Point:
Post Count Ranking SystemMusicmac wrote:
A little suggestion to spare here, it might be nice for a post count ranking system to be implemented in here.
Response:
Sentios wrote:
But post count and post quality are different things.
Point:
Is the Gold Club going to be an elitist group?BobSagat wrote:
If your intention was to create a club based around creating a better forum then having a club calling itself the Gold Card club is of course going to reek of elitism. It's a title that immediately elevates yourselves as betters.
Dorian wrote:
No matter how many times you say 'it's not going to turn into an elitist club' it's always going to look that way to outsiders.
BobSagat wrote:
Oh so it is Spam's personal club.
Response:
BeeAre wrote:
And, if Valhallen's primary ideas make it through, there would be multiple layers and privileges allowed to different groups. A caste system based on reward.
Warbear wrote:
Oh sorry, I suppose I wasn't aware that Vegedus, Rival, Ro Wong, Dorian, and Archrival were natives of Spam. My apologies.
I said it was an inside joke that Spam has, not that it was a club for Spam. If it was only for Spam, we'd only have Spammers in the group. If it was only for Spam, this thread wouldn't be global. If it was only for Spam, discussions about it wouldn't take place in nearly every subforum.
Get your head outta your ass.
BeeAre wrote:
In the CURRENT GLOBAL RULES. Veterans are unknowable to newbies but told to be given respect. The only way a Newbie can recognize a Veteran is by post count and join date. Newbies are to be assumed naive about the forums, and might not understand the importance of a Veteran through those concepts. Color of any sort would help reduce the amount of times a moderator would have to come to a thread because a newbie yelled FUCK OFF at a Veteran trying to help. And since we plan on having multiple colors, this issue becomes more complex than simply one grade of elitism. Hence caste system.
Q.U. wrote:
Ultimately there are going to be multiple "layers" of elitism. We intend them to be sufficiently spaced out to make them "within reach" of regular users but requiring their contribution in one way or another.
Also, you're making it sound as if what we're undertaking here was the first time any forum has ever done, ever. Or something that's been done but never worked. It has, actually. It's not the perfect solution to some of our troubles, obviously, but it's a fairly good one. Ever been to "some random average forum"? So many of them have arbitrary "ranks" based on the user's time on the forum or the post count. You know,
these things. Most of the times there are so many of these ranks that they don't feel elitist at all. Well, that's where we're heading. But of course, we believe we can do better than just giving people titles based on their ability to spam out posts.
Counterpoint:
Sentios wrote:
Let's be honest, there's people not from spam in it because other people thought of it as spam's personal club before Bob did. I'm looking right at the thread where you guys started talking about getting non-spam people into it. I'm also looking at the thread about Dorian calling it a dumb idea and some of you getting massively butthurt about it, 4 days before you started talking about getting non-spam people into it. I think we had more discussion over the pros and cons of the gold club in those couple days in the Weirdness than there is in the entire gold forum.
Response:
Warbear wrote:
The whole reason that thread exists is because you lot wouldn't believe that it wasn't just a circlejerk for Spammers.
Calek wrote:
Considering that the Gold Card Club thing started off as a joke, it's reasonable that it was filled with just Spam members. It wasn't until later that it was realized "oh this might actually be of importance, lets add non-spam members".
Point:
Why have a caste system? This isn't what I want!NeoWarrior7 wrote:
Why can't we all just be involved and do whatever? A caste system? Really?
NeoWarrior7 wrote:
Well, perhaps the issue is I frankly doubt the necessity of the project to begin with. I sure didn't sign up for the massive sweeping changes that appear to be proposed.
Changing a few spots and adding a few features is one thing, revamping the layout and appearance sounds like more than we need. Unless I'm misinterpreting what, exactly, you're even trying to accomplish, so maybe a mission plan would be nice so we even know what this "Gold Card Club" is even supposed to do beyond the incredibly vague and open to interpretation term of "improving the forum".
Response:
Morpheus wrote:
The gold card club in the end will be a group of guides and helpers to those new to the forums.
At this moment it's being used as way to gain ideas to bring the forum up to date.
This will help with keeping those that may have once lost interest quickly.
Q.U. wrote:
So if Dave comes by like a hurricane and tears the whole forum through its own arsehole out into something different without ever asking anybody for opinions or giving a warning, and then his bum keeps mooning over the forums so all you can do is raise your fist to the sky and curse the name of god it's all fine to you? But when BR goes out of his way to offer choices, discuss it with the userbase, ask opinions and ideas to implement, you say it's shit? You have a chance to be a part of this and get some of your ideas in, that's plenty for a regular user to be able to do really.
Point:
The current gold color sucks.BobSagat wrote:
The gold color that clashes against the entire aesthetic of the website is part of that problem, it's really no better than just having a neon pink title. It's only purpose is to scream for everyone's attention. And for what purpose exactly do you need such an obnoxious color? To inform everyone that you're part of the exclusive club and everyone else isn't
Response:
BeeAre wrote:
And we'll change the fucking gold color that everyone hates that I picked at random.
Point:
Let's just have an open forum to serve the purpose of the Gold ClubNeoWarrior7 wrote:
My alternative is just to have an open forum to discuss ways to "improve" the forum. And votes or something, I guess. My suggestion is that a caste system other than the mod/admin distinctions is a terrible idea and detrimental to the forum.
Response:
Mir@k wrote:
You know why we don't have an "open" forum for people to discuss stuff in?
Here's a brilliant example why. Because we need to have a bar, and we need to set it at a moderate height for us to actually
go somewhere.
BeeAre wrote:
I don't want people to come into this forum and abuse an "anybody with an idea post here" thread because those threads get overlooked. They have in the past, and the only reason this one isn't is because of decisions I've made to make it hard to avoid. So people who want to do things with the community should be able to have some way to voice concerns that matter to them, having demonstrated being a part of the community, in a place where they won't get bogged down by LOLOLOLOL.
Q.U. wrote:
And have it filled with hyperactive tweens who make up most of the comic fanbase posting the same shitty ideas over and over again (make a Bell sprite walk all over the bottom of the forum all the time!!!), for which we would eventually have to start punishing them, over and over again. Yes, thank you. Your idea is noted. It's not good enough. Please do try again.
Point:
Colored names should not be necessary to helpDorian wrote:
What Bob said pretty much hit the nail on the head. The colored name has no purpose. If you're that interested in helping the forum you should do so without the incentive of having a different colored name.
Response:
Mir@k wrote:
You'd be surprised how nobody ever thought of helping the forum until we started giving gold colored names to people. c:
Counterpoint:
BobSagat wrote:
But yeah, as much as you claim "visual incentive", that's pretty much bullshit. Are the mods working on this forum because they wanted a pretty color for their name? Are you trying to help this forum because you like your name in gold?
Response:
BeeAre wrote:
It's not incentive. It is indicative of that user having done something right, yes, but ultimately, none of this matters, which is why Gold Card people would be held to very strict standards to remain gold, so as to prevent the elitism of which you are so very fucking afraid.
Q.U. wrote:
Colours are there, as somebody pointed out, for people to be able to distinguish who they are talking to. Haven't there already been rules in place about "showing respect for the veterans" for a long time? It's hard to expect the newbies to be respectful of users that don't look respected. It's also supposed to be something new members see and wonder "how do you get that?". Giving people who have it incentive to be on their best behaviour in order to keep it, and those who don't have it incentive to better themselves to get it. This will not necessarily be the gold club though, but a different group.
Point:
Remove the Gold Club wholesaleDorian wrote:
Here's the suggestion to improve things then: Get rid of the Gold club.
That would be an improvement.
It is unnecessary. We have so many active mods now that they should be able to handle the job of improving the forum or whatever.
Response:
BeeAre wrote:
When did you stop being a mod? I ask because I want you to know just how wrong you are. The Floodgates raised? Sure, easy. No problem. No forum growth, but no problem. Want me to turn them off for a day to see how many bots we ban in the next 24 hours?
Counterpoint:
Sentios wrote:
Yes actually, we need to test the waters and we can't actually hope of getting new members with the board locked down. If you're really worried about it give some people the ability to move threads to a trash bin hidden forum... actually do that last part anyways and move all bot threads there so we can get an accurate count.
If we can't get some sort of anti-bot registration feature implemented in the near future we'll have to take steps to counter bot posts themselves, as is we're just going to kill ourselves. A trickle of one or two new members every now and then is still better than no new members ever.
Point:
Is this change for the sake of change?Sentios wrote:
Just remember not to fall into the trap of change for the sake of change. A lot of the reason no one has asked for major changes (contrary to Mirak's 'they don't have an incentive to' and ignoring Dave never being here) is because they're content with much of the forum (like the current design for instance), the majority wouldn't still be here if they weren't. The only major concern that I think people share is the activity of the forum as whole, it's more important that anything related to tiers of users or the style sheets.
Response:
Q.U. wrote:
Also, to people advocating against much change, especially those who don't want changes in the forum style and looks. Is this, the current version of the forum style, your favourite? How long has it been your favourite? Probably soon after or shortly after it was implemented. What style was your favourite before that change? The previous one? If so, since when has that one been your favourite? Think back and be honest. Whenever there was a style you liked and felt like this was the best one yet, how would you respond to an announcement that the forum style was going to change?
BeeAre wrote:
Now this irritates me just a little bit. This forum's stagnation comes from the users' being content? That's funny, because the active and current moderation and administration staff are not content at all with the forums' current state of being.
This is not a change for the sake of change, Sentios, and your blindness to our fucking jobs prods me towards irritability. We, the mods? We're users of the forums as well, and we can see what you can't, and you want to fucking lecture us about how dangerous a forum's change can go? With the attitude of "Let's Just Let It Die", you think that makes us, AND SPECIFICALLY ME, not want to introduce something, anything that might help stabilize the forums that apparently everyone is fucking content with stagnation and death?
Counterpoint:
Sentios wrote:
You misread my post clearly. The reason no one says 'this forum sucks we should change it' is because most people are content with it. That has nothing to do with the board being stagnant, which is caused by not having a way to draw in users.
Response:
BeeAre wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa, what? I am not sure I'm doing the misreading here. You're saying most people are content. I'm saying that a specific group of people, the people given authority, are not. The board is stagnant under our supervision, which means it is our prerogative if not our responsibility to come up with a way to keep the forum stable, which is hard when it is stagnating because of a decision we made and at the time considered necessary. It's still in effect, too, so we still think it's necessary.
Counterpoint:
Sentios wrote:
So what you're saying is you don't care if other people like the forum as it is (except for the lack of users) you and your cohorts, specifically, don't so things are going to change. I'm glad we're being honest now.
Response:
Marquis de Soth wrote:
Tell you what, Sentios. I want you to compile a list of statements showing explicit contentedness from at least 51% of the members of the forum and then PM it us. Also provide the method that you are using to gather this information as well as any questions that you use (so that we can be sure that you aren't biasing opinions by asking loaded questions).
I, and I am sure the rest of the team, would like to see explicit proof of this "most people". Thank you.
, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. 
