PDA

View Full Version : Social Groups..


Kura
November 12th, 2010, 06:00 PM
I know they're a nice feature.. but is it just me or are they like.. completely dead? And what are they there for if we still have the "Groups" thread section on PC?

@_@ I dunno.. it makes no sense to me.. it's a nice feature but it's not really being used, is it? How often do you truly post in them?

I'm not saying to get rid of them.. but does it actually put stress on the servers?
It's cool to find people with common interests.. but isn't that what threads are for, too?

Just my thoughts. What are yours?

Kenshin5
November 12th, 2010, 06:05 PM
I thought this as well a couple days ago while looking at the activity of the Groups. That would be one thing if they where active but most of the Clubs haven't had posts in them for several days. On top of that Other Clubs Forum doubles as a Social Groups, so they could easily be transferred over.

Kura
November 12th, 2010, 06:15 PM
Yeah @_@ I dunno why we have two.. and all of my social groups haven't been posted in in MONTHS and even YEARS.. most that I look at are in a similar situation.. so I'm sitting here scratching my chin about you.

Aquacorde
November 12th, 2010, 06:23 PM
This was actually my first though when learning about Social Groups- "What are there doing for PC, really?"

Soul Eater
November 12th, 2010, 06:30 PM
Seems that staff and members alike are thinking the same things.

There's maybe 3 or 4 social groups that really get much activity.

Those 3 or 4 groups should have a thread, or a club, or something, and social groups should either be canned, or utilized in a different way. Hopefully in a way that could make them more useful, or more a main part of PC, rather than something that gets shoved to the side, and ignored.

Patchisou Yutohru
November 12th, 2010, 06:43 PM
I don't understand the point in them, personally. It certainly wouldn't kill me to see them removed completely.

Other Clubs and Pokémon Clubs seems to have that covered, considering the fact that they're both much more active than all the social groups combined.

-Scourge-
November 12th, 2010, 06:48 PM
I also don't see the point of Social Groups, they're useless and they're never posted in.
Actually, I would like to see them removed.

bobandbill
November 12th, 2010, 07:02 PM
They are just spammier versions of clubs and whatnot that can be posted on the forums, IMHO - I don't see much point for them either.

AshPikastar
November 12th, 2010, 07:16 PM
Like others are saying the social groups shouldn't be needed since we have the group thread but some groups use the Social group to keep track on members that have joined the group instead having to worry about updating the members list in the discussion thread in the group discussion.

Kura
November 12th, 2010, 09:25 PM
Why does there need to be a "List" for a discussion? :/ Even if it is a club, there can obviously be "regular members" who often come to talk about a certain thing (and who are also known as regulars in that thread anyways) and the one-offs that aren't posted in the first post anyways :/ I don't see a reason to keep track of members, to be honest..

Patchisou Yutohru
November 12th, 2010, 10:24 PM
I never understood the point in there being a list of members who were part of the club in the club forums. To me, anyone who posts in the thread should be considered a member, and the entire list of members who contributed to the thread can be viewed by clicking on the number of replies there are in a thread on the posts cell in the Other Clubs / Pokémon Clubs forum's indexes.

Melody
November 12th, 2010, 11:43 PM
I honestly don't mind the Social Groups, but I do wish they had more activity.

I think there should be another purge of Social Groups, and the system of them be rebooted with a moderator team appointed to approve ALL new groups. Purge groups that don't see a lot of posts much like the forums themselves must undergo. I'm sure there's a tool in the ACP that makes that easy...delete all groups that haven't seen a post or a member join in a month.

Make the members who start these social groups responsible for them...if they don't properly enforce the Social Group rules, then keep them from starting another one. Perhaps make it possible, if possible, to appoint more maintainers to the group to keep a busy group well policed.

I know the Member Fanclubs forum has recently disappeared, why not let people found member fanclubs as social groups? Maybe reject Social Groups that could work better as a club in the Other Groups or Pokemon Groups areas? I think Social Groups don't see action because too many new groups get made by n00bs every day and that ought to be something we moderate by requiring you have so many posts before you can make a Social group or have donated...much like the blogs are. The blogs prosper fairly well because they're exclusive like that, why not let Social Groups be that way?

Edit:

I went and did a search for groups with no more than 10 Members, 10 Discussions and 10 Messages. I found 51 pages of minimally active groups. :<
I trimmed the search terms to show groups with no more than 10 members, 1 discussion and 10 messages. I found 40 pages of groups that should probably be trimmed.
I decided to be charitable and query for groups with no more than 3 members, 1 discussion and 10 messages. I STILL found 23 pages of groups that are just spam.

Note that my main baseline for minimum activity is 10 messages within the group. That's not a whole lot to ask of any number of group members, and yet still, I see far too many groups who don't even meet that criteria! The Junk needs to be taken out and some serious regulation needs to come into play to bring activity into it...because it's hard to find a good active group among all the crappy duds unless you really try.

Spherical Ice
November 13th, 2010, 12:36 AM
Really, I join groups so that people can see what kinds of things I like; that doesn't mean I'll post in them. for example, I've joined Layton and Pixel groups, to show people what I like. So yeah. They are kinda pointless though.

Cassino
November 13th, 2010, 05:06 AM
It's a funny thing the staff don't implement various things as unnecessary, but we have these social groups. There have always been club threads years before them so why they were added in the first place I can't think beyond 'trial', but it's long been obvious that they've failed for that purpose; an admin has even said social groups are dead.

Really, I join groups so that people can see what kinds of things I like;
I suppose they're kept up for this if anything... But still, really, that's what the 'interests' field under one's profile is for.

Kura
November 15th, 2010, 09:02 PM
@_@ Yeah well.. we're still having DB errors whether we like it or not. Maybe the staff could consider chucking them if it'll help with the loadtimes and help avoid any further DB problems.

Team Fail
November 15th, 2010, 09:13 PM
I don't understand the point in them, personally. It certainly wouldn't kill me to see them removed completely.

Other Clubs and Pokémon Clubs seems to have that covered, considering the fact that they're both much more active than all the social groups combined.

That is so true. If they were removed, it would create more server space for other things that PC can use, as well as it's members.

Pablo49
November 15th, 2010, 10:00 PM
It's a funny thing the staff don't implement various things as unnecessary, but we have these social groups.I see what you did there. I could not agree with this statement more.

Ausaudriel
November 16th, 2010, 01:56 AM
Eventually we hope to merge the group forums and the social group features into one big group... thingy.

It's low on the list of things to do though. But to answer your question it's super minimal load on the server, turning it off would make no noticeable difference. I think the general mindset in the past when turning social groups off has come up is "they aren't hurting anything by being there, let the people who want to use them use them and the rest ignore it."

Ursula
November 16th, 2010, 09:20 AM
I prefer Social Groups to clubs, actually. Discussion is actually a lot more organized, and you can actually maintain several discussions at once.
As the head of one of the more active social groups, I have to say they're good enough. If it came to picking one or the other, I'd much rather go with Social Groups.

I think there should be another purge of Social Groups, and the system of them be rebooted with a moderator team appointed to approve ALL new groups. Purge groups that don't see a lot of posts much like the forums themselves must undergo. I'm sure there's a tool in the ACP that makes that easy...delete all groups that haven't seen a post or a member join in a month.
AFAIK, there isn't one for moderation of social groups [ergo they be sent to the moderation queue] However, I do agree that the lesser active/redundant groups need to be purged. D;

Cherrim
November 16th, 2010, 09:43 AM
I honestly don't mind the Social Groups, but I do wish they had more activity.

I think there should be another purge of Social Groups, and the system of them be rebooted with a moderator team appointed to approve ALL new groups. Purge groups that don't see a lot of posts much like the forums themselves must undergo. I'm sure there's a tool in the ACP that makes that easy...delete all groups that haven't seen a post or a member join in a month.

Make the members who start these social groups responsible for them...if they don't properly enforce the Social Group rules, then keep them from starting another one. Perhaps make it possible, if possible, to appoint more maintainers to the group to keep a busy group well policed.

I know the Member Fanclubs forum has recently disappeared, why not let people found member fanclubs as social groups? Maybe reject Social Groups that could work better as a club in the Other Groups or Pokemon Groups areas? I think Social Groups don't see action because too many new groups get made by n00bs every day and that ought to be something we moderate by requiring you have so many posts before you can make a Social group or have donated...much like the blogs are. The blogs prosper fairly well because they're exclusive like that, why not let Social Groups be that way?

Edit:

I went and did a search for groups with no more than 10 Members, 10 Discussions and 10 Messages. I found 51 pages of minimally active groups. :<
I trimmed the search terms to show groups with no more than 10 members, 1 discussion and 10 messages. I found 40 pages of groups that should probably be trimmed.
I decided to be charitable and query for groups with no more than 3 members, 1 discussion and 10 messages. I STILL found 23 pages of groups that are just spam.

Note that my main baseline for minimum activity is 10 messages within the group. That's not a whole lot to ask of any number of group members, and yet still, I see far too many groups who don't even meet that criteria! The Junk needs to be taken out and some serious regulation needs to come into play to bring activity into it...because it's hard to find a good active group among all the crappy duds unless you really try.
There is no way to do approval. The social group system is so broken it's ridiculous. Social groups go live as soon as they're made--you can't have them automatically go to a moderation queue before they're released publicly. You can't restrict certain people from creating them. It's all or nothing. It's a horrible, horrible system and I can't fathom what the heck was going through Jelsoft's minds when they were putting them together.

It's such a bare bones system that it's more annoying to moderate/look over than it is to keep them trimmed. There isn't an option in the Admin CP to trim any with a certain amount of members/posts/activity. That's why we had to nuke them all last time we gave them a proper try--it was either that or spend days going through comparing duplicates, checking activity, etc. That's why they get out of hand so easily. (I know this is an excuse, but seriously, no one wants to deal with them because it's so awkward and annoying.)

To be honest, I'd rather just get rid of social groups entirely and keep the clubs forum since it's already so established but people do use SGs (and a handful really like them), so as long as they aren't breaking PC rules, I don't really care if they sit there. :s

Platinum Lucario
November 16th, 2010, 09:45 AM
Maybe we should all have a vote about either having the groups as a forum or as a Social Group, so we can see which one gets eliminated? Or maybe just simply keep it as the way it is? I'm not sure if the groups should be merged with one thing or just leave it as the way it is. And I was only just making a suggestion.

EDIT:
There is no way to do approval. The social group system is so broken it's ridiculous. Social groups go live as soon as they're made--you can't have them automatically go to a moderation queue before they're released publicly. You can't restrict certain people from creating them. It's all or nothing. It's a horrible, horrible system and I can't fathom what the heck was going through Jelsoft's minds when they were putting them together.

I think they probably created the Social Groups as a thing to make any group of whatever kind, and I don't get why they don't allow a usergroup to have approval things or something for Social Groups. Maybe we could look for a vBulletin plugin or something that could be able to do that kind of thing?
If we have success, then it could be implemented. If it cannot be found, then I guess we'll have to say bye-bye to Social Groups.

It's such a bare bones system that it's more annoying to moderate/look over than it is to keep them trimmed. There isn't an option in the Admin CP to trim any with a certain amount of members/posts/activity. That's why we had to nuke them all last time we gave them a proper try--it was either that or spend days going through comparing duplicates, checking activity, etc. That's why they get out of hand so easily. (I know this is an excuse, but seriously, no one wants to deal with them because it's so awkward and annoying.)
Wow... now that sounds pretty hard to do... I never even knew Social Groups would have limited Admin control options for them in the ACP. I don't even get why Jelsoft has never put in a function like that either. :\

To be honest, I'd rather just get rid of social groups entirely and keep the clubs forum since it's already so established but people do use SGs (and a handful really like them), so as long as they aren't breaking PC rules, I don't really care if they sit there. :s

OK, so it has been decided. I guess we're going to say bye-bye to the Social Groups I guess. Well I hardly ever used them anyways, so what really was the point? xD

AshPikastar
November 16th, 2010, 09:50 AM
Maybe we should all have a vote about either having the groups as a forum or as a Social Group, so we can see which one gets eliminated? Or maybe just simply keep it as the way it is? I'm not sure if the groups should be merged with one thing or just leave it as the way it is. And I was only just making a suggestion.

I agree with this. We should do a poll since its a jump back in forth if we should have it or not.

Gumball Watterson
November 16th, 2010, 10:54 AM
Poll? No Poll is necessary.

And tell me it didn't seriously cross anybody's mind to get rid of the club forums? Ridiculous and selfish. Did it happen to cross your mind that it will result in a mod being unemployed?

Nothing needs to be removed. The social groups provide occasional conveniences, even though it won't be major if they are removed. Still they are not causing any harm like the Rep system ages ago, so there is no advantages in removing them.

Platinum Lucario
November 16th, 2010, 11:44 AM
Well, I'm not gonna argue with you, but the problem is... what if a group gets created that is spammy or something? I'm sure the admins wouldn't want to be bothered to having to remove every single spammy looking groups or anything. And since there is no approval system made for the Admins on the Social Groups, they cannot be able to just approve the Groups. They do go live immediately as soon as they're made, like Lightning said. And... they cannot be able to use the "trim" function on Social Groups, I really don't get why Jelsoft wouldn't create this, I do hope maybe in a future update... they might include something like this. If the staff or even Steve cannot find a plugin that will be able to do that sort of thing, then they'll have to remove the Social Groups.

But hey, before Lightning's post came in, I only thought of the poll. But once I saw Lightning's post... I realized there was no use for a poll, but I just didn't feel like editing my old post again anyways. And I do agree with you about not removing the forum, you're right... the moderator of that forum would lose their job for that forum. And besides that... I'm sure there's alot of posts in that forum that we don't wanna lose.

parallelzero
November 16th, 2010, 12:32 PM
It's a funny thing the staff don't implement various things as unnecessary, but we have these social groups.

It's a funny thing when members pretend to know how the staff work, but then we have posts like this. Social Groups were just... kind of on a VB upgrade one time, and I think Steve wanted to try them out. We just haven't really addressed them much since. It wasn't like we all sat around and went "is this a good idea? HELL YES!", but instead it was just kind of tagged on and the idea never took off.

It sounded good on paper, and ended up not working. Which is different then something sounding useless on paper and actually being useless.

That said, I've never had a problem with removing them. I've always seen them as a waste of space.

Guy
November 16th, 2010, 01:54 PM
I...actually wouldn't be opposed to the idea of having a community vote of whether to remove Social Groups or not.

Social Groups, whether they take up a large amount of space or even a little, are kind of dead weight to me. It's not the most popular feature of the forum, and I wouldn't miss them if they were to be removed. As said above, it's a good idea on paper, but actually put into play, it's kind of just there with little importance.

I do know that some users take social groups as a way of planning for their actual club threads, but I think a planning sub-forum (like in the Roleplaying section) would be sufficient enough, if not, better; keep in mind this is just a thought. I wouldn't agree with removing Clubs over Social Groups though. The club forums are far more popular and actually would be missed. Plus, it puts Midori Chi out of position which isn't fair.

Cassino
November 16th, 2010, 01:56 PM
It's a funny thing when members pretend to know how the staff work, but then we have posts like this. Social Groups were just... kind of on a VB upgrade one time, and I think Steve wanted to try them out. We just haven't really addressed them much since. It wasn't like we all sat around and went "is this a good idea? HELL YES!", but instead it was just kind of tagged on and the idea never took off.

It sounded good on paper, and ended up not working. Which is different then something sounding useless on paper and actually being useless.
You've lost me there... I wasn't insinuating anything, if that's even what you thought? The higher staff here simply aren't very clear about how they work (perhaps rightly so), so people coming along and pointing out things they observed to be inconsistent shouldn't be surprising... I at least, do it to goad an explanation if anything. Thanks anyway, I guess, for a bit of insight.

Ursula
November 16th, 2010, 02:08 PM
However, they're a lot more efficient in terms of discussion and whatnot than clubs.
In a club, you have one discussion going at a time.
In a Social Group, such is not so.

They're far more efficient. It's just a matter of moderation rights being re-extended to moderators, and attention actually given to them. :/

Platinum Lucario
November 16th, 2010, 02:37 PM
I...actually wouldn't be opposed to the idea of having a community vote of whether to remove Social Groups or not.

Social Groups, whether they take up a large amount of space or even a little, are kind of dead weight to me. It's not the most popular feature of the forum, and I wouldn't miss them if they were to be removed. As said above, it's a good idea on paper, but actually put into play, it's kind of just there with little importance.

I do know that some users take social groups as a way of planning for their actual club threads, but I think a planning sub-forum (like in the Roleplaying section) would be sufficient enough, if not, better; keep in mind this is just a thought. I wouldn't agree with removing Clubs over Social Groups though. The club forums are far more popular and actually would be missed. Plus, it puts Midori Chi out of position which isn't fair.
Yeah... after I saw Lightning's post, I realized that a poll wasn't nessisary. But then when I saw AdvancedK47's post... I was shocked over the fact that it would cause a moderator of that forum to get demoted... oh my gosh... I didn't realize that my good friend Midori Chi was a moderator of that forum, gosh... it would be a nightmare to see my friend get stripped of moderatorship unfairly. ;-;
And I do realize now that it would remove a moderator from a forum if a forum was to be removed and in which would be sad to see something like that happen. And like I said... it would be awful to lose all those good old threads that have existed from ages ago. And the Clubs forum have been around for quite a long time, we'd never want to lose them. D:
However, they're a lot more efficient in terms of discussion and whatnot than clubs.
In a club, you have one discussion going at a time.
In a Social Group, such is not so.

They're far more efficient. It's just a matter of moderation rights being re-extended to moderators, and attention actually given to them. :/

Well... you do have a point about Social Groups being made... however... I know there is a ROM Hacking Social Group, I wonder if that serves a purpose to the Social Groups? Or would it actually fit in the Clubs forum perfectly?

Patchisou Yutohru
November 16th, 2010, 02:41 PM
Poll? No Poll is necessary.

And tell me it didn't seriously cross anybody's mind to get rid of the club forums? Ridiculous and selfish. Did it happen to cross your mind that it will result in a mod being unemployed?

Nothing needs to be removed. The social groups provide occasional conveniences, even though it won't be major if they are removed. Still they are not causing any harm like the Rep system ages ago, so there is no advantages in removing them.
Technically, every decision made for any type of change in the community is made on a majority vote poll structure. Eventually, something tells me that there will be a poll about continuing social groups or removing them all together. But I agree 100% with not removing the fanclubs forums, considering Midori Chi does a very good job with keeping them clean, approving them, unapproving the ones she feels don't meet the requirements outlined and making sure they are orderly. I would never agree to putting her out of the job she's been in for, what? Five or so years now? That's ridiculous to me, and completely out of the options I'd like to see brought up to the table. I also agree that there's no harm in keeping them, despite them not being active. Still, it really wouldn't bother me for them to be removed for the same reason. But what Erik said in the post above is something that would make me somewhat hesitant on agreeing to nuke them.

But hey, before Lightning's post came in, I only thought of the poll. But once I saw Lightning's post... I realized there was no use for a poll, but I just didn't feel like editing my old post again anyways. And I do agree with you about not removing the forum, you're right... the moderator of that forum would lose their job for that forum. And besides that... I'm sure there's alot of posts in that forum that we don't wanna lose.
As far as social groups are concerned, Lightning posting doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a need for a poll. You seem to be under the impression that this forum is run entirely on one person's opinion and that is certainly not the case. "Eventually, something tells me that there will be a poll about continuing social groups or removing them all together." I do think you should consider holding your tongue before you say something like that, though, since you don't seem to really know how decisions and things are done. Not trying to scold you, but that was a highly ignorant statement.

I...actually wouldn't be opposed to the idea of having a community vote of whether to remove Social Groups or not.
Quoting this because I wouldn't be opposed to having the entire community deciding if they should stay. Ten bucks says most of the people who come to it don't even know what social groups are.

You've lost me there... I wasn't insinuating anything, if that's even what you thought? The higher staff here simply aren't very clear about how they work (perhaps rightly so), so people coming along and pointing out things they observed to be inconsistent shouldn't be surprising... I at least, do it to goad an explanation if anything. Thanks anyway, I guess, for a bit of insight.
I've always understood how higher staff worked, even when I wasn't on the staff at all. Simply put, an idea or problem gets posted, discussed, and ultimately voted on. The final decision, in any case, is the decision that has majority vote in HQ. Currently, that means that 6 out of the 11 higher staff members have agreed on something. To make sure things aren't moving too fast, a time limit of 48 hours (much like any big thing that happens, like taking a DLoA and leaving your position on the staff) passes and the majority vote is put into action. If it reaches 3/4ths of the higher staff vote, the 48 hour limit is null and void.

Pablo49
November 16th, 2010, 05:20 PM
I've always understood how higher staff worked, even when I wasn't on the staff at all. Simply put, an idea or problem gets posted, discussed, and ultimately voted on. The final decision, in any case, is the decision that has majority vote in HQ. Currently, that means that 6 out of the 11 higher staff members have agreed on something. To make sure things aren't moving too fast, a time limit of 48 hours (much like any big thing that happens, like taking a DLoA and leaving your position on the staff) passes and the majority vote is put into action. If it reaches 3/4ths of the higher staff vote, the 48 hour limit is null and void.I believe that was about how the staff logically work, and not how they technically come to their conclusions. I've lurked here for years, and it has never seemed completely consistent. Always seemed like there was some form a disconnect between the highest staff and the will of the user base.

Zorua
November 16th, 2010, 05:35 PM
I...actually wouldn't be opposed to the idea of having a community vote of whether to remove Social Groups or not.


Reading Nick's post has gotten me quite hesitant to this. In fact, I was hesitant from the start. To be honest, I would trust the higher staff's decision on the matter than the community as a whole. Like Nick as stated, most of the people who would probably vote won't even know what social groups are(let alone the purpose of the thread, or anything. How much do you want to bet someone who's joined yesterday with one post would vote?). It would be a bothering thought to rely the fate of the social groups on a community vote. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but it's just...an unreliable method.

With this being said, I'm one of the people that support the idea of nuking social groups. I remember saying before in the past that just about 90% of them are probably deadweight(I daresay just about 99% of them, though that would be an exaggeration), and probably a rule bend here or there in the Clubs section that would make it possible for diverse topic discussions would be implemented. If topic diversity is an issue, surely there would be a way around that in the Clubs sections, wouldn't it? This is probably one of those ideas that sound good on paper but are really complex to work out in actuality. :( I apologize if I'm really not making any sense, but that's my input on the matter.

Stratos99
November 16th, 2010, 05:52 PM
But I like the pretty pictures on my profile. :'(

Guy
November 16th, 2010, 06:40 PM
Reading Nick's post has gotten me quite hesitant to this. In fact, I was hesitant from the start. To be honest, I would trust the higher staff's decision on the matter than the community as a whole. Like Nick as stated, most of the people who would probably vote won't even know what social groups are(let alone the purpose of the thread, or anything. How much do you want to bet someone who's joined yesterday with one post would vote?). It would be a bothering thought to rely the fate of the social groups on a community vote. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but it's just...an unreliable method.
Yes, higher staff can vote whether or not to remove social groups with reason, but just by looking back at how social groups are viewed by the higher staff, I can pretty much predict it'll be removed by a majority's vote. Which is why I wouldn't be opposed to having the community as a whole vote for it rather than higher staff. Truth be told, not many higher staff take use of the social groups; so for us, it's not needed. Giving the chance for the community as a whole to voice their opinion would be more more effective in my opinion - more so for those who actually do use them.

The role and purpose of social groups can easily be explained in the first post of the poll. So, for those who are new or don't even know what social groups are, can at least get an idea of its purpose. I actually have some trust in the community members and would like to have their voices heard when the chance rises. I mean it is they who shape the forum, not only the staff. Plus, with social groups not being the biggest issue on the forum, I don't mind having a community-wide vote.

Zorua
November 16th, 2010, 06:52 PM
Yes, higher staff can vote whether or not to remove social groups with reason, but just by looking back at how social groups are viewed by the higher staff, I can pretty much predict it'll be removed by a majority's vote. Which is why I wouldn't be opposed to having the community as a whole vote for it rather than higher staff. Truth be told, not many higher staff take use of the social groups; so for us, it's not needed. Giving the chance for the community as a whole to voice their opinion would be more more effective in my opinion - more so for those who actually do use them.

The role and purpose of social groups can easily be explained in the first post of the poll. So, for those who are new or don't even know what social groups are, can at least get an idea of its purpose. I actually have some trust in the community members and would like to have their voices heard when the chance rises. I mean it is they who shape the forum, not only the staff. Plus, with social groups not being the biggest issue on the forum, I don't mind having a community-wide vote.


Hm...I guess I can understand what you're saying here. What you're trying to say is that, it's not really the h-staff's thing because they hardly make use of it; rather, it's the members since we're the ones that actually make use of it. I guess I can agree with your point there, but to a certain extent. .___. I just feel that, if the members do agree on keeping it there, it'll just be...pointless? I hope not to cause offense by this, but it's just in my opinion, it's just cluttering up the forum(I know, other people would probably see this differently, but that's just me.) That's just my biggest worry and concern. PC would look much cleaner without the whole social groups thing. >>

Guy
November 16th, 2010, 07:04 PM
Hm...I guess I can understand what you're saying here. What you're trying to say is that, it's not really the h-staff's thing because they hardly make use of it; rather, it's the members since we're the ones that actually make use of it. I guess I can agree with your point there, but to a certain extent. .___. I just feel that, if the members do agree on keeping it there, it'll just be...pointless? I hope not to cause offense by this, but it's just in my opinion, it's just cluttering up the forum(I know, other people would probably see this differently, but that's just me.) That's just my biggest worry and concern. PC would look much cleaner without the whole social groups thing. >>
That's fair enough.

...and even if we had a vote, and it is decided that social groups should stay, then it'll be no different than having it now. Therefore, I don't exactly see that as a problem, but that's just me. I agree that PC can do without it (that said, it doesn't bother me if it stays or is removed), but as Audy stated, it rarely puts any harm to the server, so whether it remains or is removed, it will make no change other than it actually existing on the forums or not.

Gumball Watterson
November 16th, 2010, 07:45 PM
Ten bucks says most of the people who come to it don't even know what social groups are.
That's ten bucks saying most of the people haven't read the rules.... reasonable enough, really.


Social groups may be more efficient, but they simply don't get enough attention because we still don't have a need for them.

Actually, now further thinking about this, most of the decisions here go on basis of need. For new forums, it's because the threads of that topic grew popular and there arose a need for it, like the LP forum. For VMs, there was a need for more convenient communication. For removing rep, the admins had a need for a freaking break XD


But what exact needs do we have that would require the SGs? Nothing really. The Groups Forums already satisfy our basic need of common interest chats. SGs may be more efficient, but we already have the Groups and our needs are not complex enough to use the SGs.

Also, it'd be like having a right hand mouse you've been using for a long time and suddenly you have a left hand mouse with a freakload of buttons that makes life so much easier. Problem is you are right handed. Unless your right mouse disappears, you won't be willing to use that sophisticated left mouse. Our Groups are the right mouse and SGs are the left mouse. But as should be obvious from last page, we cannot get rid of groups.


We don't need SGs. I'm sure we all know that. The most reasonable thing would be to prune it all.

Patchisou Yutohru
November 16th, 2010, 08:57 PM
...There's only 15 pages of groups (showing 10 per page) within the rules out of 90, and that's not seeing if there are any duplicate groups out there. Just ones that are active within a month from today.

Platinum Lucario
November 17th, 2010, 01:29 AM
Hm... now that I think about it... it wouldn't be a bad idea for having a vote to either remove the Social Groups or keep them. Because I assume the ROM Hacking social group might serve a purpose. And I was just wondering to myself... if Social Groups really did get removed, would the ROM Hacking group fit in Pokémon Groups or Other Clubs? :\

Patchisou Yutohru
November 17th, 2010, 05:52 AM
Hm... now that I think about it... it wouldn't be a bad idea for having a vote to either remove the Social Groups or keep them. Because I assume the ROM Hacking social group might serve a purpose. And I was just wondering to myself... if Social Groups really did get removed, would the ROM Hacking group fit in Pokémon Groups or Other Clubs? :\
There are roughly 810 social groups. I'm in the process of pruning them now. And I'm about to just give up on it now, since it's making me hate them more and more and becoming very frustrating...

The decision of keeping them or getting rid of them does not rest in the hands of a single group that already has a dedicated forum for discussion. Quite frankly, after reading that post, I'm not so sure on opening the decision up for community-wide voting if the time ever comes to that.

Pablo49
November 17th, 2010, 06:46 AM
Quite frankly, after reading that post, I'm not so sure on opening the decision up for community-wide voting if the time ever comes to that.Unfortunately not all of the community will make educated or logical votes. Wouldn't it be best to open it up and let the user base vote, and then let the staff keep that in mind and then draw their own conclusion? We've already noted the staff themselves don't use the social groups. Obviously if the decision went opposite of the community's view, there might be some hurt feelings and such, but keeping the user base directly involved with decisions that affect them is important, too, right?

Patchisou Yutohru
November 17th, 2010, 06:56 AM
Unfortunately not all of the community will make educated or logical votes. Wouldn't it be best to open it up and let the user base vote, and then let the staff keep that in mind and then draw their own conclusion? We've already noted the staff themselves don't use the social groups. Obviously if the decision went opposite of the community's view, there might be some hurt feelings and such, but keeping the user base directly involved with decisions that affect them is important, too, right?
I was actually thinking about that right after I posted that last post. But since not all of the community will make a logical vote, that will sway the decision a great deal considering the fact that a good portion of our members are children, naive, and rather newbish to say the least. They're also highly impressionable, so the vote would have to be private and the reasonings would have to be moderated due to that.

The ones who are responsible and would make the decision that isn't based on personal standards (rather than the wellbeing of the community) or anything of the sort is really only about 1/4th of the community, unfortunately. I do agree that keeping the user base involved with decisions is important, but other members on the staff may disagree. The problem is trusting the user base to make logical decisions without ignorance or the wellbeing of the forum will suffer. A lot of the members here have clashing priorities than what should be one, as displayed here.

Alinthea
November 17th, 2010, 10:44 AM
I thought I would throw in my 2 cents.
I haven't really used the Social Groups and I don't think I ever will.

I would be for them getting removed, since they MUST be taking up space on the server...

Pablo49
November 17th, 2010, 04:51 PM
....They're also highly impressionable, so the vote would have to be private and the reasonings would have to be moderated due to that.

....I do agree that keeping the user base involved with decisions is important, but other members on the staff may disagree. The problem is trusting the user base to make logical decisions without ignorance or the wellbeing of the forum will suffer. A lot of the members here have clashing priorities than what should be one, as displayed here. Definitely would need to be private, the idea of it being open is quite scary. Would it be possible to make it a locked thread and still be able to poll, or no? I have no experience with vB.

I'd hope none of the staff thinks the user base should't be involved with decisions. D: Trusting the community as a whole is iffy, which is why I think it should be a poll, but it shouldn't be the final decision. Just to be taken into account when the staff votes, with a grain (or three) of salt.

Kura
November 17th, 2010, 04:53 PM
I'd hope none of the staff thinks the user base should't be involved with decisions. D: Trusting the community as a whole is iffy, which is why I think it should be a poll, but it shouldn't be the final decision. Just to be taken into account when the staff votes, with a grain (or three) of salt.

I kinda agree with this.. just because I'm a bit curious to know where the community stands on Social Groups.. but it seems so far that no one really seems to care if they're gone.


Edit: Wait.. are people actually going to do something about this or are my concerns ignored yet again? @_@.. It seems like everyone's even at an agreement..