the thanks thing. No one really responded to that. I asked whether or not we'll broach the subject in order to figure out if messing with the thanks is even necessary, then later elaborate on why I think it's important to do that and still no one replied to what I said. It wasn't until the subforum was made and Dawn expressed disappointment that no one else was looking into the deeper issues that the topic was finally responded to.

If you'll note, I am also of the opinion that, by-and-large, and have said so quite clearly. The Thanks system isn't just what's at fault here but rather the mechanic by which it becomes easy to notice, so don't say that no one really responded to that, because it's just not true.

This is exactly why I was waiting for more specific information from people to begin to be able to look into a solution for that set of concerns. As of yet, I have yet to've had anyone who's affected by this broader/deeper issue share their concerns directly, and without that... I can't do anything, since I don't have anything to work with.*

I'd say that summation oversimplifies the range of opinions somewhat. It also leaves out the opinion that the thanks system either isn't the problem or not the root cause of it.

This is "clique-y or other ganging-up-type behaviour" that I need specific examples to be able to attempt to look at a solution, like I've mentioned several times now.

There were people who wanted a solution to be found without removing thanks

We left Thanks alone on 99% of the board, and are testing it on a small subset of debate threads, rather than the entire debate section. I even put up a thread to let people say which specific debate threads they wanted to try it with and what they didn't.

...others who wondered if the problem associated with thanks was a matter of perception, etc.

This is what the solution for having individuals hide Thanks for themselves entirely was presented for, as well as the small subset of threads in the Blind Debate area.

Then there's how the thread was originally made to discuss opinions on the matter rather than actually go ahead and do something only 2 days in. There wasn't any need to rush for a solution so quickly, especially when the topic of whether or not the thanks system was the real problem hadn't been dealt with.

For what I sincerely hope is the very last time that I have to say this:

THE BLIND DEBATE SECTION NOT THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THIS CONVERSATION, NOR IS IT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION.

It was put in place "quickly" because the ONE FACET of the issue that dealt with Thanks supporting opinions in Debate threads was easy to implement a test solution for. Only ONE thread was moved there (the Presidential Debate thread, so that we could get an early feel for how Flare and others felt about it). Additionally, everyone's opinions were asked for insofar as which threads we test it with, and nothing else was changed and it has yet to have a single other thread moved there until we've had at least a week for people to respond.


At no point did I make the Blind Debate section and then say, "Problem Solved"

I am still waiting on hearing more specifics about the other specific issues being felt. *So far I've personally (not publicly) heard from a SINGLE member that I've looked into directly with the staff, and no one else's offered any sort of examples that I can look at for the rest of the imbalances that are apparently being felt by some of the member base. That's not enough for me to build a case on for attempting to moderate action or suggest a solution.

Get me that, and I'll get you more solutions, but until then, I am still waiting on hearing something from anyone who can help me form a picture of what these deeper concerns actually are, because I'd like to address them, but I really can't without a clearer picture of what that thing is exactly.




X