New Site Discussion

[Gilles]

I've been subscribed to the Hive 2.0 post and to previous news or site discussion posts and one thing that has always kind of bothered me is when users that have little experience here post in these threads.

I am not saying that new users have no opinions that are worth sharing on these threads, simply that it's rare and I usually just wind up scrolling until I see a name I know, or they have some combination of post count, rep and awards that would suggest that they have experience here, and generally better posts.

My suggestion is to add a forum that would basically be a step between Site Discussion and the Mod Lobby. It would only be open to those invited. The people invited would be people who have vested interest in this site. ie. those who have been here a while.

This forum would allow users to discuss things like Hive 2.0 or other threads that are about the current state and the future of this site. This would also help Admin get more valuable opinions without weeding through useless posts.

I would suggest only allowing Admin or Moderators to post a thread in the forum. I'm not sure if I would allow everyone to see it, but only a select group to post (like Medivh's Tower), or simply a hidden forum like the Mod Lobby.

I would like to say this idea doesn't stem from my desire to have some advantage over other users based on my time here, but I'm sure it is to some degree. However I still thought it was an idea worth sharing.

 

[fladdermasken]

Sounds like a discussion that should be held in the new site discussion forum.

 

[Ralle]

So basically users who have been here for more than one year and has more than X posts. I suppose that should be possible.

 

[Gilles]

I wouldn't even make it automatic. I'd only invite those who's opinions you and the staff want to hear. Also those that have been here long enough to have an attachment to this site, and a desire to always try and make it better.

 

[Statharas]

This. Is a good idea.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I personally believe in openness and anyone who has proven themselves a valuable part of the community should be able to hear/see what is going on up top. Being able to participate is another thing as that could get chaotic.

It is not like the moderators and administrators are dealing with top secret stuff of national security that would cost lives if it were to be leaked lol.

 

[Razosh]

Everyone should have the right to voice their opinion and if there is any opinons that Ralle or anyone else regards as important there are ways to highlight them. This is a forum for debates and if people are unable to voice their opinion they are more likely to show no interest in updates.

 

[TriggerHappy]

I don't really agree with this idea, the site discussions forum is fine how it is.

I say this all the time but the last thing THW is more forums, it's crowded as it is already.

 

[Gilles]

Everyone should have the right to voice their opinion and if there is any opinons that Ralle or anyone else regards as important there are ways to highlight them. This is a forum for debates and if people are unable to voice their opinion they are more likely to show no interest in updates.

Everyone would in Site Discussion. Just not this forum.

I say this all the time but the last thing THW is more forums, it's crowded as it is already.

This is true.

 

[RED BARON]

While I see merit in the idea, I don't believe it should be a separate forum accessible only to a select few (We kinda have MT for that). Instead it would be better to make it a thread or perhaps a sub-forum if required. Where every user can read, but not post - and those able to post are those who are generally accepted to be genuinely interested in the site. Thus it keeps it open for users to follow, yet also make it easy for staff to view (limited posts, not much need for moderation). And it would further allow users to see it, become interested and perhaps gain a desire to participate - by improving themselves or perhaps by proxy.

But yea, that how I see it working - not more secrets, but more advice/help/opinions with a filter.

 

[PurgeandFire]

The issue with an exclusive forum like that is this: even if we say "it is not that we don't value regular members' opinions", it still implies that we don't value regular members' opinions. There really isn't a way of getting around that implication.

Anyway, I don't see it as much of an issue to sift through posts. A lot of them are useful, even if they are relatively short. Feedback is feedback. A simple "I like it" is very useful, and shows that the author did a good job. One problem on the internet is that most users only give feedback when they find something wrong with the product/thread (proof = any game site, e.g. ign boards, arenajunkies, mmo-champ). This can be very misleading both to the author and to anyone else who reads the thread (hell, there may have been a number of people okay/supporting this idea who just didn't bother to post).

Now, I'm not saying that these "respected users" won't give valuable feedback. You're probably right in that they will give great feedback and foster a great discussion. My point is that the other feedback is very valuable as well (except for the feedback that just says "I hate/dislike it". you should always provide reasoning for that), and by limiting the discussion to select users, we may not get the proper representation.

Those are just my 2 pennies, though.

 

[Celaquil]

If I understand the suggestion correctly, then I like it.

Having a separate sub-forum limited to members only invited of which can be viewed by all members, where important matters of the site's future is discussed will not only merit a better host of replies and opinions. But it will also give both these people and new members something to aspire.

Firstly, it'll make those who have invested time and effort in this site feel more appreciated by the fact that they've been "labelled" as someone trustworthy for such discussions, which in turn might very probably entice them even more than before to take part in such discussions. It's no secret that we humans tend to "work harder" if we're being appreciated for it.

Secondly, it'll give newer members something to aspire.

The issue with an exclusive forum like that is this: even if we say "it is not that we don't value regular members' opinions", it still implies that we don't value regular members' opinions. There really isn't a way of getting around that implication.

I don't see how this is an issue. Does a firm value the opinions of it's apprentices in important matters of the firms future? No, and nobody finds that unfair. It's a simple comparative, and probably not really a justifiable comparative either, but you can compare it in this regard:

The actual meetings that'll affect the firms future are held by those select few who the "boss" consider proper representatives of their company, those who have invested time in this company.

While on the other hand you have the working grounds (Site Discussion forum) where the regular workers, and apprentices, can affect these people in turn by discussing the matters between themselves and these select few.

Point is; We still have the Site Discussion forum, and anyone who feels like they've got something important to say about something concerning the site can still do so there, it's just we'll have a separate forum that's generally considered slightly more important. Tough life, deal with it.

 

[GhostWolf]

Can you give examples of topics that were posted on this forum, and you think should be discussed by only a select group?
I can't think of any topic where this is relevant. Sure, people like posting useless replies here, but they are usually concentrated in useless threads (e.g. the "is thw dying" thread).

 

[PurgeandFire]

Firstly, it'll make those who have invested time and effort in this site feel more appreciated by the fact that they've been "labelled" as someone trustworthy for such discussions, which in turn might very probably entice them even more than before to take part in such discussions. It's no secret that we humans tend to "work harder" if we're being appreciated for it.

Secondly, it'll give newer members something to aspire.

The labeling and aspiring part isn't the part I'm arguing against. Some users deserve more recognition than others. But it isn't a reason for a new site discussion, imho. I don't buy that having only their opinions is better. The way I see it, it is a respected user award with the forum to give the award purpose. I don't think the purpose is purposeful enough. I'm fine with giving an award out to those who deserve it, and maybe it could even give a special power (heat vision, anyone?), and I'd even be fine with their own forum (although, I agree that we have enough as it is). But a special one just for site discussion? Eh, I don't really agree. Maybe I am biased? I know a decent number of people whose opinions' I value, even though they have little rep and few posts.

I don't see how this is an issue. Does a firm value the opinions of it's apprentices in important matters of the firms future? No, and nobody finds that unfair. It's a simple comparative, and probably not really a justifiable comparative either, but you can compare it in this regard:

The actual meetings that'll affect the firms future are held by those select few who the "boss" consider proper representatives of their company, those who have invested time in this company.

While on the other hand you have the working grounds (Site Discussion forum) where the regular workers, and apprentices, can affect these people in turn by discussing the matters between themselves and these select few.

Point is; We still have the Site Discussion forum, and anyone who feels like they've got something important to say about something concerning the site can still do so there, it's just we'll have a separate forum that's generally considered slightly more important. Tough life, deal with it.

I understand that, and that is a fair analogy (I wouldn't be that black and white about it, but I get your point ). A lot of decisions are made by staff-only as well.

I suppose the underlying issue (that I personally have) is that I would like to keep those discussions open for everyone, and that those "useless posts" aren't really useless. OK, I can understand that "the hive is dying" thread is full of useless posts. Tbh, I'd close/recycle that thread already if I had powers in this forum. That thread gave site discussion a bad rep. But for Hive 2, I liked having responses from a variety of people.

Keep in mind that I am still having my own interpretation on this forum. I think we need some more details to get this sorted out:

• How many people do you expect to be in this forum? Is it small (10?). Is it a large number of users?
• How do we decide if someone should be allowed to join? Nomination? Rep/join date requirement?
• Public, or private? I dunno about you guys, but public seems sort of strange. Must suck to be a user viewing the content only to have no power in responding. I remember I felt like that when I first saw Medivh's tower several years back. I have other reasons too, but I wanna see what other ppl think.
• Name? I might warm up to the idea if you have an awesome name. "New Site Discussion" fails in my book. It should be as cool, if not cooler, than Medivh's Tower (approximately as cool is acceptable too).

Even though you were specific in some respects, I have a feeling that my impression of the forum is completely different from the rest.

 

[Celaquil]

The labeling and aspiring part isn't the part I'm arguing against.

And nor was I arguing against what you were arguing against, that's why the quote came under that statement, those were just my general thoughts on the matter.

I understand that, and that is a fair analogy (I wouldn't be that black and white about it, but I get your point ). A lot of decisions are made by staff-only as well.

Damn, it does appear rather black and white, doesn't it...? >.>
- That wasn't really my intent.

Keep in mind that I am still having my own interpretation on this forum. I think we need some more details to get this sorted out:
How many people do you expect to be in this forum? Is it small (10?). Is it a large number of users?
How do we decide if someone should be allowed to join? Nomination? Rep/join date requirement?
Public, or private? I dunno about you guys, but public seems sort of strange. Must suck to be a user viewing the content only to have no power in responding. I remember I felt like that when I first saw Medivh's tower several years back. I have other reasons too, but I wanna see what other ppl think.
Name? I might warm up to the idea if you have an awesome name. "New Site Discussion" fails in my book. It should be as cool, if not cooler, than Medivh's Tower (approximately as cool is acceptable too).

I'm sure we all have our own interpretations of the matter, and I'll speak my piece in regards to your points:

- The expected number of people allowed to this forum should be of no concern, the mere notion of gathered individuals is in it's own basis enough to go by.
- That's iffy, I agree to your statement that there's a handful of individuals with a small amount of rep and post-count, even join date, that have valuable opinions. Though, I'd also say there are some with a high rep and post count I also don't value the opinions of. Personally I'd like to see either a gathering of few or simply one person on staff dealing with the matter of who should be a part and who shouldn't, there could even be some sort of "application" form for people to use if they think they should be a part of it. This system works for my jury over at the Terrain Board, but I guess it's easier there since the user-base isn't as... Flourishing.
- I'd say public, for the mere notion that I think this "new" SD should be a simple sub-forum in the original Site Discussion forum, basically what that means is that if you are a user without access to post in this forum and you find that you have a very important opinion about something in that section, you can make a note of it in the original site discussion forum and hence your point might come through.
- Well, we'll think of something. Admittedly, though, the more important matter is to actually decide whether we should have this, or not.

Can you give examples of topics that were posted on this forum, and you think should be discussed by only a select group?
I can't think of any topic where this is relevant. Sure, people like posting useless replies here, but they are usually concentrated in useless threads (e.g. the "is thw dying" thread).

A viable point, though I'm sure if there isn't any currently, they'd come with the establishment of the forum.

That all said, I'm kind of also in favor of this visual difference, I don't know how exactly it should be done, but somehow making the posts of "important posters" stand slightly out from the rest could make it easier and more efficient for the staff to quickly skim through threads. The view I think we all should have on this matter, though, is efficiency. It's about making things go faster and easier for the staff, if we start looking at it with differing views of "fairness" I reckon we'd be arguing back and forth endlessly, it's not about special privileges, not really, it's about improvement.
- If only slight.

 

[Xonok]

Since different people value different things, they will also have different "Important posters" for them.
My suggestion is to allow it and make it easier.
As said, the posts could stand out.
What if it was possible mark people as favorites, which would make their posts stand out?

 

[Razosh]

Since different people value different things, they will also have different "Important posters" for them.
My suggestion is to allow it and make it easier.
As said, the posts could stand out.
What if it was possible mark people as favorites, which would make their posts stand out?

A nice idea, if the moderators are up for the work, this would allow us to follow people we like and see what and where they put up posts.

 

[chobibo]

Sounds like the beginning of a social caste system in the hive.

 

[Ralle]

Just the fact that your username is next to your message is enough for me to weigh your opinion based on your background. This forum would just be a way to filter through the shallow ignorant responses which I can easily sift through myself. I am not sure I think this is necessary.

 

[Gilles]

Sounds like the beginning of a social caste system in the hive.

You're kidding yourself if you think there isn't a caste system in a community.

 

[Razosh]

You're kidding yourself if you think there isn't a caste system in a community.

I'll have to agree, that's the whole point of having moderators who can approve of models and maps and take them off the forum.

 

[RED BARON]

That all said, I'm kind of also in favor of this visual difference, I don't know how exactly it should be done, but somehow making the posts of "important posters" stand slightly out from the rest could make it easier and more efficient for the staff to quickly skim through threads. The view I think we all should have on this matter, though, is efficiency. It's about making things go faster and easier for the staff, if we start looking at it with differing views of "fairness" I reckon we'd be arguing back and forth endlessly, it's not about special privileges, not really, it's about improvement.
- If only slight.

In a manner that way would work the same way as I assume reputation was intended, however be more accurate to an extend.

I see it as something like the intern idea used on other sites, where a user can obtain a position of influence, yet must prove himself further to advance so to speak. Not that this in any way should be related to staff recruitment, but more as an example how a visual cue can give people a reason to better themselves. Of course it is with limits, so if they prove unable to retain said reason for acquiring their distinction, they will lose it.

Still I do also understand why you would find that is pointless Ralle, but its not just to help the moderators - it is also to make it easier for the regular user to get an understanding of input that might have meaning for the site or in case of the discussion forum to create a possible outlet for reason, yet also an openness that keeps those interested informed and allow them the feeling of being cued in. Something that for instance several kickstarter projects have learned the value of. Knowing why an action takes place or what might influence it, increases the user's interest and devotion to the site - by making them feel "needed" so to speak. Hope that made some sort of jumbled sense.

 

[Gilles]

Just going to throw in there that having some distinguishing feature on users to help with this is a bad idea.

 

[RED BARON]

Just going to throw in there that having some distinguishing feature on users to help with this is a bad idea.

Well, yea - it should be a simple one. Not anything to give an impression of a superior position. Could be like the merit award?

 

[chobibo]

I was wrong, I stand corrected then.

 

[Archian]

I will not cast my vote to exclude members from such a discussion.
Afterall, many of which is the future of the Hive.
If you feel some users post are not as contructive as you would like them to be, then either skip reading them or try to educate them

With that being said, I'm open for suggestions and ideas for improval regarding the theme-style(s). And a thread where users could discuss such ideas should be open to everyone.

We may even invite those we feel could prove invaluable to the creation of the theme onboard the development team

 

[Grey Nightmare]

We were all new users at one stage or another, disallowing a new user access to somewhere just because they're newly registered is most certainly not going to convince them to stay and reach the required criteria for access.

 

[Celaquil]

What I get from that is this "fairness" attitude again, as I've previously stated, it shouldn't be about
what's "fair" and what's "not fair," it should be about what's "efficient" and what "isn't efficient."

I also don't think new users will crawl up their arses and leg it simply because they can't access one tiny sub-forum
which only function is the future of the site. And who's to say it should take very "long" time to merit access?

Also, tell me, whenever anyone of you were completely new to this site, did you actually,
honestly and sincerely care for what changes the site would go through?
- I know I didn't.

Afterall, many of which is the future of the Hive.

I don't see how this is an argument against the suggestion, they can still be the future
of the hive without having access to one part of the site from the gecko. I really think
people are exaggerating the point of how... Unfair this seems >.>

Just going to throw in there that having some distinguishing feature on users to help with this is a bad idea.

Such as the one I stated I might be in favor of? If so, then do tell why you think so.
I don't really see how it's more, or less, useless than having a separate sub-forum.
- Well, actually I do see the better use of a sub-forum, but I don't consider visual
difference "completely useless" either.

 

[RED BARON]

We were all new users at one stage or another, disallowing a new user access to somewhere just because they're newly registered is most certainly not going to convince them to stay and reach the required criteria for access.

That would entirely depend on what access is restricted. Not every user can join staff right from the get go, nor can they read those staff related forums, nor do they have access to MT.

Still they do stick around and they work toward being able to access it. They hope to gain it. Honestly how many would be interested in a staff position if everyone had it?

However if it was something essential then I can only agree. I hate forums that for instance disallow creation of threads or posts of certain length until one has proven themselves by getting e.g. a certain amount of rep or returns comments or something other trivial. That is what keeps me from going back to those sites - however Hive aren't like that, nor do I believe this as I see it would lead to that situation. For more about what I see it as we return to Archian's comment:

We may even invite those we feel could prove invaluable to the creation of the theme onboard the development team

Well that would serve pretty much the same purpose, without the openness about it by allowing others to look.

 

[fladdermasken]

That would entirely depend on what access is restricted. Not every user can join staff right from the get go, nor can they read those staff related forums, nor do they have access to MT.

Still they do stick around and they work toward being able to access it.

This. I don't see why people are stuck in a perpetual loop surrounding the idea that this is unfair and not user friendly. People can still post in the regular SD and, if they are vested in the idea of it, work towards being more invested i.e. being allowed in the moderated forum. If they don't want to be vested in the site, then why would they even post in SD, let alone on a level beyond that?

If anything MT is (theoretically) a way more elitist idea than an intermediate committee to discuss how the forum is (read: could be) managed.

However if it was something essential then I can only agree. I hate forums that for instance disallow creation of threads or posts of certain length until one has proven themselves by getting e.g. a certain amount of rep or returns comments or something other trivial.

This is so classic THW. Along comes someone with a decent idea and happens to exemplify rep/post count/physical age for benchmark, and people are so thrown into a fit about it they suck all the content out of the post and discuss the hollow example. Kinda like a weasel sucks the yolk out of an egg while leaving the shell intact.

tl;dr

Sounds like a discussion that should be held in the new site discussion forum.

 

[Gilles]

\Such as the one I stated I might be in favor of? If so, then do tell why you think so.
I don't really see how it's more, or less, useless than having a separate sub-forum.
- Well, actually I do see the better use of a sub-forum, but I don't consider visual
difference "completely useless" either.

I don't remember exactly what everyone said, but having some visual difference seems redundant. As stated, I can already sift through posts by looking at user names, post count, rep, and awards. They are all located in the same spot so it doesn't take that long. I don't think it's a bad idea, just not really worth it.

To those saying that what I just mentioned is enough, I agree somewhat, but I'm a lazy person and I know I'm not alone.

It simplifies things and allows me (and others) to read far less posts and I don't have to worry about repeating an idea I happened to skip because there were too many posts to go through. I don't come on here everyday (although I am right now) and it would allow people like me* to keep up with things without reading 12 pages.

*Users that have been here for a long time and lurk off and on.

 

[RED BARON]

This is so classic THW. Along comes someone with a decent idea and happens to exemplify rep/post count/physical age for benchmark, and people are so thrown into a fit about it they suck all the content out of the post and discuss the hollow example. Kinda like a weasel sucks the yolk out of an egg while leaving the shell intact.

Not sure I understand your point, but just in case that I wrote in a way that can be misunderstood, let me clarify what I am talking about; having the limit not in regards to restricted forums or not access to staff, but instead having requirements for posting, using emotions or whatever based upon values that might be hard to obtain given the limits imposed on the new user from the get go.