The Lifestream Forums

The Lifestream Forums (https://thelifestream.net/oldforums/index.php)
-   Active Projects & Events (https://thelifestream.net/oldforums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   On Forum Titles and Roles - Important! (https://thelifestream.net/oldforums/showthread.php?t=20651)

Lex 07/13/2018 03:53 PM

On Forum Titles and Roles - Important!
 
Hi folks,

Following the discussion in the forum software upgrade thread it's important we all understand user titles, roles, what that means for people who have them and what that means for the board vs. the site. Please bear with me because this post is probably going to be really long but it's important that people getting involved in the discussion have a good overview of how all that works. This is in an effort to keep things fully transparent and also obviously to discuss what's happening post-move.

I'll be delving into site history aswell here.



"USER LADDER/ USER RANKS"


This refers to the titles and permissions people get automatically by number of posts. All boards have some version of this, and it's similar to a "trust" setting permissions wise. Newbies can't edit their posts etc. It looks like this:

https://media.discordapp.net/attachm...31/unknown.png

The vast majority of stuff is unlocked early on in this ladder, but with the move to new software we have more features to play with so we can discuss what we're going to do about the user ladder, make improvements etc.

FOR XF: As it stands the user ladder doesn't transfer over to XF or even display on the postbit. User ladders like this are one of these things that are kind of legacy, but if it's a feature we want to keep (the display on the user's postbit) then we can, we'll just have to build a new one.

There will definitely be some form of "user ladder" to deal with troll/ spam accounts, but I'd be happy if it stayed invisible. There'll be a way to make it visible on the member's own profile page rather than in every post if people are up for that option aswell.




FORUM STAFF ROLES


There's always been a fairly big distinction between "site staff" (people who work on the site and content) and "forum staff" (admins and mods), but it's confusing and has become blurred in recent years. Forum staff roles are as follows:

https://media.discordapp.net/attachm...64/unknown.png

If you're a frequenter of any forum it's pretty simple, but we should discuss it anyway:

Administrator - This is (on forums) generally both a technical role and a "dealing with problems" hierarchical role. In terms of permissions, admins have access to everything in the backend from a technical standpoint, and are also a level above Super Moderators in the traditional sense. The hierarchical part is a little bit meaningless to us because we're small and all interact with each other on an even keel as much as possible.

Moderator - A moderator has certain permissions like the ability to ban users, lock threads, delete posts etc. Traditionally the position of "moderator" was given to people for specific boards, i.e. "this person is the General Discussion moderator" and so on. There isn't anyone with this title on TLS because...

Super Moderator - A moderator with the ability to "moderate" the whole board. Aside from some exceptions I'm not sure are still the case, we only have SMods.

For XF - I propose that we drop the "Super" from "Super Moderator" and just have "Moderator" for all the current SMods.



SITE ROLES

These were created to essentially give people who were creating content for TLS or working on the front-end site some recognition for their work, as well as categorize a front-end hierarchy. This is where shit gets cray:

https://media.discordapp.net/attachm...190&height=659

This isn't all of them but you get the idea. Originally we just had "site staff" as a user title, but they weren't descriptive enough. Someone who is responsible for Social Media has nothing to do with the front-end site, and that's what "Site Staff" was initially associated with. So over time others were created, such as Site Director etc.

Now some of these roles also had mod permissions, but that didn't make them "a mod". For example, Shademp was the "Compilation of FFVII Editor", meaning he was in charge of compilation content on the front page. He ALSO had section specific mod permissions on the appropriate boards, this was to allow him to categorize content within the appropriate board for the compilation. But it didn't make him "a moderator" as per the forum staff definitions posted previous, it was just a technical permission to allow him to (if he wanted) deal with that specific board for the content he was in charge of.

Site Director (my title) has admin permissions in the backend for obvious reasons. You need admin permissions to see the CSS and deal with the styles, manage usergroups etc. But formally I am not "an admin" on the board. I realise that I've been here a long time with the title "Site Director" and people treat me like I am anyway, but our mods and admins (bar a few legacy staff members) have all been voted in by members. I was voted in as an SMod a long time ago. I believe the only people we have on staff who weren't voted in by members are X and Ryu, but correct me if I'm wrong on that one. I remember Tres being voted in as Admin after years as an SMod.

For XF: "The flattening" as we discussed in the other thread - my idea was to have small icons that could be grouped together rather than formal titles over there. There are bars that say "staff members" that we can enable/disable and customise aswell. That feature is to differentiate between staff and non-staff if need be but we don't need to use it.

So the staff icons would represent: Admin, Mod, Content Contributor, Legacy Donator? Staff Emeritus? whatever we decide we want to keep. But obviously the idea is to get rid of the vast majority of the titles and keep it simple, if everyone is cool with that.

There is one massive issue with this, and it's that I obviously don't want to make myself an official "administrator" without board approval. Yop and I have informally discussed it (I expect him to post on this subject in a bit :P) but if we're flattening the user titles that means Site Director goes aswell. But I need to retain Admin permissions to deal with the technical aspects of the backend - an alternative is to keep the Site Director title and its permissions (which I don't mind) and also retain my SMod status, which I also don't mind. It's really up to you guys (and the mods/ admin) to decide what we want to do here. I don't care either way, because people treat me like an admin and I have the admin permissions regardless. It just wouldn't be right for me to flatten the user titles and then make myself an admin without discussing it with everyone first. And please if anyone has an issue with it don't be afraid to bring it up, I might be a little bit offended but I can take it :)



OTHER TITLES


This is stuff like "Donator" etc., and for those on XF I'm thinking similar to the other titles in the sense of having like a "legacy donator" icon.


SO

Sorry about how long this post is, but I think it's important people have a full and transparent overview of the titles and how they function.

One more thing:

In terms of board permissions, all staff members had unrestricted access to the staff section of this board (including, inappropriately, site staff). This was a long time ago though, they've since been fixed so that the staff section is accessible by all staff, but only mods etc. can see reported posts. This will remain the case in XF, but I intend to create a new semi-public board for the content contributors to categorise and organise their stuff unless anyone has objections. So for example within said board content creation discussions and organisation can all be public so that anyone can really chip in, but a subsection would be viewable by only Content Contributors for things like links to our graphics files and sensitive content. That way everything is as transparent and open as possible. Obviously anyone can get access to this by 1. contributing content and 2. being a trusted member.

So yeah, sorry for the length, please discuss :monster:

f a n c y 07/13/2018 05:14 PM

Hurrah for Lex formally being made Admin

Hurrah for replacing formal titles over usernames with icons/badges.

Hurrah for having specific titles for staff (‘Site Designer’ etc) visible on a member’s profile page but not visible when posting in the threads n shit.

I reckon badges for ‘Staff Emeritus’ can be decided on an individual level since not everyone may care for that title being attached to them, as we’ve discussed (and I do see the point. Some folks want a ‘clean cut’ whilst others may be attached to the sentimentality/status). ‘Donator’ might also be decided invidivually since some folks like giving anonymously? But I can’t imagine it being too big of a deal. I say Donators can specify whether or not they want to be kept anonymous. :P

Yay! Thanks for this well-written and comprehensible poast. :mon:

Edit:
Excuse my ignorance—will these icon/badges be custom designed? I mention it cuz it sounds like a fun job to undertake. ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)

Strangelove 07/13/2018 05:26 PM

make my badge a panda and you can do whatever you want

Claymore 07/13/2018 06:31 PM

The only aspect I really have a little reservation with is this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex (Post 788798)
This will remain the case in XF, but I intend to create a new semi-public board for the content contributors to categorise and organise their stuff unless anyone has objections. So for example within said board content creation discussions and organisation can all be public so that anyone can really chip in, but a subsection would be viewable by only Content Contributors for things like links to our graphics files and sensitive content. That way everything is as transparent and open as possible. Obviously anyone can get access to this by 1. contributing content and 2. being a trusted member.

I'm not sure why the unique content that anyone creates for the site, including the entire process of going through the different stages of concepts, planning, scripting, producing, and then the final product, needs to be as 'transparent and open as possible'. The entire board, and beyond, doesn't really need to see any of this. What benefit does having this open bring?

I say that because I can see some significant disadvantages. Ignoring for a moment the potential of other sites seeing what we are currently working on and beating us to the scoop, or worse, expanding on what we are doing and making better end products (which isn't as ridiculous as it sounds when real Remake content is finally here), but it is also difficult enough fielding all the different thoughts from the different team members involved in content creation - let alone the entire board being able to chime in at every step of the way.

I don't know. This just doesn't sit well with me. Though the collaboration concept we have going on Discord has been a success so far, it's success I feel in a way is that it is because there are a limited number of us, we're getting to know what our individual strengths are, are able to use our different creativity and bounce off of each other. But I think that creativity will be impacted negatively by having everything open, seen by, and chimed in, by all.

I mean, part of this probably comes from my own issues as a novel-writer-in-training, who jealously guards his writing because of his lack of self worth, but even solely on the point of creativity ... yeah, I don't see why it isn't a private section personally.

looneymoon 07/13/2018 07:29 PM

i don't do shit but do i get something for being old

Lex 07/13/2018 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claymore (Post 788815)
The only aspect I really have a little reservation with is this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex (Post 788798)
This will remain the case in XF, but I intend to create a new semi-public board for the content contributors to categorise and organise their stuff unless anyone has objections. So for example within said board content creation discussions and organisation can all be public so that anyone can really chip in, but a subsection would be viewable by only Content Contributors for things like links to our graphics files and sensitive content. That way everything is as transparent and open as possible. Obviously anyone can get access to this by 1. contributing content and 2. being a trusted member.

I'm not sure why the unique content that anyone creates for the site, including the entire process of going through the different stages of concepts, planning, scripting, producing, and then the final product, needs to be as 'transparent and open as possible'. The entire board, and beyond, doesn't really need to see any of this. What benefit does having this open bring?

I say that because I can see some significant disadvantages. Ignoring for a moment the potential of other sites seeing what we are currently working on and beating us to the scoop, or worse, expanding on what we are doing and making better end products (which isn't as ridiculous as it sounds when real Remake content is finally here), but it is also difficult enough fielding all the different thoughts from the different team members involved in content creation - let alone the entire board being able to chime in at every step of the way.

I don't know. This just doesn't sit well with me. Though the collaboration concept we have going on Discord has been a success so far, it's success I feel in a way is that it is because there are a limited number of us, we're getting to know what our individual strengths are, are able to use our different creativity and bounce off of each other. But I think that creativity will be impacted negatively by having everything open, seen by, and chimed in, by all.

I mean, part of this probably comes from my own issues as a novel-writer-in-training, who jealously guards his writing because of his lack of self worth, but even solely on the point of creativity ... yeah, I don't see why it isn't a private section personally.

If everyone wants it to be a private section, that's fine. My idea was to keep a best of both worlds where some of the more sensitive stuff (i.e. once a project is actually rolling along) out of the public eye.

Members have a history of disliking private sections that are private for no reason. Yop in particular is in favour of keeping as much in the open as possible, hence my suggestion. I agree on the principle of safeguarding something being created, but I also want to make sure that process is open to people who want to contribute. "Too many chefs" has definitely always been an issue here when considering one solo project.

With that in mind, do you have an idea of how we might do that?

Lex 07/13/2018 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by looneymoon (Post 788821)
i don't do shit but do i get something for being old

I know you're kidding but actually, we could come up with a badge for "legacy TLS" members that joined prior to 2013 or something? I say 2013 because this year is TLS's 10th anniversary so 2013 would have been the halfway mark XD.

Shademp 07/13/2018 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex
It's really up to you guys (and the mods/ admin) to decide what we want to do here. I don't care either way, because people treat me like an admin and I have the admin permissions regardless. It just wouldn't be right for me to flatten the user titles and then make myself an admin without discussing it with everyone first.

Lex for admin! For greatest justice!

X-SOLDIER 07/13/2018 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex (Post 788798)
I was voted in as an SMod a long time ago. I believe the only people we have on staff who weren't voted in by members are X and Ryu, but correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

I mean by that measure, technically speaking Yop wasn't voted in either. :awesomonster:

But yes, Lex for Admin & fantastic job detailing out and being the central point for basically all of this XF migration-related stuff.





X :neo:

Minato 07/13/2018 08:08 PM

I support Lex for real actual admin!

Lex 07/13/2018 08:31 PM

There is other actual stuff to talk about from that post aswell guys, but the support is appreciated :monster:

Quote:

I mean by that measure, technically speaking Yop wasn't voted in either. :monster:
You know that's different :kermit:

Tetsujin 07/13/2018 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex (Post 788823)
Quote:

Originally Posted by looneymoon (Post 788821)
i don't do shit but do i get something for being old

I know you're kidding but actually, we could come up with a badge for "legacy TLS" members that joined prior to 2013 or something? I say 2013 because this year is TLS's 10th anniversary so 2013 would have been the halfway mark XD.

I want a "Day 1" badge. :awesome:

Strangelove 07/13/2018 08:46 PM

'elder gods'

Dawnbreaker 07/13/2018 09:05 PM

Re: Lex as admin
Forgive my analogy, but in my guild, if someone is already doing the job, then we give them the title, providing everything else works out (e.g. their attitude fits well with the new team, they want the responsibility). Since Lex essentially does an admin's job and has a lot of the same access (as far as I understand), then officially admining him is the next logical step.

Re: mods apponted vs. voted in
IIRC, a few of your other Smods actually were appointed, not voted in. I remember something of a thread back in FFOF where Yop was giving out mods positions. Just to clarify -- I don't think there was anything wrong with that, in fact, it was the only thing that could be done, as the site didn't even exist yet. How could a vote even happen? Also, relating to the Lex-as-an-admin thing, so long as they do the Smod job, having issue that they were appointed vs. voted in seems silly to me, especially given the circumstance at the time of their appointment.

Re: the creativity section (maybe I missed the official name?)
I can see both points to the question of whether to keep private or make it public. On one hand, making it public helps foster trust with the memberbase and also gives the staff a greater workforce to solicit ideas. On the other hand, yes, competitor sites can steal your ideas and creative work and managing all the different input on the creative works could become a nightmare.

All in all, I think it's great that the staff is working to streamline the titles and manage the staff talent and the memberbase, etc.

X-SOLDIER 07/13/2018 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex (Post 788831)
Quote:

I mean by that measure, technically speaking Yop wasn't voted in either. :monster:
You know that's different :kermit:

It is a bit similar – we were the first two users created, and have both perpetually been admins since the board was first created. :mon: Like Dawn said, many of those came straight out of the FFOF thread where we gathered everyone together to generate TLS in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex (Post 788831)
There is other actual stuff to talk about from that post aswell guys, but the support is appreciated :monster:

Userladders being invisible is solid. For the most part, when we were setting up TLS, there was a big focus on avoiding as much of the e-peen measuring of things like poast count as much as possible, while still retaining some level of differentiation between brand-new and old-timer members, as well as the quiet vs. the regulars, but I feel like badges or whatnot essentially achieve that.

The flattening of perms and groups itself seems like a welcome refresh. There is a bunch of legacy roles, titles, and whatnots that've been slowly built up over the last decade around here that the move to XF feels like spring cleaning in a lot of ways. I feel like the badges will streamline quite a bit of clutter and such, while still retaining the important bits.

The only thing where Mod vs. S-Mods MIGHT be useful is if there's an uptick in chat around the Remake, sometimes having section-specific mods helps to focus efforts in certain areas, since you know there're particular areas you're responsible for, and you can make a point of watching them more closely. That being said, that's only really a big factor if we're looking at more significant poast volume and adapting users into roles more quickly. So, while I doubt it'll be something we see in the near future, it might just be worth keeping in mind as a path we may be inclined toward later on.

Insofar as content creationy-type things, I'm also up for whatever on folks're most comfortable with insofar as the privacy of the contributor board. I'm more than happy to put stuff up in whatever environment. There're obviously merits and advantages to either that I'm not too strongly attached to one way or another. Ex: An April Fool's Day thing makes sense to be smaller and more private, whereas most general content and such make sense to be more widely available.





X :neo:

Literally Who? 07/13/2018 09:08 PM

I also believe Lex being admin is fgj and lettucebecereal, he's been a damn good admin already for a few years :monster:

As i said in the other thread, I had my eyes totally opened when I joined the youtube to just how much Lex actually runs here. Maybe I'm just oblivious and it was always obvious but it's actually kind of staggering just how much he does around here... and that was before he started tackling the XF migration full on as well.


Regarding the Content Creators club :monster:

I would really like to respect Yopy's wishes on this and stuff, but on the other hand Claymore does raise valid points and I would be lying if I said I hadn't thought the same when I first read the OP.


There's a lot of "Big" ideas and things that get tossed around there that I definitely would still like to keep private until they become public on the youtube channel and I feel like some of the big landmark ideas (like the one you presented yesterday-ish Lex) would totally be squandered if said idea was presented in a public forum. Especially if one day our channel really starts getting eyes from the FF7 youtube community on it.
The youtube game has always been pretty cut throat and airing our plans in public just makes youtube dramaz all the more simple to occur I think.

There's also an aspect about this I want to mention in private so I hope the public board doesn't mind that. I think it's worth though.


There are also "little things" that I feel like would suck to have public as well. Again operation on the idea that one day the TLS channel becomes a place with eyes on it. There are often times little things we bounce or around or mention in there that I think would really really suck if they end up getting quoted. To a degree this already happened on the boards when like Destructoid (?) misquoted Hian and ran with the whole "FF7R not till 2023!??!?!" thing.

IIRC during the whole E3 let down I believe Hian or possibly Minato said something to the effect that they knew for sure due to local talk that Nomura was indeed at E3. Considering how fail E3 went, I can imagine how something little like that could easily be picked up on , twisted and scapegoated onto us etc.


Additionally during E3 randomly at like 2am we ran into an image that alleged it was FF7R footage being tested on stage at E3. Needless to say for a good bit we thought it was real but eventually over the course of like 4 hours and well into the morning we broke the image down and concluded it was fake. But even then for a good hour our opinion was it was likely real and we were instead of trying to debunk it, trying to place what location the image was taking place in. This is another thing that I feel would bite us in the ass in the scenario of a misquote. "TLS thinks this is real!?!? FF7R at E3 confirmed by TLS?!?!" Again it's not a quite out there scenario, whole "FF7R not till 2023" literally originates from content in our FF7R section.

If anyones curious heres my post on the FF7R reddit debunking said image, said conclusion was the result of a handful of us scrutinizing every aspect of that shitty photo for several hours

https://www.reddit.com/r/FFVIIRemake...tions/dzvg5g1/


Regarding to many cooks in the kitchen. We already almost dodged a bullet on this one too lol. Day 1 I saw that you said we needed a video done on the misquote Asap and were already like a day behind due to the nature of the team being made after the misquote.

Needless to say I believe I stepped on Claymore and a few others toes to make that video asap and even though the video was made and uploaded quickly it did definitely have an air of "feels bad" about it.

Were still getting to know each other and get a cohesive work flow together , and it's turning out awesome, I'm kind of afraid to screw with that synergy right now.

Especially seeing as how sometimes having total community input also can slow down projects. Not to trash on how TLS works but it would kind of suck to have someone whose not on the team slow a project down or drama to show up later on because we didn't like have a poll about the 10 different pieces of Art I could have copy and pasted into a 2 second portion of the video etc.



Theres also the idea that these videos are for the community. If they get to see like the 10 different prototypes of a video I upload before the final one gets a pass or were involved in the creation of those 10 different prototypes then well... why would they watch the actual video? They basically just saw it 10 times. It kind of kills that surprise factor.


i know we make these for "the youtube" and the broader internet but what I actually enjoy most is unveiling a new video on TLS and seeing what you guys have to say on your first viewing. Yeah view count and engaging new people through youtube are indeed important, but personally it just brings me more joy to make or be involved in a product and seeing it get good feedback here the most. This might be a bit selfish I know, I just kinda think keeping it public messes with that aspect too.




edit:


How about a compromise?

Our big "landmark" ideas ,series that are being developed and general content ideas of that nature will go behind closed doors as usual, but more community driven videos can be out in the open in the "public" section.

Videos such as the VII best moments in VII etc. Those already operate on the basis of fielding public opinion across the board. Instead of making the thread where we pool ideas out in the FF sections etc. We just make that thread in the public half of the Content area, we create it in private and then upload the final result.

Fundamentally not much changes I know, but it would still be a fair way of getting community driven content while also keeping ourselves safe from multiple angles of shenanigans etc. Thoughts?

CrashOuch 07/14/2018 12:28 AM

I feel like this is a really stupid thing to say but just in case it's not, I'mma say it anyway.
Re: The content creator thingummy, if the issue is that we don't want our awesome ideas being leaked, but we also all don't want it to be like people are left out or whatever, could we have a section for it that's just barred to the public? So like, when newbies join up and prove themselves not to be bots/and or tea leaves then they get a magical tick so they can see this section, and obviously all of us lot who have already proven ourselves to be humans(ish) already have a magical tick. And then it's the responsibility of the Official Content Creators to be posting in there and getting on with whatever creating they're needing to be doing. Could that work???

Lex 07/14/2018 12:32 AM

^Yeah that can be done aswell.

CrashOuch 07/14/2018 12:47 AM

^ Although I just reread your OP and that's pretty much what you're suggesting anyway :lol: sorry, definitely a stupid suggestion.

ALSO to reinforce my stupidity, I have literally never ever (until today) understood the staff ... thing. Like who was what, what it meant, the hierarchy, anything. Granted, like I said, this is probably due to me being 1) stupid and 2) too lazy to have ever got involved and therefore needed to know BUT STILL this means I am totally on board with like flattening all that out and just having like one or two titles for all. Especially cos if there's gonna be more people contributing to content on the front page (?) all that stuff is gonna be more spread out over more people anyway so having a thousand titles would be nonsense then anyway, innit? Also, like, it's important to clearly state who has some form of mod permissions, right, so if someone tells you off, you know how seriously to take it? And stuff like that? I feel like any change that makes it more clear who's in charge is a good idea cos honestly I'm still figuring it out haha, so I assume (hope :P) there's at least one other idiot out there who'd take a while to figure it out too.

Literally Who? 07/14/2018 01:15 AM

While that stops lurkers from lurking as a guest it doesn't really stop anyone from just signing up and eventually having access to the board and doing the stuff I and Claymore listed as issues.

Furthermore with it being an open section thats clearly marked as our content/social media team , where members of said team are easy to spot out due to the user title/icon it makes it even easier for the above concerns to happen.

At least in the scenario of Hian being misquoted there was that element of "member of TLS translated this thing" , with it being an official section with official titles it can easily go from "TLS Youtube director/editor/writer etc. said the following".


I know , very serious business level paranoia here, but we should also care about how TLS is perceived from the outside looking in. Part of that is making sure our latest endeavor with outreach matches that.

We've made some very well regarded content on the front page in the past and I hope for the youtube to strive for that same respect. In some circles, and even big ones with influencers like Reset era we are actually kind of well respected for the work we produce.

I just would really hate for another destructoid issue to occur only this time it has a rather official looking section and title to back it up.


Furthermore that still doesn't address the Youtube theft and to many cooks elements.

Youtube content and ideas get stolen left and right, and in the majority of the cases when people make their plea for help on sites like Reddit said youtubers atleast have the benefit of having their video/idea being stolen after it's been uploaded.

Showing our schematics in a semi public section and having ideas potentially stolen before they are even complete is just a whole other scale of head ache I think.

Regarding cooks in the kitchen. Look I'm not trying to people it's a closed club and you missed the boat or anything. I think anyone with the ability to help should help.


But as it is this team is already atleast 25 members strong with all of us helping one another and collaborating in so many different ways ranging from actual video timeline work, asset creation, scripting , narration and many more. I honestly feel bad for just lumping a big chunk of the work we do into "asset creation" for instance I alone have 2 separate TLS folders on my PC that are pushing 50+ GB of stuff I've made or prepared for our projects. And were only a month in lol.

But back to my point, the team is already pretty hefty and we've lucked out that we all actually work together as a unit very very well I feel, but there have already been instances where confusion occurs and stuff like "Hey I thought I was making that lol" happens lol.


I was rereading old drama threads the other day lol, and ran across something Fangu said in one of the design threads that really resonated with me. I might butcher the paraphrase here but she said something like

"One day you will realize it's not about having the ability to create something. It's about getting multiple people to agree they should use it"

and when it comes to design type stuff it is soooo true.


And really this isn't about having a super secret club or anything. It's just about optics and work flow and this transparency idea kinda throws a wrench into an imo pretty well oiled machine.


I understand where the drive to be transparent comes from, like I said I reread quite a few of those drama threads recently lol, and I do absolutely respect Yopy's concerns in this department.



I know this post is sooooo TL;DR right now. Im long winded sorry lol.
But to shed some light on how awesome things have been with the content team I want to kind of go over some awesome news I shared with the team the other day with you guys so maybe you can see how great of a team we have been lately.

For context I'm an x-youtuber. I wasn't that huge or anything but I did have quite a few videos pick up a ton of views and before shit hit the fan things were trending pretty nicely.

After shit hit the fan I lucked out and had friends who worked with another MCN who hooked me up with a few contacts and until I got my IRL work flow back in order I even briefly worked at said MCN. Not to toot my own horn or anything but I actually have a pretty good handle on how Youtube works in a background sort of sense (demographics, view rates, click through, fair use do's and dont's etc.) Due to that I'm usually the debbie downer in our discussions about what we can't do lol.

Anyway back in like 2012 I put the TLS youtube channel on the Social Blade tracker and it's been tracking our growth ever since then. I don't have access to our Youtube to see more in depth stats so can only see the public API stats but even then they are so promising


https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/thelifestreamnet

So you might be thinking "they just have a c+ score?", and think it's a bad thing. But in context for our upload schedule, frequent 6 month+ Hiatuses this is actually incredibly impressive.

Simply put there are upload every day, comment on every reply, "hit like, subscribe and follow me on Twitch!" youtubers who have way worse interaction rates with their community, lower views and click through rate, a lower score and would absolutely kill their channel if they took a 6 month break who would kill for stats like ours.

The fact we could bounce back so strong after such a long break is just simply awesome. We either have awesome subscribers (who we totally need to get onto TLS!), the youtube community is hungry for FF7 content like ours or we got really lucky. It's probably a combination of the three lol.



Were all very passionate about what were doing and trust me I think it's awesome that more people want to find a way to help, but I also hope you guys can have faith in us that were not doing this to just have a secret club or something behind closed doors.

What we do is really really hard and time consuming work. It really is. I know were a new team but give us a chance to find our place and to create our own personal style of content and voice.


I have a lot of concerns here. I hope I articulated them well enough but if theres one take away I promise the want and possibly need for a larger portion of it to stay private isn't coming from a place of malice. It really isn't.

CrashOuch 07/14/2018 01:46 AM

Yeah actually I totally agree with that. No one who's been making content is ever doing anything other than talking shop, like it's 1000% not a super secret club situation, especially cos anyone could be in it if they prove they're gonna work and contribute and everything. It's like staff in that way innit? (I assume) staff has like a staff section where they could be having a super fun time laughing at us all, but they obviously don't do that and having that section at all is a 'privilege' earned through putting the work in doing their jobs and all.

I guess people who aren't content creators gotta weigh in and say how comfortable they feel about that shit being hidden to protect our content? At the end of the day, it's only a problem if people who aren't there have a problem with it, right?

Literally Who? 07/14/2018 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrashOuch (Post 788862)
Yeah actually I totally agree with that. No one who's been making content is ever doing anything other than talking shop, like it's 1000% not a super secret club situation, especially cos anyone could be in it if they prove they're gonna work and contribute and everything. It's like staff in that way innit? (I assume) staff has like a staff section where they could be having a super fun time laughing at us all, but they obviously don't do that and having that section at all is a 'privilege' earned through putting the work in doing their jobs and all.

I guess people who aren't content creators gotta weigh in and say how comfortable they feel about that shit being hidden to protect our content? At the end of the day, it's only a problem if people who aren't there have a problem with it, right?



Yeah basically. For those of you not on the team etc.

As far as I understand for all intents and purposes were "Staff" just like the people who write articles on the front page or do the design stuff are. The thing is since were so new we haven't had our section or titles handed out yet and have been using Discord/Google Drive as a means to collect our thoughts and created content etc.

That said we are human. We chit chat here and there from time to time, it's never about other people or shit talking or anything though. Scrolling through our different chat rooms (they are divided by content type , i.e. videos, scripts , etc.) the most recent "Not totally work" related chit chat is a member saying She's in the process of moving and it's impacted her ability to work on her project, to which several of us replied "your projects still awesome!" and "moving sucks!"

That was 2 days ago lol.


The only time I can think of that a chat was negative is actually what I personally had to say about the potential switch to Discourse forums, and even then I full on copy and pasted what I had said into the Forum Upgrade thread lol, and well no one really replied to my one off rant :monster:


I bring up secret clubs and stuff like that because It's just fresh on my mind having read the old drama threads. TLS has always had a peculiar flavor of issues lol and feel that our past can make for some sore spots for members especially in regards to stuff like that and transparency so I really really wanted to chime in that what were doing behind closed doors is really just a bunch of ideas being bounced around, sharing our projects and sharing advice and not a ton else.

Literally Who? 07/14/2018 03:15 AM

Double post.

I hate to call this a "compromise" because I know it doesn't actually address the issue of transparency at all, but I do think it helps address the idea of community involvement, fun events and also limiting the effects of too many cooks in the kitchen.


It's basically a fleshed out version of the "compromise" I posted in my first reply here.



Basically the idea is the actual majority of our ideas, "leaks", discussion, projects/file directories and work will be behind a closed door. This is to help mitigate any chance of theft , misquotes and excessive chefs.

What will be in the open will be our other resources like tutorials we use to learn, this way the community and prospective future members can learn with us. The idea of this hearkens back to ACF's Graphics section. Personally a ton of my early photo editing and design education and growth is a direct result of that section and the events held there, I think it would be pretty cool if we can sort of recreate through our content team.

So stuff like me linking video copilot AE tuts can go there, or maybe even in the future art or even video contests etc. It can be like a community center for content creation even beyond our core team and beyond even our social media.


After that we can also have stuff like "Suggest a Youtube/FB/Instagram idea" portion where anyone can link cool stuff they found. I think this would also greatly help out our more daily drivers like the FB/Insta, while also helping us build up a stock of quick use assets for videos in addition to possibly helping us scour the web for more "leaks and scoops" etc.


After that would be the more community driven video content etc. i.e. threads that help make the "VII best of VII" videos and things of that nature. This way when we make content like that it can be even more like an event with the community. Ideally my headcannon for this section is basically a user saying

"Oh shit the community video section just got a new thread!" or something lol It should be something that brings excitement to the community or something.

All of this also ties into it all being in a section where everyone posting knows (or should know) that they are contributing to a like stream of content that might get used on the youtube or other social media. I recall when discussion for the VII best of VII video was being worked on there was a point that we forgot to mention posts in that thread might be quoted.

With it all being in a singular section we can just leave it as an agreed upon thing that we can use anything posted there etc. That should cover our bases and if someone wants to post there but isn't comfy being quoted on a video or something they can just say so in the post etc.


So yeah. I know this doesn't address transparency. Like at all lol, but I think it does sort like help create a section that is fun and engaging rather then a section that is basically just "work work work" lol.

Help create a living and thriving front end of that content community for us, and if you trust us to handle the nitty gritty background stuff I really feel like we might be on to a really awesome idea here.

BforBrigitta 07/14/2018 07:17 AM

^Took the words right outta my mouth.

I was going to say something similar: keep one section private to streamline the technical process, keep it discreet and not have the development stage get bogged down by miscellaneous stuff. The other section should be public to involve the community in making suggestions, brainstorming ideas and collecting feedback on new and existing content.

My opinions re: the other stuff:

1. I advocate for Lex for admin.

2. Icons/badges to replace some user titles sound great, though from an aesthetic perspective I personally think it wouldn't be messy to display major staff titles (eg. Community Manager/the other ones in cyan, etc) under their usernames, just so they can be immediately recognisable as trusted members without hovering over badges.

3. I might be in the minority here, but I'd like to have the AKA field impermanent and customisable like the existing one, just with a character limit. Playing around a bit with the AKA field is part of the fun for me :mon:

Cthulhu 07/14/2018 09:35 AM

Re: user ladders, I do like the basic concept of a rank system, although OTOH, just like why we're not showing post counts, it's a bit of a dick measuring contest. I do like the Great Old One title though, that takes some dedication to reach :monster:

Simplifying the staff titles would be good, or in general, just reducing exceptions - we've had a lot of exceptions in user titles / roles because people felt like a specific staff group name was needed, people did want to have some permissions in a section but not have the title or the responsibilities of an official staff member, and of course vanity usergroups (if only for username color) were a thing. Permissions-wise that last group was easy enough, vB has a system where you can have a primary usergroup that is used for permissions and a secondary group as display, but it can be a bit of a pain to implement that. I don't know yet if or how we're going to implement the "donator but with a different color" thing yet. I personally don't care much about colored usernames, but if there's enough demand for it, you get what I mean.

For site and forums staff with specific titles and responsibilities, I do like having people with specified roles. I'd like (and agree with) simplifying the roles in the back-end / permissions-wise for site staff / content contributors.

I don't like the idea or even the suggestion that people need to have a certain role / title to be able to contribute though; we've probably been over this, but even the slightest suggestion that you can't help out if you're not in the "in group" needs to be nipped in the bud. I know Lex is doing a much better job at that than I have, and he's doing a great job along with the contributors though.

Anyway er, on that note, it's a complicated one. I'd like to give contributors appreciation for their work, whether they publish ten posts a week or have done something only once. The badge idea might work there. Anyway you have contributors on the one hand, and permissions and people with publish rights on the other. On the forums, I'd keep it down to having idk, administrators and editors? On the front page there's a user group called "Authors", which IIRC are people that can create and publish posts, but not administer the site. I think we can have people that have the Author role on the front page but not a formal role with extra permissions on the forums.

I think we need a simple set of usergroups and a pinned post or page somewhere that lists who does what, and maybe indicate whether they've got admin or moderator rights.

With regards of Lex for admin. Full disclosure, in many ways he's become an administrator (e.g. given those rights) through the back door, underhanded like. I can imagine this would cause a huge backlash, and I should've stepped in and done something about / with it a long time ago. While I do feel he's got the support and trust of most people (including myself), I think we need to go through an official process to formalize it.

Over the past ten years, I don't remember we've ever had a process of appointing a new administrator, so this is kinda new. What I'm suggesting is a simple poll, a "yea / nay" one, however it can't be a simple democracy - first off, it needs to be a majority vote, so more like at least 2/3rds of votes instead of 51%. Second, there has to be a means of expressing serious issues in a trusted fashion, which each have to be scrutinized and if there's a big enough issue, the whole thing will have to be called off.

TL;DR we can't just admin people through the back door or by a handful of people in a thread verbally going "lex for admin". I'd like some feedback from you guys about the process.

@Lex, what's that about "legacy donator"? Is that with regards to newer donation platforms?

@Claymore, the reason why I like to keep pushing for a public process is er, manyfold? There's a lot of reasonings. First off, back on ACF (10+ years ago), we (the "opposition", so to speak, lol) were really getting pissed off at how the staff was their own clique, who had lost touch with the rest of the memberbase. That's something I want to prevent at all costs. That was the forums staff though, not site staff.

With regards to site staff, what I want to encourage is that everyone that wants to can participate. If you need access to a private area to be able to do that, no matter how low the requirements for that are, it's a barrier that can deter people from it.

I do agree there needs to be room for a "place" for people to work on their projects without having randoms pop in or 3rd parties stealing our work before it's done though, but I think we've got things in place there. Planning a podcast (e.g. getting subjects down, planning a time / date) is something that can be done in public, or when there's a report on a big site somewhere that can be discussed in public as well, it's out there anyway. Things like a random twitter account that only we know about publishing new pictures, or working on translations that nobody else has done yet, that could be done in private or semi-private I think, getting exclusive news out there will be good for the site.

Long story short, er, it depends? :monster:

Ergo 07/14/2018 09:38 AM

I vote for a specific user role for being Scottish.

That's about as much as I have to add to this thread......carry on.

Cthulhu 07/14/2018 10:10 AM

Oi that's nationalist. By that logic you'd vote me out for being Dutch :awesome:

Literally Who? 07/14/2018 10:20 AM

@yopy.

Holy moly I completely forget about podcasts. Sorry @podcast team :( lol.
Having that in the open is so good too, just for the simple fact we can maybe try and get more people to join over time and also engage the community like for instance having a Pre-Podcast thread where people can discuss potential discussions for the podcast , and even have like questions they can post up maybe like a day or two before the Podcast is to be recorded to add a bit of community flavor to it too. i.e. "Joe from the TLS forums asks if Hojo uses boxers or briefs..." or something lol

Which in turn could lead to a pretty easy segue of "Want to ask a our podcast team a question? Join our TLS forums and Community!" or something lol.

(If all of this happens already I am so so so sorry @Podcast team, I just dont have the time to listen to a long podcast that much anymore ;_; )


Regarding on going/public news. Honestly it's been a bit since we've done one of those videos (our first two-ish) and we've been focusing on some larger scale series ideas primarily lately that this also just didn't come to mind when making those tl;dr posts.

But yeah definitely agree that is definitely something that there would be no issue to be created in the open with broader input.

A concern I have which I think we can fix just by chatting about really, is just I don't want us to accidentally make someone who contributes in a video thread like that to feel left out or like their idea got ignored or something. Rereading those drama threads that was kind of a reoccurring theme alongside the issue of cliques. I think as long as we remind everyone that a million reasons could contribute to why something doesn't get used in a video or doesn't make the final cut it should be cool.

Like for example at the end of the Sony E3 conference we were all around, deflated and one of us had the idea to make the "where are you FF7 remake" video. The way we made that video was very much like building a plane while its about to drive off a cliff or something lol. Once the idea was sparked a million ideas came flying through and I just couldn't use all of them lol, but idk everyone was super cool about it and stuff.

Idk I just don't want to be the reason someone might feel left out by like forgetting to add their suggestion or not being able to. So I would really appreciate maybe like a disclaimer or something idk lol.


@History/ACF staff.

I see where your coming from and just want you to know this site has done such a kick ass job in regards to not being "that".

I also wanna point out like 2 things though lol. We were children lol, I was like in the 8th grade when I first joined ACF. We took everything srsbnzess lol, and in retrospect I know a ton of the stuff I did and people in my team (SO) was really not warranted against ACF staff.

That's not to say they didn't massssssively suck lol, but we had our fair share of unreasonableness for sure.

Secondly. ACF also kind of fostered and encouraged Clique mentalities almost naturally I think. The whole team system really brought that out in people, heck after ACF died damn near every forum I joined after like a day being there the first thing I suggest in feedback would be a "Team section" haha.

Even the spam section had a secret hidden spam section in it that was invite only lol the trade off is Staff named it "deepground" because they knew we were edgy and pretending not to like FF7, and would loath the name lol


We've certainly come a long way. I know there were some scary missteps here too but over all you guys have done such a good job in that regard you really have.

InterfaceLeader 07/14/2018 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cthulhu (Post 788885)
With regards of Lex for admin. Full disclosure, in many ways he's become an administrator (e.g. given those rights) through the back door, underhanded like. I can imagine this would cause a huge backlash, and I should've stepped in and done something about / with it a long time ago. While I do feel he's got the support and trust of most people (including myself), I think we need to go through an official process to formalize it.

Over the past ten years, I don't remember we've ever had a process of appointing a new administrator, so this is kinda new. What I'm suggesting is a simple poll, a "yea / nay" one, however it can't be a simple democracy - first off, it needs to be a majority vote, so more like at least 2/3rds of votes instead of 51%. Second, there has to be a means of expressing serious issues in a trusted fashion, which each have to be scrutinized and if there's a big enough issue, the whole thing will have to be called off.

TL;DR we can't just admin people through the back door or by a handful of people in a thread verbally going "lex for admin". I'd like some feedback from you guys about the process.

This might be a controversial suggestion, and I am a n00b so please feel free to reject out of hand. Also this is not about any individual people because I don't actually know any of you that well, and so far you all seem like ~super nice!~ people. And did not experience any of this drama you speak of.

But imo, I think the clique danger is not so much about (or not *just* about) needing a really robust initial voting-in process, but about having a balance of power. Rather than having power concentrated in a limited number of hands (especially if those limited number are all close friends).

It's the 'who polices the police' question; who do you go to if you have an issue with an admin, that has power to sort it out?

My general view is that power/responsibility is better when it's diffuse rather than concentrated (and you also reduce risk, e.g. if you have one person who knows how to do something and then they disappear, what happens?)

I like the idea of 'shadow admins', whose job it is to ensure the actual admins do their job well and who are open to listening to concerns/complaints about that admin & that person can also act as a back-up?

I also think you should make Lex a honorary temporary admin to facilitate the move to the new forums asap, and then vote on whether to make it permanent ON the new forums. Because, you know, this stuff takes time to do properly, and at some point the current forum will just get hacked.


I will not be offended if you tell me all my ideas are shit. :awesome:

Ergo 07/14/2018 01:25 PM

Just a quick question
What's an acf and what relevance does it have to the move? XD

Addy Carver 07/14/2018 01:59 PM

I've no issue with Lex formally becoming admin since he already is (pretty much). The poll will probably be a landslide but I agree it should be done.

Everything seems fine and logical but with regard to the content creation section, why don't we utilise the 121 feedback section for that? I know permissions and sorting them are a pain but all the content staff could have access and that way it gives everyone a direct private portal to the team without compromising privacy. That way people get to pitch in still, the only catch is with it being a private audience is that ideas can't be snowballed around the member base.

JechtShotMK9 07/14/2018 02:29 PM

I think that if Lex wants to be a real Admin, he needs to walk through the Ring of Fire atop Mount Wannahockaloogie.

Other than that, ditto everything else said here. I like the idea of content creation stuff being private till it's done, though.

Cthulhu 07/14/2018 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Literally Who? (Post 788890)
@yopy.

[...]

Re: ACF and shit, I have to admit that FFOF and later TLS probably would not have existed if it wasn't for a clique mentality over there. However, there was also a lot of hostility, and in my view of what happened there, the whole thing shut down in the end because there was a huge disconnect between the people calling the shots and the members. Long story short, I'd like to prevent that.

[QUOTE=InterfaceLeader;788893]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cthulhu (Post 788885)
This might be a controversial suggestion, and I am a n00b so please feel free to reject out of hand. Also this is not about any individual people because I don't actually know any of you that well, and so far you all seem like ~super nice!~ people. And did not experience any of this drama you speak of.

But imo, I think the clique danger is not so much about (or not *just* about) needing a really robust initial voting-in process, but about having a balance of power. Rather than having power concentrated in a limited number of hands (especially if those limited number are all close friends).

It's the 'who polices the police' question; who do you go to if you have an issue with an admin, that has power to sort it out?

My general view is that power/responsibility is better when it's diffuse rather than concentrated (and you also reduce risk, e.g. if you have one person who knows how to do something and then they disappear, what happens?)

I like the idea of 'shadow admins', whose job it is to ensure the actual admins do their job well and who are open to listening to concerns/complaints about that admin & that person can also act as a back-up?

I also think you should make Lex a honorary temporary admin to facilitate the move to the new forums asap, and then vote on whether to make it permanent ON the new forums. Because, you know, this stuff takes time to do properly, and at some point the current forum will just get hacked.


I will not be offended if you tell me all my ideas are shit. :awesome:

ALL YOUR IDEAS ARE SHactually no, I see where you're coming from, and your idea does have merit, however at the same time I personally don't feel like there's an imbalance of power or like, a lack of trust towards the staff maybe? I mean (and correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think there's policies or rules being introduced or changed that are at odds with what most people agree with.

Also he technically already is a honorary admin type, he's needed it to set up the new forums and I'll give him teh powerz anyway to help me out once we're going ahead with the move.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Addy Carver (Post 788900)
Everything seems fine and logical but with regard to the content creation section, why don't we utilise the 121 feedback section for that? I know permissions and sorting them are a pain but all the content staff could have access and that way it gives everyone a direct private portal to the team without compromising privacy. That way people get to pitch in still, the only catch is with it being a private audience is that ideas can't be snowballed around the member base.

Yeah I see what you mean, the permissions themselves aren't terribly complicated, but I know from the feedback section you mention that the permissions won't transfer over properly - we'll have to check if Xf supports the "only the thread starter and people in group x, y and z can see and post in this thread first". I don't actually know how communication for that type of content often goes though, Lex & co can probably pitch in there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JechtShotMK9 (Post 788901)
I think that if Lex wants to be a real Admin, he needs to walk through the Ring of Fire atop Mount Wannahockaloogie.

I veto in favor of this.

Fangu 07/14/2018 03:11 PM

Opinions and shit ~

Admins:
Ideally I'm all for people being voted into the admin position (or at least there being some poll of some kind, encouraging members to voice any concern in their private feedback section or something if they don't want to use a public voting thread) - same with anyone receiving SQL access. The main reason for this that anyone with Admin or SQL access basically has access to read everyone's PM's. (SQL access requires a certain knowledge of SQL, but not much.) When I was working on the old front page, I received the copy of the database to work on fetching comments from specific threads to articles on the front page (this was never finished mostly due to lack of BB code support). iirc it was discussed in a public thread and everyone was fine with it, but it was never presented as 'hey guys now Fangu can actually query PM's from the PM table' (as far as I can remember, at least!) so I'm not sure everyone knew what it meant I was given those rights. Of course, trust is important and I would never violate that trust, but seeing as this is what hugely separates Admins from Smods (in my opinion), it's important that everyone is comfortable with whoever receives these rights.
I'm not uncomfortable with Lex having these rights, I'm pretty sure he's aware that PM's are to be looked into only for very very serious matters, this has rarely happened iirc and the member in question was warned/ notified it was done, and I'm guessing that's still the case, that whenever PM's are read/ brought out, it's for a specific purpose for solving specific conflicts/ problems and the member in question will be notified whenever someone from staff reads them :monster:
So, no extra poll needed nao in the case of Lex imo.

Donator colours:
iirc the whole donator colour thing happened when people were still into the whole group thing, and (light spirited) wanted to be part of certain teams. My main reason for being team blue was that I wanted a more neutral colour for my username in Thanks. Xf doesn't have thanks, but Likes, right? Which makes it even less of a deal for me. I'd say we skip the whole Donator colour thing entirely :monster:

Literally Who? 07/14/2018 08:06 PM

Quote:

Re: ACF and shit, I have to admit that FFOF and later TLS probably would not have existed if it wasn't for a clique mentality over there. However, there was also a lot of hostility, and in my view of what happened there, the whole thing shut down in the end because there was a huge disconnect between the people calling the shots and the members. Long story short, I'd like to prevent that.

Oh yeah absolutely. I think as long as you don't admin Tethar Atrum, SY's friend who had a kid named Kadaj or that one guy who ended up being worse than Tethar out of sheer spite and contempt for the community we might be on the right track still lol

Good god, ACF wtf.

@Ergo.

It means Advent Children Forums. It's where a good chunk of us met and kind of like the grandpappy of this community. It was a really big forum, but unfortunately it was also a really bad forum lol. The last few years there basically everyone argued, there were 5 hidden sections called "Teams" , one of which was called "staff" and if you were on opposite teams you just constantly bitched at each other and then frequently teamed up to bitch at staff. Every day, over any little thing for years. That's not to say staff didn't do bitch worthy stuff either though, but oof in retrospect I'm honestly really surprised the staff/admins didn't just permanently ban the entire team I was on.


FWIW I do kinda think we started breaking the Clique style back then to degree. At some point my team and another one called Fated Children realized it wasn't actually against the rules to join more than one team, and even though we initially basically merged for the "lulz" and to have a post bit that listed multiple teams it did really start breaking down walls especially since Fated Children was kind of like a super try hard "we love final fantasy" team, where as SO was "baby just found 4chan" type of team where we were edgy and didnt "like" Final Fantasy and just wanted to be in the spam section all day.

There were even old guard in the team like The Doctor who came back after a hiatus and lost their shit seeing FC members in SO haha, but yeah I think stuff like that and also teaming up on FFoF during ACF down time to form our "plans" lol, really helped to start breaking that really toxic mentality.

ACF is essentially the root cause for our concern on cliques forming, hell even thanks based issues (yes ACF had that too!) and other basically community breaking issues that ultimately make the place not so friendly with the hallmark of ACF staff being that they handled it all phenomenally bad if they even bothered to address it.

We've had a few close missteps here and unfortunately, but thankfully they were eventually dealt with. None the less concerns about never becoming something like that are very valid.

I think theres still an Encyclopedia Dramatica page about ACF if anyone wants to see how bad it is. It's also worth mentioning that incredibly long page also only covers like 6 months to a years worth of like 5 years of relentless drama.

@Mage,

Are you suggesting instead of a public content creation section we just use private feedback, or suggesting we use it in addition to a new semi public/private content creation section?


Also that private feedback section massively broke in the move to XF lol. Will flattening out the permissions and stuff fix it or will there need to be code black magic stuff to get it going?

Cthulhu 07/14/2018 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Literally Who? (Post 788916)
Also that private feedback section massively broke in the move to XF lol. Will flattening out the permissions and stuff fix it or will there need to be code black magic stuff to get it going?

I'll have to look into it, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of just redoing the permissions and it's just the migration that didn't work quite right for that. Honestly I feel that and the fact every old member got their posts marked as spam were the only snags in this whole thing from a technical POV.

X-SOLDIER 07/14/2018 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cthulhu (Post 788917)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Literally Who? (Post 788916)
Also that private feedback section massively broke in the move to XF lol. Will flattening out the permissions and stuff fix it or will there need to be code black magic stuff to get it going?

I'll have to look into it, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of just redoing the permissions and it's just the migration that didn't work quite right for that. Honestly I feel that and the fact every old member got their posts marked as spam were the only snags in this whole thing from a technical POV.

I think that there was probably a relatively simple fuck-up on that end.

When we first tested it, all the general users had access to ALL THE THINGS there, but my Admin account (that otherwise had permissions to literally everything else) couldn't see a damn thing in there at all. Then, when I just created my own thread I could only ever see my own thread, which is how it ought to function for standard users... just backwards.

As such, it seems like there's probably an elegant way to fix whatever permission fucked that up, and get it back to working the same way it does here with very little headache.





X :neo:

Flare 07/15/2018 04:27 AM

Trying to keep up with this thread, phew :monster:

On topic of Lex being admin, I'm behind this motion, I think he's done a good job of it as long as I've been here and I don't mind him continuing with it. I'm also fine with an official voting thread as well, whatever we wanna do.

I don't think we need to keep that many user ranks, just maybe a few instead of 9? One for newbies, one for full members, one for Great Old Ones? Idk :monster: Slimming that list down would be lovely though I think. Also like the idea of keeping them invisible, it's never been a big deal to me.

With staff roles, agree with dropping Smods and making it just Moderators.

Site roles: If you couldn't tell I'm all about keeping things more simple and clean (cue music), so yay to flattening them down. I quite like the idea of making them as symbols that you can mouse over to see what they are. That sounds cool! :D

As for the creative content creation(?) discussion, I think Gabe raises a lot of valid points, but I also think it'd be awesome to have a semi-public thread (for full members here) to post in and bring up ideas an shit, also I doubt we need every one of our creative works to be private until release? A few smaller/more casual things could probably be in the open? Idk I'm a bit absent minded and feel like I'm not contributing much here (on this post in general :P ) but uh, there you have it!

Cthulhu 07/15/2018 09:47 AM

9? Try 37, :monster:, amongst which 8 donator alternatives, 12 site-related groups, and (just) four banned or restricted usergroups :monster:. I think after the move we'll probably have about half a dozen primary usergroups - unregistered, registered, banned, moderators, admins, donators, etc. I hope we can set donators as like a 'status' instead of a primary usergroup, but that depends on what Xf supports, we do set higher limits for e.g. PM inbox and such for donators (although TBF I don't think those benefits would be enticing enough for donators, plus we're small enough and the server big enough that we don't need to put strict limits on things like that).

Anyway as has been said before (@X), we'll probably just have to redo all permissions when we move, and if we can simplify the groups on here already that'll save a bit of time. Just a bit mind you, I don't mind doing it after the move.

Speaking of which (and this is probably more relevant to the other thread), we should probably clean up the user database, remove the thousands (?) of spambot accounts we have - insofar as we can find them. I think there's probably plenty of (spambot) accounts with 0 posts too. I'd be hesitant to just purge all 0-post users though. They don't do any harm I think, they just pad the stats a bit.

Lex 07/15/2018 12:21 PM

Everyone decides to get active on these discussions when I'm not around :monster:

I'll give a full read and respond to some stuff when I get time (likely tomorrow), for now I've skim-read the stuff that's here and I just want to say @Fangu I don't know/ think I have access to the SQL database - if I do I've never used it. I know there's a "mySQL" button in the admin control panel but I've never felt the need to click on it :monster:

@Yop

Quote:

With regards of Lex for admin. Full disclosure, in many ways he's become an administrator (e.g. given those rights) through the back door, underhanded like. I can imagine this would cause a huge backlash, and I should've stepped in and done something about / with it a long time ago.
I get how you've explained this here but the way you've described it sounds super sinister so I just wanted to clear it up a bit for everyone lol. I needed the technical functions to do certain things, but in terms of the forum hierarchy I was never an admin. I've legitimately only ever used "admin powers" (because btw the backend looks the same to both mods and admin, the only thing with admin is you have a few more menus) to deal with usergroups afaik.

Also I've always been public about having these powers so I don't think "underhanded" is the right term to use. Not having a go but there are a few turns of phrases you've used in recent posts that are a little too cynical and not representative of stuff that's actually happened, but I'll get to responding to those when I have time (in a chill way, I'm not pissed or anything) :monster:

Quote:

While I do feel he's got the support and trust of most people (including myself), I think we need to go through an official process to formalize it.

Over the past ten years, I don't remember we've ever had a process of appointing a new administrator, so this is kinda new. What I'm suggesting is a simple poll, a "yea / nay" one, however it can't be a simple democracy - first off, it needs to be a majority vote, so more like at least 2/3rds of votes instead of 51%. Second, there has to be a means of expressing serious issues in a trusted fashion, which each have to be scrutinized and if there's a big enough issue, the whole thing will have to be called off.

TL;DR we can't just admin people through the back door or by a handful of people in a thread verbally going "lex for admin". I'd like some feedback from you guys about the process.
I agree there should be some sort of formal process, but you're forgetting that Tres was voted in as admin so we did have a process for that. I can't actually remember how we did that though, and sorry if someone's already brought this up (I've only skim-read the posts prior). I did also mention this to you when we were talking about this situation last week, so maybe we could look at how Tres was voted in and do something similar/ an updated version of that.

Quote:

@Lex, what's that about "legacy donator"? Is that with regards to newer donation platforms?
No, I'm talking about having a specific icon on the new board for people who have "donator" titles here, because we're flattening them all. There could be a new/ separate one for any future donation services.

The Twilight Mexican 07/15/2018 02:09 PM

Ironically, I was voted to become admin at the same time -- and by the same process -- you became a mod, Lex:

https://thelifestream.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14682

:monster:

But yeah, it's time this admin thing with you became official. A simple poll should suffice.

CrashOuch 07/15/2018 02:33 PM

I'm ready to vote Lex in as soon as there's a poll, whether that's before or after we move to Xf or whatever.

lithiumkatana17 07/15/2018 08:37 PM

Lex for admin--my full support. I've never had a reason to not trust Lex in his abilities to manage TLS on any front.

As far as a not public subsection for creative content to be discussed without fear of it being stolen--wholeheartedly in support of this.

Strangelove 07/16/2018 12:34 AM

Quote:

Full disclosure, in many ways he's become an administrator (e.g. given those rights) through the back door, underhanded like.
i, for one, welcome our new dark emperor

Cthulhu 07/16/2018 06:29 PM

Yeah well I don't remember how everything happened and shit anymore either, :monster:.

er, I can open up a poll thing any time, just say fhtagn.

Ergo 07/16/2018 07:11 PM

Fhtnahgn
Foruoken
Hadouken?
Frobaken!

Cthulhu 07/16/2018 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ergo (Post 789043)
Fhtnahgn
Foruoken
Hadouken?
Frobaken!

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST

Ergo 07/16/2018 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cthulhu (Post 789044)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ergo (Post 789043)
Fhtnahgn
Foruoken
Hadouken?
Frobaken!

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST


Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Lex 07/16/2018 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cthulhu (Post 789039)
Yeah well I don't remember how everything happened and shit anymore either, :monster:.

er, I can open up a poll thing any time, just say fhtagn.

I say go for it, no time like the present :P. Should also point out people are free to PM other staff with votes or whatever incase people want to keep stuff private? idk

I'm working on responding to some stuff that's been put in here re: permissions and stuff, that'll come soon. I've had a messy weekend, sorry for the delay everybody :monster:

Lex 07/16/2018 10:28 PM

OK please try to bear with me while I type this up because there are a bunch of long posts so I'm going to try to catch as much of it as possible in this response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash
Especially cos if there's gonna be more people contributing to content on the front page (?) all that stuff is gonna be more spread out over more people anyway so having a thousand titles would be nonsense then anyway, innit? Also, like, it's important to clearly state who has some form of mod permissions, right, so if someone tells you off, you know how seriously to take it? And stuff like that? I feel like any change that makes it more clear who's in charge is a good idea cos honestly I'm still figuring it out haha, so I assume (hope ) there's at least one other idiot out there who'd take a while to figure it out too.

My idea for XF is for people to literally just have their username, avatar, AKA (under their username like a title) and icons to represent their roles. We could do a cookie monster icon for Great Old One, or something similar for other user ladders. We're gonna need a lot of icons and then we're gonna have to write custom CSS to implement it, but it shouldn't be too difficult to achieve.

If we think forum staff visibility is super important for contacting purposes, or that the icons don't represent people as "people you can PM problems with the board to", XF has another feature which lists someone as a staff member:

https://media.discordapp.net/attachm...17/unknown.png

But I think if we make the icons stand out for each individual role we won't have to enable this "staff member" tickbox and then we're closer to achieving what we've always wanted to be, blurred lines between members and staff rather than there being features that could lead to feeling more divided. I know we all make a big effort to avoid this though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe

Re: content creator section - I still advocate for a hybrid section. I think we should go into detailed discussions about what should and shouldn't be public, so as other people have mentioned suggestions/ discussion threads should be public, and sensitive content will be kept private. Content creators will have an icon for that role with permissions that give access to the "sensitive" threads, and given the discussion in here we could also have a "contributor" badge that gives trusted members access aswell if they contribute content or one of their ideas is used to make a project?

Obviously it's incredibly important - I can't stress this enough - that we don't fall into the trap of having a "closed club" where cliques can form, which is why I'm fairly strict about keeping discussions office-like or professional in these kinds of private channels. As long as everyone adheres to that I don't see an issue, it's how we operate at the moment.

The fact is we have legitimate reasons to keep certain content creation stuff private, but I do think as much of it as possible should be public. The pods and stuff are a good example, there's no real reason to keep the planning of those private.

For the record when I say "public" I mean "viewable by general members of the board". I'd still want the public stuff to be hidden to the general public that aren't logged in.

The socialblade stuff is awesome <3

Quote:

Originally Posted by B
2. Icons/badges to replace some user titles sound great, though from an aesthetic perspective I personally think it wouldn't be messy to display major staff titles (eg. Community Manager/the other ones in cyan, etc) under their usernames, just so they can be immediately recognisable as trusted members without hovering over badges.

3. I might be in the minority here, but I'd like to have the AKA field impermanent and customisable like the existing one, just with a character limit. Playing around a bit with the AKA field is part of the fun for me

2. We can take a look at that post-move, I recognise that titles such as community manager are important but I feel like as long as we have something recognisable the actual title shouldn't be that important.

3. So I'm against this idea purely because the idea behind the new AKA field is for everyone to have one name they go by. I'll use Carlie as an example because she's been a serial name changer since the dawn of time but idk if her forum name has ever been "Carlie" (it might have been actually, I'm not sure). So rather than an "AKA field" it'll be a subtitle centered right underneath the username. Users will be able to change it if they really really want to, but the idea is to have one name everyone goes by. It's been a complaint since the beginning of time here that people changing their names makes it hard for others to recognise them, and even with the AKA field that can be difficult. The new idea should solve that issue. I don't really see a reason for folks to list every single username they've ever had if they pick and stick with a solid AKA, since that's something we've historically had problems with (you know who you are :P). For example B if this was 5-6 years ago a staff member would probably have given you shit for having stuff in your AKA field that isn't relevant, but I'm glad that kind of arbitrary thing isn't a concern anymore (i.e. you're not doing any damage so nobody cares).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yop
I don't like the idea or even the suggestion that people need to have a certain role / title to be able to contribute though; we've probably been over this, but even the slightest suggestion that you can't help out if you're not in the "in group" needs to be nipped in the bud. I know Lex is doing a much better job at that than I have, and he's doing a great job along with the contributors though.

Anyway er, on that note, it's a complicated one. I'd like to give contributors appreciation for their work, whether they publish ten posts a week or have done something only once. The badge idea might work there. Anyway you have contributors on the one hand, and permissions and people with publish rights on the other. On the forums, I'd keep it down to having idk, administrators and editors? On the front page there's a user group called "Authors", which IIRC are people that can create and publish posts, but not administer the site. I think we can have people that have the Author role on the front page but not a formal role with extra permissions on the forums.

I think my responses above address all of this, but just to explain again people who contribute content (i.e. if they're authors or editors or whatever on the front page) would have the Content Creator icon, and the associated permissions would let them see the relevant threads in the subsections that contain sensitive shit like links to the site graphics and vids being worked on etc. Another icon can be made for "Content Contributor" giving people access to these sections if they're trusted and have contributed substantially in some way i.e. an idea they've had has been used for a project.

Quote:

I think we need a simple set of usergroups and a pinned post or page somewhere that lists who does what, and maybe indicate whether they've got admin or moderator rights.
I agree but for now before the move I literally just want us to have Admin - Mod - Member, then we can set up usergroups post move. What do you think? As far as I know the only other thing that'll be essential to recreate that we currently have is probably Community Manager, the rest of the titles are arbitrary.

Quote:

@Lex, what's that about "legacy donator"? Is that with regards to newer donation platforms?
As I said 2 (I think) posts ago, this would be a special icon for all the people who have Donator status now, because we're changing the way people can donate so there could be a separate "Patron" icon or something. We probably also need to discuss what's to become of the donator section in terms of permissions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InterfaceLeader (Post 788893)
post This might be a controversial suggestion, and I am a n00b so please feel free to reject out of hand. Also this is not about any individual people because I don't actually know any of you that well, and so far you all seem like ~super nice!~ people. And did not experience any of this drama you speak of.

But imo, I think the clique danger is not so much about (or not *just* about) needing a really robust initial voting-in process, but about having a balance of power. Rather than having power concentrated in a limited number of hands (especially if those limited number are all close friends).

It's the 'who polices the police' question; who do you go to if you have an issue with an admin, that has power to sort it out?

My general view is that power/responsibility is better when it's diffuse rather than concentrated (and you also reduce risk, e.g. if you have one person who knows how to do something and then they disappear, what happens?)

I like the idea of 'shadow admins', whose job it is to ensure the actual admins do their job well and who are open to listening to concerns/complaints about that admin & that person can also act as a back-up?

I also think you should make Lex a honorary temporary admin to facilitate the move to the new forums asap, and then vote on whether to make it permanent ON the new forums. Because, you know, this stuff takes time to do properly, and at some point the current forum will just get hacked.


I will not be offended if you tell me all my ideas are shit. :awesome:

I don't think there's anything controversial about this suggestion, what I do think is a good idea is to set in stone some kind of periodic staff review (like once every 6 months or something) where all the members can give feedback and we can remove titles etc. for people who aren't active. This is something I've actually brought up a few times in the staff section but it hasn't really moved anywhere because I don't want to be a sole person going around destaffing people.

But I also think the way people are voted in as forum staff addresses the issue of a potential clique on staff, because people tend to vote for those who are more balanced and can mediate and/ or the people who are part of their own friend groups (so if there were two separate cliques each clique would have a member that was on staff, thereby addressing that issue). This is aided by the fact that we usually don't just open up one post at a time, but two. From that angle I don't really support the shadow admin idea because how do you know the shadow admin doesn't have some bias themselves? Etc. It's better for us all to operate openly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mage
Everything seems fine and logical but with regard to the content creation section, why don't we utilise the 121 feedback section for that? I know permissions and sorting them are a pain but all the content staff could have access and that way it gives everyone a direct private portal to the team without compromising privacy. That way people get to pitch in still, the only catch is with it being a private audience is that ideas can't be snowballed around the member base.

Site staff actually don't have access to the private feedback forum - they did originally, but it was removed because it's supposed to be more of a mod thing since it's for people to air concerns about the board or members to forum staff.

I actually like the idea of it though - we could make the new suggestion threads that way, where the member + content contributors can see it but the rest of the members can't. Definitely something to think about.

Another aspect is that the Private Feedback Forum broke in the transfer, I had to delete it to stop people testing the new board from being able to see the private threads. It essentially ended up giving inverse permissions, so X for example couldn't see any threads but a regular member could see them all. That's the most major thing that needs to be fixed after the transfer but before the forum goes live for general use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fangu
iirc the whole donator colour thing happened when people were still into the whole group thing, and (light spirited) wanted to be part of certain teams. My main reason for being team blue was that I wanted a more neutral colour for my username in Thanks. Xf doesn't have thanks, but Likes, right? Which makes it even less of a deal for me. I'd say we skip the whole Donator colour thing entirely

I'm down for this aswell, just a donator icon or legacy donator icon for all rather than the colours. We can allow people to change their username colour since we'll be moving away from titles and staff's usernames appearing differently aswell, but we can gauge how people feel about this before moving ahead with it.

Quote:

JUST PUTTING IN A QUOTE BOX TO SEPARATE OUT THE REST OF MY POAST LOL
The biggest concern we actually have is the user ladder (number of posts giving permissions). I'll need to see if there's a plugin Yop can use to import our user ladder - that would solve our permissions problem. It's also possible it just broke and didn't import correctly.

But the vast majority of our issues are things we're going to have to fix and improve over time following the move, so now that we're getting deep into the discussion of flattening the roles (which is what this thread was made for) does anyone have concerns/ suggestions re: that? As it stands and as Yop has said, we want to flatten them all to make them as simple as possible, which will make the move far easier. So by the time we're done prior to the move it'll be Admin - Mod - Member (and banned users obvs), then immediately after the move we can implement the new ones as required (like Content Creator, Community Manager).

If we're going with my icon idea we'll need people to create said icons. Anybody up for that? I can attempt to draw a mockup when we've got a couple of icons going for how it'll look, then we can get to work on the CSS aswell. I'll also need to look at the CSS for the AKA subtitle.

Objections? Questions? Suggestions?

CrashOuch 07/16/2018 10:39 PM

I think doing Admin - Mod - Member before the move and then adding some extra shits after we go if we need to sounds like a good plan I'm chill with that!

Flare 07/17/2018 12:44 AM

I'm interested in helping with the icon creations idea, although I'm worried my art program (now a free thing, it ain't no photoshop, for example) might not handle the small sizes very well. Also I can be slow but hopefully my workload is lessening this week so :D Just trying to get more motivation back.

Lex 07/17/2018 12:52 AM

Any work on those is appreciated but one of the things I mentioned before is that it'd be cool if we could keep them VII themed - I'm not sure how to do that and still have them represent what they're supposed to represent, though that's what the text on hover feature is supposed to achieve I guess.

If there were just 5 we could just do different coloured materia orbs but the way I see it we have:

Admin
Mod
Donator
Community Manager
Staff Emeritus?
Content Creator
Contributor

And we might need others. I guess we could make the forum staff themed differently, like maybe a Buster Sword icon for Admin and something similar for mods, whereas the rest could be the different materia orbs (Green, Blue, Red, Yellow, Purple).

X-SOLDIER 07/17/2018 01:09 AM

Something like the Shinra diamond logo for Admins, the SOLDIER symbol for mods, AC wolf-thing for Donators, etc. seems like we could mine FFVII for semi-relevant things that we could still represent as little icons that, even if not totally clear visually, would fit the theme, etc. in the way you're talking about (since I'd argue that different colour of materia alone wouldn't be a sufficiently clear indication of what's what – since colourblindness and such would make those difficult to quickly distinguish).





X :neo:

Addy Carver 07/17/2018 01:20 AM

Could do a nod to Kupocon and have chocobos, moogles, cactuars, tonberries and so forth.

Literally Who? 07/17/2018 01:21 AM

I was just thinking different colored materia for the different roles :monster:


Though I guess someone with a bunch of roles or something might have their postbit end up looking like the infinity gauntlet or something lol.

BforBrigitta 07/17/2018 02:27 AM

I'd love to chip in to make some brand new, shimmering shiny icons too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex (Post 789060)
Quote:

Originally Posted by B
3. I might be in the minority here, but I'd like to have the AKA field impermanent and customisable like the existing one, just with a character limit. Playing around a bit with the AKA field is part of the fun for me

3. So I'm against this idea purely because the idea behind the new AKA field is for everyone to have one name they go by. I'll use Carlie as an example because she's been a serial name changer since the dawn of time but idk if her forum name has ever been "Carlie" (it might have been actually, I'm not sure). So rather than an "AKA field" it'll be a subtitle centered right underneath the username. Users will be able to change it if they really really want to, but the idea is to have one name everyone goes by. It's been a complaint since the beginning of time here that people changing their names makes it hard for others to recognise them, and even with the AKA field that can be difficult. The new idea should solve that issue. I don't really see a reason for folks to list every single username they've ever had if they pick and stick with a solid AKA, since that's something we've historically had problems with (you know who you are :P). For example B if this was 5-6 years ago a staff member would probably have given you shit for having stuff in your AKA field that isn't relevant, but I'm glad that kind of arbitrary thing isn't a concern anymore (i.e. you're not doing any damage so nobody cares).

No worries and totally understandable! I suppose I don't mind relinquishing some dumb inside joke rights :P

Claymore 07/17/2018 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex (Post 789060)
Objections? Questions? Suggestions?

Ok. First, I just want to reiterate generally that saying that something needs to be kept private does not mean that it has any sort of negative connotations or malicious undertones whatsoever. Working in private does not mean that the Content Creators - who, you know, are simply working on content strictly for the community - are out to overthrow the forum leaders, form super tight cliques in order to gang up on anyone, or generally turn their noses up at other members. :wacky: At the moment the only special powers or recognition that Content Creators have is that they are on a Discord chat sever that anyone could join if they actually really wanted to contribute. :mon: It was already made clear, right from the start, that anyone joining would need to contribute in some way or they would be removed from the group - now I can see that the main reason this was suggested in the first place is because of this fear from the past that seems to permeate the forums.

Certainly, there are specific projects that will have a much greater impact and surprise for the community if they see it once it is completed, and not in drips and drabs. For example, there is something stunning that a group are working on at the moment that would lose absolutely all of it's impact if you saw each and every part of the Art and example clips that they are working on. And we've already talked about the important news and scoops that we might manage to get first that should be kept under wraps while being worked on quickly. That also means without a lot of input in order to get it done fast.

Keeping content private is not automatically a bad thing. I see the compromise suggestions of keeping things private on a per-project basis, or having naturally open things like threads and suggestions open (in order to avoid the above), but that doesn't tackle the other issues, as that is not the only reason why content creation should be kept private. I'm talking about the actual flow of creativity, and I'll come back to this a moment.

There should also be no real debate about being inclusive either. It was an issue I raised right off the bat of the first project that was worked on within the new setup - the need to ensure that as many voices within the Content Creators were heard as possible in a project. But that has limits. Whoever is running a particular project has to ultimately make decisions and get on with a project. Balancing so many different voices can be hard, and there is a fine line between doing so and not staunching any and all creativity as well.

However, even with all of that, everything is made is inclusive as possible. Let's take the VII Best as an example of the entire inclusive process that was done:

Quote:

* As project leader I fielded the topic to the community
* All nominations suggested by the community were put into a poll
* The poll was redone several times in order to accurately reflect the community's thoughts and final rankings
* The writing team got involved and developed a script based on the community comments
* Issues were raised about obtaining permissions, so permission was sought from the community about their comments being used within the video
* Our voice-artists got involved and created the voice-over audio for the project
* The art team got involved to create artwork for the project
* The VII Best intro was devised
* Feedback on that intro was taken onboard and changes were made to it
* The first version and complete run-through of the video was made
* Everyone pitched in with feedback
* A second version of the video was made
* Everyone pitched in with feedback
* As project leader, I had to field those comments, take in some majority thoughts on music changes and aspects that should change whilst also keeping my creativity and vision for the video
* A third version of the video was made
* Finally, Lex had his input as both Site Director with changes that should be made (in order to maintain a standard and quality across all projects) and his own personal thoughts
* A fourth and final version of the video was made
* And actually a fifth after an error was noticed but it was already uploaded and gaining YouTube comments by that point :mon:

Look at how inclusive all that was.

Now, this entire structure would have been negatively impacted by having the entire community access to all the decisions and thoughts during the creative process. For me, personally, it would be a potential disaster to have every single voice on this forum have an input as to what clip they would change, what music they would have used, at what 0.2 second point they would have faded something earlier, or what transition type they think is best, etc... The structure can't support this. Even Writer's Rooms have a limit for a reason. We are as inclusive as possible within the Content Creators, but expanding to all voices is just an unreasonable request.

The creative process, and everything around that, should entirely be kept private / limited. It is already as inclusive enough as it is. I also don't believe that I am out of line in saying that this almost desperate need to keep everything 'open and transparent' has been a major detriment to this forum when anything at all actually needs to get done.

Ultimately, my biggest fear, in all of this, is that by doing this you could crush the creativity, fun, and the process that we have managed to cultivate so far. All because some people might be scared that something nice is being done for the community, all because it's being done behind closed doors, all because some people might get along and become friends by working with each other, all because of fears from 10+ years ago that still haunt the forums to this day.

Unfortunately, I don't really have any real answers. Halfway measures don't tackle the actual problems of the content creation process itself. Putting it to a vote doesn't even help, because if the heads of the forum believe that there is still an issue in this place with people forming dangerous cliques then such a process is ultimately pointless.

However, not many other Content Creators have spoken up, or seem to be concerned as much as I am with having the creative process being completely open. So I will assume that this is just something I am personally struggling with. In that case, all I can say is that I'll go for the ride and see if this can work.

Minato 07/17/2018 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claymore (Post 789098)

However, not many other Content Creators have spoken up, or seem to be concerned as much as I am with having the creative process being completely open. So I will assume that this is just something I am personally struggling with. In that case, all I can say is that I'll go for the ride and see if this can work.

I generally feel the same way you do on issue. Particularly what Gabe said how this content is made for the community and it would kill the surprise factor if everyone was able to see the creative process, even just the initial brainstorming.

Lex 07/17/2018 11:58 AM

It would be good to get more opinion on the new section, but to summarise my previous suggestion about keeping it as open as possible (because a couple of people working on projects have now come to me with concerns):

- Threads in which active projects are being worked on or discussed would be for content creators only (as "private" as the discord is now)
- The only public threads would be suggestion/ discussion threads, so if someone who isn't currently a "content creator" has an idea, they can make a thread with that idea in that section.
- When a project goes live a public thread will be made in the section for discussion

Sorry if I've been unclear about any of that, but that's my proposal because I do absolutely see the issue with everything being public and I think anyone who's worked on content for TLS can see the issues aswell. But I'm glad you guys are speaking up about this because at the end of the day it's you guys who are putting in the time and effort to make content for TLS.

I do also want to close the creator discord server after the board has been created though. Same deal, making a group of chats in the main TLS server in the same way as they exist on the other one with permissions to access it.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.