PDA

View Full Version : Things you'd change?


Patchisou Yutohru
May 12th, 2013, 04:21 PM
This is something that I've been wondering a lot recently. I think that people would be more inclined to say something about things that they don't like about PC if they're given the opportunity to state it freely, and in a non-judgmental way and in a way that opens the chance of something changing from it. I don't want this to become a huge debate thread, because for some reason I'm uncertain of, whenever something negative is said about anything, more often than not, people generally jump to the defense of whatever it is and belittle opposing opinions.

The point of this thread, however, isn't to list things that you don't like about the forum. It's about creating an opportunity to fix the things that you don't like. So! Let's get started with some simple questions.

What are some things that you don't like about PokéCommunity that you would like to change?
Why don't you like this, if you have a reason at all?
What would you suggest doing to change the thing that you don't like?

Mariah Carey
May 12th, 2013, 09:46 PM
I would repeal the new signature rules, aside from the CSS/flashing lights ones.

Ephemeral Euphoria
May 12th, 2013, 10:02 PM
I'd have threads be moved to the apprpriate location or merged with a similar thread rather than just being told that the section for the thread is not the right place for the thread and having it closed. That and I never saw a point for having rules about bumping old threads either.

Cassino
May 13th, 2013, 01:24 PM
What are some things that you don't like about PokéCommunity that you would like to change?
I've always loathed how signature images are allowed to be taller than 200px. I've had viewing of signatures turned off for years because of this, so it dosn't really trouble me, but since you asked, that's what I've long wanted to see change. At that, I'm actually only posting this because you asked; I've never posted it in its own thread because I don't see it ever garnering any acceptance.

Why don't you like this, if you have a reason at all?
There are two reasons I dislike it, one being that it's simply obnoxious to have so many huge and useless images on a thread page. The other reason, and the one that makes me a bit indignant, is how it makes the posts of users with huge signatures stand out so much against those of users without signatures that I would often entirely miss the latters' posts. Once I had observed the most substantial post in a thread go initially unnoticed by myself because of 500x300 signature images, I just turned signature viewing off.

What would you suggest doing to change the thing that you don't like?
I would suggest making the limit for images 600x200, and for the entirety of signatures 600x300.

wolf
May 13th, 2013, 01:33 PM
I agree with Cassino. I have signatures disabled because they are too large and clutter up the postbit. However, I think the height limit should be around 150px for everything included in the signature, but I'm sure that would be considered too strict.

Belldandy
May 14th, 2013, 08:03 PM
I'm hopping on that bandwagon. Signatures are atrociously large. There's no reason that they should be that big. For someone who's on a 10" screen, signatures take up half the page. I don't want to disable them, though, because they're interesting; however, they can be interesting and small.

I like the new PG rules and the new rule against epilepsy-inducing signatures i.e. flashing, though.

Just, signature space... is way too big now. For most users, it's 3x bigger than what they actually contribute through posting =_=;;

Sydian
May 14th, 2013, 08:26 PM
I disagree about the signature size. I know not everyone likes to utilize them, but signatures are customizable and are generally how you appear on the forum, along with your avatar. It's like your online clothes. We should have room to dress up with what we want to wear and express ourselves, while still having some limitation, and what we have is good. To shorten it would just feel like...school uniforms. Ya dig?? If you wanna be the unfashionable school principal about it, go right ahead.

Generally, I feel that we've been catering to members rather well lately and almost everything that has been suggested in the past few months has gone through. And that's great. So I really can't think of anything else to change. Not saying everything needs to be done, but I feel that staff know when to say yes and when to say no. So that's good. Don't ever lose that balance.

awolfsquared
May 14th, 2013, 08:28 PM
I really hate forums who have strict signature rules cause it doesn't allow for as much creativity so I'm glad this one allows for bigger signatures. Though I can agree with people here saying that some people's signatures are a bit too big. Though again I don't think the signature limits should be cut back too much cause it does allow for some nice signatures. 600x250 at the most or 600x300 is good too imo.

Other than that, I can't think of much else that can be changed. I like how a lot of idea on this forum are being implemented and I'm satisfied with how the forum's being ran right now.

Belldandy
May 14th, 2013, 08:42 PM
Yeah, the forum is being run great. I love the staff and the administration. Definitely a great bunch.

The majority of the signatures on this site are a healthy size... but some really maximize the space alotted (in their own right) and it's just too big :(

i.e.

- Sydian's is a good size. Perfect, even.
- AWsquared is just a bit too big because of the two underlying text lines.
- Xulek's is too large.
- Harlequin's is a bit too large. In fact, I can't even see her username / most of her avatar without cropping the signature... It's one or the other.

imo signatures the size of Sydian's (or AWsquared's without the two text lines) are perfect size and definitely allow space for "creativity" and "individuality." They're certainly not small or limiting; the space is well-used and well-designed.

[Edit]

Another example. Livewire's signature v is perfect, too. Not too big, not too small. Creative, classy, well-designed and attractive. Yet, not hogging half my screen.

Not sure how many users have small screens like mine (I used to have a 15" but my ex smashed it... 2,000$ i7 PC T_T), but it's definitely not user-friendly, esp. since I love to see people's creativity in their signatures... but too large is just that: too large.

Livewire
May 14th, 2013, 08:43 PM
I'd take cloudflare out back and beat the hell out of it.

But really, I feel that most of the major issues have all been addressed recently, and the only glaring weakness I can see are these downtimes and load issues. Maybe the solution is to start weeding out old accounts, I don't know.

As for the reasoning behind signature size limits, I think they're pretty arbitrary/subjective. If they look trashy to you, disable them. I really don't care how tall or wide they are, honestly.

donavannj
May 14th, 2013, 08:47 PM
Personally, one of the things I've always liked about PC was the immense liberties allowed with regards to signature size, allowing one to have a very creative signature if one so wished. 200 pixels tall simply does not feel like enough signature space to me despite previously frequenting sites where signatures even that large were forbidden before re-discovering PC.

I do understand the screen-space and missing a post because of a sea of large signatures, though.

One thing I'd like to see done is switching the default postbit from standard to legacy, because legacy is infinitely superior. :P I'm only half serious about this suggestion.

Only suggestion I can think of is to work on the signature scrollbar box so that it renders properly in all browsers and styles it is enabled in for all common screen resolutions. I get scrollbars on some people's signatures that are less than 350 pixels tall on some occasions. I'm fairly certain it's just when the position:relative; is used in the BB Code CSS, but I'm not 100% sure.

Belldandy
May 14th, 2013, 08:51 PM
As for the reasoning behind signature size limits, I think they're pretty arbitrary/subjective. If they look trashy to you, disable them. I really don't care how tall or wide they are, honestly.

Yeah, I'm going through now with Adblock and blocking the gigantic signatures i.e. Harlequin's, Xulek's.

Not a big deal, I guess.

Moreso concerned about being booted out in favour of guests when we reach >1,500 users. That's still happening to users [me] [possibly others] and it's irritating lol XD

Sydian
May 14th, 2013, 08:58 PM
One last thing about the sigs. I understand some people have smaller screens, but we can't cater the sig rules to fit the whims of every computer screen size.

Done talking about sigs. Now watch me walk out like a pimp.

Mariah Carey
May 14th, 2013, 08:58 PM
WOW WAY TO TAKE MY POST SYDIAN

Unfortunately, my signature (and all signatures, really) is not one size fits all and I doubt that they ever will be. Changing the rules to cater to the whims of a small minority of members is both illogical and just kinda rude to those who do utilise all the space in their signatures. I hate to be that person, but since I have been named and 'shamed' in this thread, I'm going to say this: deal with it.

Belldandy
May 14th, 2013, 09:13 PM
Unfortunately, my signature (and all signatures, really) is not one size fits all and I doubt that they ever will be. Changing the rules to cater to the whims of a small minority of members is both illogical and just kinda rude to those who do utilise all the space in their signatures. I hate to be that person, but since I have been named and 'shamed' in this thread, I'm going to say this: deal with it.

"Shamed"? I don't see how anyone has been "shamed" by anything here, especially after using careful language.

The majority of the signatures on this site are a healthy size... but some really maximize the space alotted (in their own right) and it's just too big.

I also address the fact that I don't feel that a majority of users have small screens like my Acer: "Not sure how many users have small screens like mine"

As well as explaining that rather than pursuing this issue, which can be fixed on my own end, I'd simply be Adblock'ing the ones that are :too large: for a 10" screen. Again, because everyone in their own right can have large signatures, because it breaks no rules. The thread is about things that I would change which is where my opinion derives from. It's not a thread on its own, plus other individuals shared the same :too big: notion before me. If someone else other than you had posted in this thread that I would have considered having a signature that is :too big: then I would have used them as an example as well.

I have no idea why you feel "shamed" about anything, nor why you feel targeted, when it was clearly stated prior to that that it is in everyone's right to maximize their signature within the rules. You did just that, and that's fine, but again, the topic of signatures being :too big: had already been brought up before my examples. The people I chose as examples had posted in this thread, making it an easy reference for others to "see what I meant" by :too big: and was completely arbitrary.

However, I would completely understand if I had made a thread titled "X's SIGNATURE IS TOO BIG." That would be mean, and you would have a valid reason to feel as you expressed, but I didn't do that. I picked people who had larger signatures in this thread - because it's pertinent and easily accessible, already reading it and all - to compare and understand how I see them. On larger screens, such signatures would not be an issue; if I had my 15" still, everything would be dandy.

Which is why, again, I prefer just to use Adblock because it solves my problem which, again, is probably felt by a minority. Most people have larger screens, I'd say.

Also noting that I forgot about Adblock till Livewire mentioned "blocking" signatures.

:)

Mariah Carey
May 14th, 2013, 09:27 PM
Also noting that I forgot about Adblock till Livewire mentioned "blocking" signatures.

:)

Now that you have remembered it once more, you can implement it on signatures like mine and never have to worry about this issue again :)

I just think that it's rude to list the names of those who are expressing themselves in the way they want to and using their names as a way to justify your grievances with the signature system.

Seacrest out.

Ausaudriel
May 14th, 2013, 09:33 PM
I don't want to make the signature rules any more restrictive, they're the best way to express yourself and I think PC has the best signature designs of any of the big Pokemon forums. However if you guys would like I can put in a check that will automatically "collapse" signatures over a certain size if your screen resolution is under a certain limit.

Belldandy
May 14th, 2013, 09:38 PM
Now that you have remembered it once more, you can implement it on signatures like mine and never have to worry about this issue again :)

Already done :)

I just think that it's rude to list the names of those who are expressing themselves in the way they want to and using their names as a way to justify your grievances with the signature system.

Again, it could have been anyone. I used many examples so no one would feel "outed" for whatever reason. You need examples for an argument, esp. if you want people to see things how you do it. My screen resolution is 1024x600, so x300 heights kill my screen. Some people can't visualize that, which is why I used examples. It served the purpose of visualizing the issue smaller screens have, felt by a minority of users.

I don't find it rude at all. I can understand if someone personally "outed" someone by creating a whole thread about one person's signature, but given the circumstances and the type of thread this is - and that the topic had already been brought up - the signatures displayed by arbitrary users i.e. yourself were convenient examples to use because they actually appeared in the topic. No searching involved; no imagination; no estimates. Someone with a larger screen could easily compare and understand how X's signature could cover half the screen because the example is in front of their faces.

Using examples is thorough and the foundations of an argument. Many users have taken advantage of the new rules in their own right; you and Xulek just happened to already have a good example of a :too big: signature in the thread; an issue brought up not by me, but by other members. Wouldn't make sense to go searching for a different user's signature if there's already a good example right there in the relevant thread.

Anyway,

The server load thing is way more important than signature size (which is fixed by Adblock (thanks Livewire for reminding me =_=)). I'd definitely want to improve that to prioritize members > guests, because it isn't doing it atm.

However if you guys would like I can put in a check that will automatically "collapse" signatures over a certain size if your screen resolution is under a certain limit.

This would be neat, but in the meantime Adblock works. We can't re-see the signatures afterwards (Adblock is hard to get rid of "bans" lol), but at least they're not hogging the screen.

1024x600 sucks :(

R.F.
May 14th, 2013, 09:39 PM
I think, the signatures are a little bit big overall. The main reason for this is mainly because my internet is really bad and loading them takes forever.

Fortunately there's an option in the profile to disable them. Since I changed it, threads load so much faster.

Alinthea
May 15th, 2013, 04:00 AM
Ok, thank you Belldandy for your views on Signatures. I fear this topic might lose track of the big picture if we keep on about signature problems; we have taken them on board and Ausaudriel has offered a good resolve for people to consider! :)

Please continue discussion without signature talk. :)

Recluse
May 15th, 2013, 09:43 AM
Different color for Tier 6 supporters...?

Just sayin'.

Kura
May 15th, 2013, 10:01 AM
It surprised me in the other thread when some of the mods said they virtually had no say or didn't know about stuff H-Staff was doing recently, and even before with other stuff (MIC etc.) I think giving mods a bit more credit from higher staff would be appreciated. I know h-staff is appointed to make executive decisions, but for smaller stuff I think it would be nice to extend certain things to mods too in the lounge first to get their opinion, then take the real decision making stuff to the higher staff section. Just a thought.

Ausaudriel
May 15th, 2013, 11:55 PM
We had a thread with hundreds of posts discussing this the last time it came up, I'm not too keen on opening that can of worms again, so I'll cut straight to the point: it's not their job. I don't think mods are incapable or incompetent or invaluable, but the hstaff exists to take care of that sort of thing and mods shouldn't feel unappreciated when they aren't extended the opportunity to work outside of their job description.

Kura
May 16th, 2013, 04:05 AM
The point of what I brought up wasn't to let them make an executive decision, but rather, first hear what they had to say especially if it affects their section. I know some things have been extended to regular members for our opinion.. but I think it might be healthy to extend the thought to staff first before extending it to the lot of us. I'm not trying to devalue us either but they are also in charge for a reason so it might be valuable for you to hear what they had to say first before a thread may get too cluttered with posts and things get lost. If a thread is too much hassle because of handling those hundreds of posts, make an announcement to them in the staff forums that there was thought for a change maybe.. and then tell them let you guys handle it. If someone has any super blaring concerns about it, then at least they are welcome to PM you about it to at least let you know (and that way you can also give them reassurance without them getting angry at you or anything.)

I know what you mean, and I don't think mods should feel unappreciated either. But if it's a case that's not too serious where you guys feel it can be opened up to mods even just as a "by the way" thing.. then.. heck why not?

I can understand though that you might feel it's an unnecessary time-consuming step, since you call all the shots. I just thought it'd be nice to do so I wanted to mention it.

Elaitenstile
May 16th, 2013, 04:45 AM
Well, my opinions usually tend to be different from the others. But I'm going to try and make a conscious effort to try to have opinions of others.

★Make a different (or disconnected with the server?) place for OLD threads, ones which won't be revived, maybe over an year. I know we can filter them to not show old threads, but they take a load on the server, yeah.
★Weed old members/bots. It's a well known fact that over 90% of members in PC haven't made a single post. Well, these guys should be prevented because a) They eat server load and b) They take away cool names
★I'm guessing a majority of the people want more kinds of PC loyalty signs, maybe more chances of getting emblems, and some other privileges to people who visit PC more than just for random posts.

Mariah Carey
May 16th, 2013, 05:11 AM
I don't see why there should be any 'privileges' for posting, lol, considering you're coming on here to post and have a good time anyway. You post well enough, you get emblems. I don't see any real reason to add anything else to this simple system.

Edit: on a side note, something I'd change would be to make the default avatar size 160 x 160px, simply because that's the same size as some of the photosets on Tumblr, lol. I know it wouldn't ever happen, but it's a nice thing to think about regardless.

Sydian
May 16th, 2013, 07:36 AM
Audy, I just want to point out that it's not that mods want to take over the discussions and such for major changes. It's just that it would be nice if we could know when a decision is made instead of signing on to something totally unexpected. At least with letting us know, we have time to adjust and think, "okay, things are going to be different soon" and prepare for it. It'd be nice if members could know too. Just a little announcement in Community Announcements or the forums that will be affected. That'd be nice. That's all we want, really.

Kura
May 16th, 2013, 11:25 AM
Just thought of something? Are we allowed to secretly nominate someone else for an emblem? Like let's say we go to their profile and see they're really obsessed with ___ or the profile is really pretty/ bright/ whatever, or someone who is a newbie but we think is really mature and contributing a lot, are we not allowed to PM a mod and just say "Hey I think I want to nominate this person for ___ emblem?"
And if it happens it happens and so cool, and if the mod doesn't see them fit yet for the emblem, then it should just be let be.. but I think it might be nice.

Sydian
May 16th, 2013, 12:57 PM
Just thought of something? Are we allowed to secretly nominate someone else for an emblem? Like let's say we go to their profile and see they're really obsessed with ___ or the profile is really pretty/ bright/ whatever, or someone who is a newbie but we think is really mature and contributing a lot, are we not allowed to PM a mod and just say "Hey I think I want to nominate this person for ___ emblem?"
And if it happens it happens and so cool, and if the mod doesn't see them fit yet for the emblem, then it should just be let be.. but I think it might be nice.

Not sure what other staff does, but if someone tells me they think so and so deserves a certain emblem, I go check them out and give it to them if I agree. It's not very often this happens though.

Ausaudriel
May 16th, 2013, 01:17 PM
Audy, I just want to point out that it's not that mods want to take over the discussions and such for major changes. It's just that it would be nice if we could know when a decision is made instead of signing on to something totally unexpected. At least with letting us know, we have time to adjust and think, "okay, things are going to be different soon" and prepare for it. It'd be nice if members could know too. Just a little announcement in Community Announcements or the forums that will be affected. That'd be nice. That's all we want, really.
I know, Syd. Really. My problem is that your only valid reason is "it would be nice." There's no practical reason and it's adding a whole other step into a process that already usually takes weeks from start of discussion to implementation as it is.

I don't at all think anybody needs to "prepare" to having a forum listed in a different category. You're either going to sign on and be surprised by reading a thread saying it'll happen or you'll sign on and be surprised by seeing it done. What... is the difference to you? While for us (hstaff), again, it's adding another useless step into a bigger process that already has a thousand other steps. I hate the bureaucracy that already plagues making decisions in HQ so forgive me if I loathe the idea of things taking even longer.

Big things, like deleting tabletop games? Yes. Of course. No brainer, it needs to be announced. Moving forums from one category to another? No valid reason beyond your own curiosity.

I know it seems like a big mountain/molehill issue at this point and I don't expect you to fully understand because you've never had to experience the tooth-pulling it takes to get stuff done in HQ. The thread we were discussing these category changes in was started two weeks ago. It took two separate "bump" posts from two different people in order to get enough votes to get it done. It's already complicated enough. I don't want to add more time, even 24 hours.

Oryx
May 16th, 2013, 01:17 PM
For a while you could publicly nominate people for emblems, but people were taking it as a given and it became like your friends asking for emblems for you instead of you asking them for yourself so it got stopped. But there isn't any rule against pointing out someone that you thinks deserves an emblem.

Morkula
May 16th, 2013, 01:45 PM
On the whole issue of mods knowing h-staff discussions...I'm just going to echo Audy here and say, it's not their jobs. Yes, our mods are the workhorses of the staff team. Yes, we're very grateful for everything they do and we respect their input. And yes, PC couldn't exist without our mod team.

But the h-staff are the ones responsible for the management of the community as a whole. Mods are responsible for a specific/a few specific forums. Stuff like forum arrangement, new features, and the like, are the realm of the h-staff. Obviously, if we're making a decision that directly involves the way the mods do their job, then it's only common courtesy to get their input before going through with it. But if, for example, your forum gets moved to a different category, it doesn't affect your job in any way. And if there's a discussion about multi-forum or community-wide stuff, it's honestly not the realm of the mods. It's not that we don't respect our mods or value their contributions to PC, it's just not their job to be concerned with h-staff affairs.

There's already enough deliberation and red tape that goes along with HQ decisions - especially since we have such a big h-staff at this point. A lot of HQ discussions drag on for weeks before any action takes place. To delay stuff any more, especially for no reason other than "This is going to happen in 24 hours!", is just redundant and ineffectual use of time.

Antemortem
May 16th, 2013, 02:14 PM
★Weed old members/bots. It's a well known fact that over 90% of members in PC haven't made a single post. Well, these guys should be prevented because a) They eat server load and b) They take away cool names

I personally don't see a major issue with this other than 'that member could return.' Let's be frank - how many six-seven year old members that haven't logged on for, well, six or seven years have returned to full activity, and I mean full, in the past two or three years? One, maybe two? In any case, it's not all that many, and if it means old accounts could be purged to clear up space (if that even helps, that's something I'm not sure of) in the database, as well as free up some a good chunk of usernames, then what's another valid reason for not doing it?

Kura
May 16th, 2013, 02:15 PM
Ah, didn't know it even took that long : | I could understand the frustration then! Well guess that's fair enough! Appreciated the input back on that though!

Also!! Are we ever gonna get post-comment notifications in the future? I know there's been big overhauling with the actual forum, so definitely no rush, but someone (I think it was Harlequin) mentioned it in that other thread Audy made about things going and I thought it would be an awesome feature *__*! Not really something to change but.. adding it would definitely be pretty awesome!

And what do you guys say to having the sender of post-comments visible to us in the CP? Or do you think it should stay anonymous?

Sydian
May 16th, 2013, 07:07 PM
I know, Syd. Really. My problem is that your only valid reason is "it would be nice." There's no practical reason and it's adding a whole other step into a process that already usually takes weeks from start of discussion to implementation as it is.

I don't see what takes away the validity of "it would be nice." Because it really would. How would you feel if your work place randomly changed policies or uniforms one day without telling you beforehand? You walk in and bam, things are changed. It just seems like a courteous thing to do to inform people of any changes that are going to be made.

It's really not a hard thing to say "hey guys, things are going to be this way from now on." It just really isn't, which is why I'm having understanding why this apparently can't be done.

I don't at all think anybody needs to "prepare" to having a forum listed in a different category. You're either going to sign on and be surprised by reading a thread saying it'll happen or you'll sign on and be surprised by seeing it done. What... is the difference to you? While for us (hstaff), again, it's adding another useless step into a bigger process that already has a thousand other steps. I hate the bureaucracy that already plagues making decisions in HQ so forgive me if I loathe the idea of things taking even longer.

Moderators of the affected forums need to be prepared. As I've stated before, it was a slap in the face to sign on and see I didn't mod my own full category anymore and that there was this new forum in GPGD without anyone telling me. If we're not going to tell the forum as a whole when forums are merged and such, that's fine. I'm done trying to get that change made. That's clearly not going to happen. But at least telling the mods would be a step up. I don't know if you informed them or not, nor does it matter any more, but it would be very reassuring to know that you did. And if you didn't, could that at least be an effort to make in the future? Just PM the moderator and say "Hstaff has come to a decision that x is going to happen to your forum soon."

I'm not mad about this or anything. I mean, I was mad when it was my forums, but I wasn't mad per se about the merge the other night. But still. It just, for lack of a better phrase, would be nice.

derozio
May 16th, 2013, 08:35 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with Syd. It might not seem like much of a deal to you but it is for some of us. Just PMing the moderator isn't something I see taking too long.

That said, this:
on a side note, something I'd change would be to make the default avatar size 160 x 160px, simply because that's the same size as some of the photosets on Tumblr, lol. I know it wouldn't ever happen, but it's a nice thing to think about regardless.
Because larger avatar sizes are always nice. <3;

droomph
May 16th, 2013, 08:36 PM
I personally don't see a major issue with this other than 'that member could return.' Let's be frank - how many six-seven year old members that haven't logged on for, well, six or seven years have returned to full activity, and I mean full, in the past two or three years? One, maybe two? In any case, it's not all that many, and if it means old accounts could be purged to clear up space (if that even helps, that's something I'm not sure of) in the database, as well as free up some a good chunk of usernames, then what's another valid reason for not doing it?

Well, if you didn't even make a post in the first place, I don't see how it could be considered "returning"…

And yeah, some people use their accounts just to download attachments in the Emulation section once or twice (I know I signed up this account to do so), so if we get those people out it shouldn't affect them any. Besides. They could just make another one when they want to post.

Moderators of the affected forums need to be prepared. As I've stated before, it was a slap in the face to sign on and see I didn't mod my own full category anymore and that there was this new forum in GPGD without anyone telling me. If we're not going to tell the forum as a whole when forums are merged and such, that's fine. I'm done trying to get that change made. That's clearly not going to happen. But at least telling the mods would be a step up. I don't know if you informed them or not, nor does it matter any more, but it would be very reassuring to know that you did. And if you didn't, could that at least be an effort to make in the future? Just PM the moderator and say "Hstaff has come to a decision that x is going to happen to your forum soon."

I'm not mad about this or anything. I mean, I was mad when it was my forums, but I wasn't mad per se about the merge the other night. But still. It just, for lack of a better phrase, would be nice.Don't you guys have like separate mods and hstaff discussion forums or something? So yeah, either you guys should snoop in on the conversation, or they can post one little thing saying "okay pay attention guys this is what's going down", and you wouldn't have to PM anyone, and it would mostly be a copy+paste job…and if you have a discussion forum for changes with all staff included but only hstaff could make the final decision, you guys have a bigger sample size, and with surveys, that's usually a good thing.

and concerning the bureaucauiewfiawhi the long process that it takes to decide something, you should implement a Phoenix Wright type of system, where within x time if you don't come up with a "solution" the Top 3 or something (oldest? most posts? idk you guys figure it out) will automatically decide for everyone if to go on (ie it's alllmost there, it just needs some more ironing out), or to just skip xyz (you guys are in gridlock over a detail or the whole idea). And I say the top three or w/e can override because (1) this is pretty much their forum at this point, and (2) I can trust that they can make the right decision if they haven't been kicked out of their positions…

Or if it's getting the votes, have all the staff be required to vote within x time (preferably 2/3 days, since that accounts for "required activity" and time zones) so that you don't have to "bump the thread with the votes" and everything.

And if it's because it's slow to get the staff to discuss, just require them to get on and try to contribute (I say try because I know there's some issues where I couldn't care less), because it's their job and minor details like that.

Suggestions, guys. Don't get offended.

Kura
May 17th, 2013, 04:29 AM
Don't you guys have like separate mods and hstaff discussion forums or something? So yeah, either you guys should snoop in on the conversation, or they can post one little thing saying "okay pay attention guys this is what's going down", and you wouldn't have to PM anyone, and it would mostly be a copy+paste job…
Suggestions, guys. Don't get offended.

Oh damn that's a good idea.. kinda like what we have with the like "small changes" thread in announcements. Something that is locked by h-staff in the mod lounge just giving an announcement to the mods before anything is posted/ done yet to the public maybe?

Maybe that would be a good all-around compromise. Not a discussion, doesnt take much time, but still lets mods know IF they need to know/ it is something that can be shared.

<3 Hope this will help <3

Antemortem
May 17th, 2013, 02:04 PM
I would honestly prefer if the whole exchange was more personal and the Moderator(s) that's to be effected by the changes are contacted privately. But that's just me so!

Adventure
May 22nd, 2013, 10:46 AM
OKAY

I think post comments should still be anonymous. Maybe you sometimes don't dare to tell someone who you are when you compliment them or point something out, and you can just type your name in if you do want them to know :3


BUT what I came here to say really is that I want the animated Duskull thread icon to go away. It's annoying and fugly :3
I'm all for pokémon thread icons! But make them non-animated. Maybe I'm just a bit boring, but I prefer my thread index static xD with the exception of smexy board headers on the top, of course.

Sydian
May 22nd, 2013, 11:06 AM
I think post comments should still be anonymous. Maybe you sometimes don't dare to tell someone who you are when you compliment them or point something out, and you can just type your name in if you do want them to know :3

They're anon to everyone except higher staff, actually. :3

BUT what I came here to say really is that I want the animated Duskull thread icon to go away. It's annoying and fugly :3
I'm all for pokémon thread icons! But make them non-animated. Maybe I'm just a bit boring, but I prefer my thread index static xD with the exception of smexy board headers on the top, of course.

Duskull is adorable get out omg. I do agree though that it's odd the Duskull is animted while the others aren't. I'd be more in favor of removing the thread icons really cause they don't have too much purpose, but it's not a big deal if it stays. Maybe we should change Duskull to Dusknoir. lol

abnegation
May 22nd, 2013, 11:07 AM
Just a note: I can't even see who gave me post-comments.

Adventure
May 22nd, 2013, 01:18 PM
They're anon to everyone except higher staff, actually. :3
I know, I just thought I saw someone mentioning above here somewhere that they would like the anonymousity of them removed so I just wanted to object ^^

Duskull is adorable get out omg. I do agree though that it's odd the Duskull is animted while the others aren't. I'd be more in favor of removing the thread icons really cause they don't have too much purpose, but it's not a big deal if it stays. Maybe we should change Duskull to Dusknoir. lol
Haha yeah ok. I feel like there's been a discussion about redundant stuff in this forum at some point recently, where icons and those other redundant images appearing next to the icons in the index were mentioned? I wonder what happened with that.

I like thread icons just because they can make threads stand out a little ^^ But we have rather dull ones, like smiley faces, so a Dusknoir or other pokémon would be a vast improvement - especially considering we are a pokémon forum. Preferably not animated though, but that's just my own preference of course.

Those other icon thingys (to the left of the "post icons") that show if a thread is locked or not and if you have posted or not - I would like those removed. Or rather, merged with the post icons. If it's possible! One kind of icon next to a thread is enough, but I still think it's definitely useful to see a little dot if you are subscribed to a thread perhaps, an arrow if you have posts in it and a lock if the thread is locked. Or something.

@ Gavin, you can't? Maybe you are human after all 8D

Patchisou Yutohru
May 22nd, 2013, 08:47 PM
Don't you guys have like separate mods and hstaff discussion forums or something?
There's a new forum for every staff level. They each have their own purpose. Mod forum is the Mod & Admin Lounge [pretty much the same thing as CQ&F in a weird way], and hstaff is the HQ (and admin is CMD).

So yeah, either you guys should snoop in on the conversation, or they can post one little thing saying "okay pay attention guys this is what's going down", and you wouldn't have to PM anyone, and it would mostly be a copy+paste job…and if you have a discussion forum for changes with all staff included but only hstaff could make the final decision, you guys have a bigger sample size, and with surveys, that's usually a good thing.
The argument that's being made by most hstaff is they don't want to add another step to the process, which I agree with. It takes so long to get things done in HQ it's absolutely ridiculous, and most of the time it's not because it takes time to hammar out the details. When something finally does make the vote, most of us don't want to add another 12 or 24 or 48 hours for the change to occur. So having a post that says "okay pay attention guys this is what's going down" just, as Audy said, adds another step to the process that's kind of unnecessary because changes are announced in the updates thread anyway.

and concerning the bureaucauiewfiawhi the long process that it takes to decide something, you should implement a Phoenix Wright type of system, where within x time if you don't come up with a "solution" the Top 3 or something (oldest? most posts? idk you guys figure it out) will automatically decide for everyone if to go on (ie it's alllmost there, it just needs some more ironing out), or to just skip xyz (you guys are in gridlock over a detail or the whole idea). And I say the top three or w/e can override because (1) this is pretty much their forum at this point, and (2) I can trust that they can make the right decision if they haven't been kicked out of their positions…
I don't really understand this, but I don't think I'd agree to it.

Or if it's getting the votes, have all the staff be required to vote within x time (preferably 2/3 days, since that accounts for "required activity" and time zones) so that you don't have to "bump the thread with the votes" and everything.

And if it's because it's slow to get the staff to discuss, just require them to get on and try to contribute (I say try because I know there's some issues where I couldn't care less), because it's their job and minor details like that.
It's the hstaff's job and responsibility to vote in HQ threads. That's our primary responsibility (in fact, I think it's actually our only real responsibility). So, as far as I'm concerned, all hstaff are required to vote. And I don't like putting a time limit on how soon someone should reply to a thread. I don't know the reason behind other people not replying to threads, mostly because I think I'm pretty spammy in HQ and I generally think it through via my posts rather than gathering my thoughts before posting, but I think most of the time, it's safe to assume that its a case of "Okay, I read this. I'm going to take some time to think about it." And, honestly, I'd rather them take that time to think it through than require them to reply immediately.

Kura
May 23rd, 2013, 10:47 AM
Just a note: I can't even see who gave me post-comments.

Damn.. didn't Syd say you should be able to see them? ._. Deffo should be changed so you can see them.

shenanigans
May 23rd, 2013, 11:12 AM
Huh really? Hstaff can all see post comments through the modcp, just not through normal styles. Or at least I can. d:

Sydian
May 23rd, 2013, 02:11 PM
When I said hstaff can see who leaves comments, I meant overall they can check and see. Not entirely sure about if they can look in their user cp and see them like mods used to be able to, but whether they can or not, I know they can check through what Razor Leaf mentioned. Unless admins gave him crazy powers, haha.

joexv
May 24th, 2013, 09:04 AM
I would have a better mobile site. The current one doesnt work to well and it's harder to find topics and the text boxes pictures and videos will go way off the screen a lot of the time. Other than that the team recruitment thread area, won't post my team thread even though I followed the rules that they wanted.

Mariah Carey
May 26th, 2013, 04:52 PM
Uh, since we can view a list of all the post comments given to us by other people, would it be possible to make it so we can view the post comments we have given to others??? Makes sense to me imo

Jetfire
May 26th, 2013, 06:05 PM
My suggestion/opinion would be for the moderators not to take their jobs so seriously.

I've been in that position where I've been in that "position of power" and all of sudden I'm scrolling through the website with the Code of Conduct closely at hand. Guys, remember that this is a Pokemon website not the White House forums.

Don't get me wrong, I praise your level of commitment towards your job and how seriously you take it. But, the people who join this website solely come for 3 main reasons: Trade, battle and meet new people. If something gets complicated just to get any of the 3, then I'm sure their level of enthusiasm is sure to diminish.

AnonygooseD
May 27th, 2013, 08:41 AM
I just wanna say here that I dislike the crazy amount of closed threads, which are, mainly, made up of 2 posts; 1 by the OP & 1 by the mod closing the thread.
99% of these closed threads are just useless, taking up space & they're not even that important to read, most of them are just threads in the wrong section :P
Can you, mods, please erase more closed threads? OR just move the ones that aren't silly into their appropriate section... IS ANYBODY LISTENING?

Sydian
May 27th, 2013, 08:51 AM
The thing with closed threads is that we need the OP of that thread to see why it was locked, and if they have questions, they can PM the mod as to why it was locked. And other people can look at that thread and in turn know, "Okay, I'll remember this so that I don't get my thread locked like this as well." We only delete threads that are really bad, like trolling threads or porn spammers or adbots.

As far as moving them, I do agree there. I myself try to move as many threads as I can if possible, though I don't move them if they don't meet the requirements for the forum, would go in a forum that goes under approval, there's already a topic about it there, or if even I don't know where it goes, just that it doesn't belong in my forum. But yeah, I have seen threads just get locked and not moved and there, to me, seemed like there was no reason not to, which I don't understand. If you know where it goes and it will fit in fine, there's no problem in moving it and that should be done. That's how I see it, anyway.

Hope that clears up some stuff about locked threads~

Adventure
May 28th, 2013, 04:49 AM
This has been said before and rejected for reasons, I think. I even have some reasons against it, myself. But I would like to again throw out the idea of merging Pokémon Gaming Central and Pokémon General.

So many are confused about which of those two sections to post in and even though I understand that you might want to promote more of a theory based discussion and the concept of pokémon and the pokémon world as a whole in PG, I don't think it's completely necessary to draw a line between discussions related to pokémon in gaming and pokémon in other media/the idea of pokémon.

Not sure where this merged section would be best situated in the main forum index, and not sure what should be done with the manga subforum if it was placed under the gaming discussions, but yeah.

What do you think?

Sydian
May 28th, 2013, 07:35 PM
Actually, I haven't really dealt with too many PG and PGC confusions like I used to. It was really bad back when PGC was General Pokemon Gaming. It got a lot better after the name change and I don't get a big influx of threads that get moved to PG like I did back then. In fact, I get more threads that get moved to in-game team help haha. But I can't say the same for PG. I don't really go in there often, so idk if it's having that problem or not, but I didn't notice a ton of threads getting moved from there to here, unless I'm missing something here. Nick has been watching over that forum lately, so maybe he'll stop by and share his brief experiences, or Toujours might say something about hers.

They were originally together though, and I remember it was quite a mess, which is why it was split. Plus, there are the subforums in PG and putting PG, with the two subforums, with PGC would make it kind of a...super forum. @_@ And both sections are really active on their own so...I don't really see the point in putting them back together. I think it's easier to deal with small amounts of confusion rather than a mass influx of threads everywhere with a bajillion different topics.

It seems like I'm trying to rain on peoples parades in this thread, but really I'm just trying to clarify why some things are the way they are. Believe me, I know where you're coming from on this, and I sometimes think about it too, but then I think of the mess it would really create, considering how much PGC and PG have morphed into their own thing since the time when they were originally together.

Jetfire
May 28th, 2013, 07:46 PM
Another thing I'd probably "promote" more would be the chat. That place is like a waiting room.

I don't really have an elaborated idea on the concept but, it's really dead in there. It'd be cool to have more activity and interaction among members in the chat.

Mariah Carey
May 28th, 2013, 09:11 PM
Another thing I'd probably "promote" more would be the chat. That place is like a waiting room.

I don't really have an elaborated idea on the concept but, it's really dead in there. It'd be cool to have more activity and interaction among members in the chat.

Although TPC's situation is nowhere as hopeless as the Oekaki's, I think it's similar in the sense that there's nothing that can really be done about it. There's been countless attempts to try and make the place a booming hub and whatever, and there hasn't really been a lasting effect from any of those drives. I think it's just one of those things that can't really be helped.
Does Nica still talk there? I'd imagine she wouldn't hang around there after her, uh, graceful exit from the forum, but she was one of the main pushers for activity in the forum and if she's gone, I hold even less hope for the chat.

Antemortem
May 28th, 2013, 09:15 PM
People that want to chat have tended to gravitate towards the Showdown server more now for reasons I'm unsure of. I feel like Showdown is, though, much more user-friendly and the interface is cleaner and more presentable than the sometimes cluttered and distasteful appearance of IRC chats, especially the in-browser version here. I can't speak on behalf of the entire community, though.

Zorua
May 28th, 2013, 09:15 PM
The Showdown server pretty much takes the place of TPC as the dominant chat since activity there is relatively high. It's easier to hold events there too, in case anyone wishes to battle, then they can! If they don't, then they don't necessarily have to; its a nice place to just sit and get to know others nonetheless~!

Antemortem
May 28th, 2013, 09:19 PM
It's easier to hold events there too, in case anyone wishes to battle, then they can!

This as well. The IRC is very limited in what it can do, and is quite literally nothing more than a chat room, whereas the Showdown server also allows battles and some freedom with the things that can be done on it. Weighing the two against each other, I'd much rather hang out where I can do something to bide my time in addition to chatting with others.

Jetfire
May 28th, 2013, 09:26 PM
Although TPC's situation is nowhere as hopeless as the Oekaki's, I think it's similar in the sense that there's nothing that can really be done about it. There's been countless attempts to try and make the place a booming hub and whatever, and there hasn't really been a lasting effect from any of those drives. I think it's just one of those things that can't really be helped.
Does Nica still talk there? I'd imagine she wouldn't hang around there after her, uh, graceful exit from the forum, but she was one of the main pushers for activity in the forum and if she's gone, I hold even less hope for the chat.

Well, this is where I would encourage the active members of the community to pull together and find variable possibilities. This forum has the activity and the members - I sincerely believe that it all ends up on how it's promoted.

Think about it this way. "Speed of the leader, speed of the team." If none or few of the active members don't really use the chat, then it's bound to stay the way it is. Example: why is the introduction forum so popular and doesn't fail to have at least 10 new threads each day? It's because people see activity there along with the fact that it's suggested to make an introduction.

I'm sure there are ways to advertise the chat more effectively.

Mariah Carey
May 28th, 2013, 09:38 PM
Well, this is where I would encourage the active members of the community to pull together and find variable possibilities. This forum has the activity and the members - I sincerely believe that it all ends up on how it's promoted.

Think about it this way. "Speed of the leader, speed of the team." If none or few of the active members don't really use the chat, then it's bound to stay the way it is. Example: why is the introduction forum so popular and doesn't fail to have at least 10 new threads each day? It's because people see activity there along with the fact that it's suggested to make an introduction.

I'm sure there are ways to advertise the chat more effectively.

The intro forum is a bad example to use, but I won't go into that.

If you have a fresh new idea onto how to promote the forum, then I'm sure we would all love to hear it - because it's been literally paraded around the forum multiple times, had countless blogs dedicated to it/conversations from it posted in blogs, people have mentioned it many, many times in their posts, etc. There's also been various Get Together events dedicated to it over the years.
Especially with the rise of the Showdown server, I just don't see what else can be done.

Adventure
May 29th, 2013, 07:42 AM
I don't think this would warrant a thread of its own, so I just hope that someone sees it here.


Pokémon Clubs
This forum is for those who wish to start a club within the community. This forum is for Pokémon clubs; Other Clubs is for everything else.

Pokémon Trivia
Make your own games and trivia, or play games made by other members. Non-Pokémon Trivia goes in the Other Trivia forum.


The bolded words should probably be replaced with the new forum names.

Kura
June 4th, 2013, 04:18 AM
Reading up on this on the DCC..
I know that people on your ignore list get their posts collapsed and whatnot.
But are people on your ignore list not able to vm/pm you? That actually may be good to stop any harassment going on.
I know you can just set vms to friends-only.. but maybe it'd be nice, if we don't have it, to set it to "everyone but those on your ignore list" as an option under "everyone"?


Sorry if we already have this. I don't really know how I would test this haha.

Adventure
June 6th, 2013, 09:49 AM
I just spotted some details in the forum index.

Some sections apply thread moderation. In the index, most of those have a line saying:
New threads in this forum are to be approved by a moderator before they are displayed.

But for the Roleplay Corner, one word is different:
New threads in this forum are to be validated by a moderator before they are displayed.

ermagerd, detaails 8D but just for the sake of consistency, maybe change it to match the others.


Also, Fan Clubs & Groups has thread moderation as well, doesn't it? But the index does not tell you so.

Spherical Ice
June 6th, 2013, 10:09 AM
I think it's stupid that mods should post in revived threads, because that bumps it again. Just delete the post and lock the thread?

Zorua
June 6th, 2013, 10:12 AM
But are people on your ignore list not able to vm/pm you? That actually may be good to stop any harassment going on.


Nope. At the most, when you get a VM from a person on your ignore list, it will appear as a collapsed VM, if anything, saying that "x is on your ignore list" or something like that.

abnegation
June 6th, 2013, 10:16 AM
I just spotted some details in the forum index.

Some sections apply thread moderation. In the index, most of those have a line saying:
New threads in this forum are to be approved by a moderator before they are displayed.

But for the Roleplay Corner, one word is different:
New threads in this forum are to be validated by a moderator before they are displayed.

ermagerd, detaails 8D but just for the sake of consistency, maybe change it to match the others.


Also, Fan Clubs & Groups has thread moderation as well, doesn't it? But the index does not tell you so.

I don't think this would warrant a thread of its own, so I just hope that someone sees it here.


Pokémon Clubs
This forum is for those who wish to start a club within the community. This forum is for Pokémon clubs; Other Clubs is for everything else.

Pokémon Trivia
Make your own games and trivia, or play games made by other members. Non-Pokémon Trivia goes in the Other Trivia forum.


The bolded words should probably be replaced with the new forum names.
Just brought these ahead for quick changes in the staff forum.

Reading up on this on the DCC..
I know that people on your ignore list get their posts collapsed and whatnot.
But are people on your ignore list not able to vm/pm you? That actually may be good to stop any harassment going on.
I know you can just set vms to friends-only.. but maybe it'd be nice, if we don't have it, to set it to "everyone but those on your ignore list" as an option under "everyone"?


Sorry if we already have this. I don't really know how I would test this haha.
Something I'd like to see also, I'm sure it could be added to the to-do list that is ever growing if it doesn't already work this way. I don't have anyone on my ignore list, so I have no idea.

I think it's stupid that mods should post in revived threads, because that bumps it again. Just delete the post and lock the thread?
It's a matter of preference whether you do it that way, or post. I would rather post as I can actually add a personal response and/or suggestion to both the OP and the person who has bumped the thread. Rather than just locking it and leaving a deletion reason on the prior post. It leaves us open to adding a bit more of a human touch, which is not a bad thing in a community. Both ways are just as efficient, however, by posting you give the users a bit more advice or reasoning as to what could be done next and why it had been closed. Does no harm to state so.

Melody
June 6th, 2013, 10:19 AM
Nope. At the most, when you get a VM from a person on your ignore list, it will appear as a collapsed VM, if anything, saying that "x is on your ignore list" or something like that.

Actually it does block PMs from them. Just not VMs, which are collapsed. But you're free to delete VMs anyways.

Spherical Ice
June 6th, 2013, 10:20 AM
I understand those arguments but then why bother locking bumped threads in the first place? If it's going to stay in the index anyway and every thread is going to be like that, doesn't that defeat the purpose of closing those threads?

To be honest though, what harm does thread revival really do?

shenanigans
June 6th, 2013, 10:24 AM
I understand those arguments but then why bother locking bumped threads in the first place? If it's going to stay in the index anyway and every thread is going to be like that, doesn't that defeat the purpose of closing those threads?
To stop people thinking that it's a new thread just because it's had recent replies and continuing to post in it.

To be honest though, what harm does thread revival really do?
It's just messier, really; and we don't want a load of active threads full of users who aren't going to reply to them anyway. Plus, if we removed the thread revival rule, then it'd be such a nightmare searching through old threads given how many of them we have for the same existing topic. It's just easier and more conductive to discussion to keep threads up-to-date with active users and it stops people from having to search too far back.

Spherical Ice
June 6th, 2013, 10:27 AM
To stop people thinking that it's a new thread just because it's had recent replies and continuing to post in it.


It's just messier, really; and we don't want a load of active threads full of users who aren't going to reply to them anyway. Plus, if we removed the thread revival rule, then it'd be such a nightmare searching through old threads given how many of them we have for the same existing topic. It's just easier and more conductive to discussion to keep threads up-to-date with active users and it stops people from having to search too far back.

But how is it any less messy with the threads now locked in the index with posts from the mods saying it's been locked? And what harm is done from people posting in old discussions, if it hasn't been entirely exhausted? I guess it makes sense for things like art threads or hack threads where the owner might be inactive, but even then, if so, it will eventually drop down naturally because of lack of interest.

I do concede that it makes sense for giving newer threads more exposure though (although if they are getting pushed down, maybe that says something about how interesting they are in the first place?) Idk, I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here but I am genuinely curious.

abnegation
June 6th, 2013, 10:40 AM
Many threads include out-dated information, dead links, and so on. This is most prominent in Creative Discussions, however the same can be said for news threads. We like to keep things up-to-date as possible, and relying on people to ensure that the threads they don't post in for over a month or two still have relevant information and live links would prove to be fruitless, and has done.

There's also the fact that a lot of discussions get exhausted, and need to be recycled. If someone sees the same discussion prop up over and over again with the same opening paragraph it may not actually appeal to them as much as if someone else had posted it with a different swing or phrasing on it. We're a land of equal opportunities here, there's absolutely no harm in seeing dead discussions see new light from another perspective in the future; nor is there any harm in ensuring that topics with obsolete information or links are prevented from being bumped over and over again.

Zorua
June 6th, 2013, 11:01 AM
Actually it does block PMs from them. Just not VMs, which are collapsed. But you're free to delete VMs anyways.

Oh, that was poorly worded. I meant to say "nope" as in, "you can't see PMs by them", but yeah. x_x;

Cassino
June 6th, 2013, 11:09 AM
Might I suggest that the revival cutoff for threads be raised to two or even three months?
Why was one month, specifically, settled on to begin with?

Zorua
June 6th, 2013, 11:13 AM
Might I suggest that the revival cutoff for threads be raised to two or even three months?
Why was one month, specifically, settled on to begin with?

In my opinion, I'm completely okay with the one-month rule! Think about it in the case for sections like X and Y for example: It keeps conversations fresh and new, ready for anyone to discuss it. Think of it in a psychological sense if you will. Most things beyond page 2 or 3 in X/Y are considered to be one month old, and as such, they're okay to be re-made, to bring back more discussion about it (actual discussion is irrelevant but hopefully you get my point), and hopefully get some fresh perspectives, y'know?

I personally feel that, if it was raised to two or three months, that it would make it significantly harder to remake threads because of that one specific discussion thread that just wouldn't die, aka it would take threads approximately forever to actually "expire". But maybe I'm just thinking of things in the worst case scenario? For me, I want to re-make threads that have been dead for a month because I want to garner interest from newer people, and hey the same people can post in those threads too! It's really just to catch people's eye is all, kind of difficult to explain, really.

Patchisou Yutohru
June 6th, 2013, 11:33 AM
I think it's stupid that mods should post in revived threads, because that bumps it again. Just delete the post and lock the thread?
I usually just delete the post and not lock it.

Sydian
June 6th, 2013, 01:00 PM
One the posting in and locking revived threads, I think it's more confusing to just delete the post and lock the thread. That member might come back to that thread to see if anyone else said anything and they'll wonder what the heck happened. It'd also be tedious to have to VM/PM a member every time they revive a thread and say, "Yo this is what happened."

Besides, even though posting in the thread to say "hey i'm locking this because x" bumps it back up, it'll fall eventually as long as people are posting in the active threads. So it's not a huge issue, in my book anyway.

That's just my stance on it though.

Ausaudriel
June 6th, 2013, 04:59 PM
I hate the thread revival rule and wish we could get rid of it but I know I'm the only hstaff who thinks that way, so whatever.

Also how about a dialogue that pops up to send a PM to the member automatically when their thread is locked? That way the thread doesn't get a modpost bump but the member is still informed about what happened to their thread.

Antemortem
June 6th, 2013, 05:04 PM
Also how about a dialogue that pops up to send a PM to the member automatically when their thread is locked? That way the thread doesn't get a modpost bump but the member is still informed about what happened to their thread.

I actually think that'd be really cool.

bobandbill
June 6th, 2013, 07:00 PM
It's not a bad idea, but I don't think the modbump post in of itself is really a big issue? After all, bumping a thread in the first place brings up a thread with no posts since a month, and usually from not the first page. Posting in it again doesn't have as much of an effect as the thread was already brought up to the front/top of the page. (And again, it may look weird to other members who don't notice dates to see the thread closed without a reason given).

Generally I'll either post in the bumped thread and close, but I have left it open before if it seems there's going to be good discussion in it again (and that it's relevant too, unlike a say 'please help with problem' thread; those are usually resolved at the time).

Adventure
June 6th, 2013, 11:32 PM
I think the thread revival rule is good, for reasons that have already been said. And like bobandbill says, the modbump isn't really that much of a bump, is it? Because the original bump already happened and pushed it up, so O.o Also, locking a bumped thread with a visible post might make other members see it and go "Oh right, I should remember not to do that".

Airhead
June 7th, 2013, 03:27 AM
They changed the name changing system. Ugh! Soooo annoying! Plus they should update JavaChat, terminal style is NOT in. It was in the late eighties and the early nineties, but seriously! THIS IS 2013! NOT THE EIGHTIES! That reminds me, update JavaChat, ASAP.

Aim for the skies!