The Staff Feedback Thread

Cb92xtreme said:

I reported a post on The Treehouse because they were calling me "Gay" and none of the Mods there did anything. I think what happen was that they like it cuz Shining Raichu likes it and that is enough to keep it there. I tried the nice approach, but nobody care and it seems like unless you have a friend that is a Mod, Super Admin or Admin you won't be helped... I just wanted the post removed because I don't want a bad rap.

Click to expand...

Understand when you report a post it may take a while for it to actually be removed. However it has been so there is no reason to discuss this issue further.

Cb92xtreme said:

I reported a post on The Treehouse because they were calling me "Gay" and none of the Mods there did anything. I think what happen was that they like it cuz Shining Raichu likes it and that is enough to keep it there. I tried the nice approach, but nobody care and it seems like unless you have a friend that is a Mod, Super Admin or Admin you won't be helped... I just wanted the post removed because I don't want a bad rap.

Click to expand...

I think that the joke Patchisou Yutohru and littlemonster were making flew over your head, and you are probably the only one who did not get what they were doing. They were making fun of the South, not you. No one should think lesser of you because of what they said. This has nothing to do with staff playing favorites.

Well, whatever, I'll post this here. Some feedback for Spherical Ice and Christos for being an awesome ROM Hacking mods! Always spotting who's breaking the rules watch out.

Cb92xtreme said:

I reported a post on The Treehouse because they were calling me "Gay" and none of the Mods there did anything. I think what happen was that they like it cuz Shining Raichu likes it and that is enough to keep it there. I tried the nice approach, but nobody care and it seems like unless you have a friend that is a Mod, Super Admin or Admin you won't be helped... I just wanted the post removed because I don't want a bad rap.

Click to expand...

Nobody called you gay lol. Go back and read the post.

The consistent failure/refusal to do anything with Round Table despite continual member feedback about lack of growth and change of any kind is a pretty big disappointment in my eyes.

God said:

The consistent failure/refusal to do anything with Round Table despite continual member feedback about lack of growth and change of any kind is a pretty big disappointment in my eyes.

Click to expand...

I won't bother with excuses because there really aren't many, but we can only do so much as a staff team. Not saying we've put in stellar effort, but a lot of the goals you had in mind (atmosphere, accessibility, activity) can't be achieved by the staff alone - that's entirely up to the memberbase. We could flood the area with threads, but if people don't show up to post in them, it's not going to help.

The accessibility of the area was already toned down from D&D and RT was meant to alleviate that pressure, BUT I will agree that we probably need to amp up the effort of differentiating between what goes in Treehouse and Round Table. Not that that's always an easy task either. It comes down to the thread's creator (in some cases) to decide what kind of responses they want.

Activity can't be achieved without members wanting to be there and we also can't be the sole contributing element, but I still recognize where we've made some errors with it. Appreciate you bringing it up again though. I know you're trying yourself, so the least we can do is give it a serious look and see what results we can come up with.

Klippy said:

I won't bother with excuses because there really aren't many, but we can only do so much as a staff team. Not saying we've put in stellar effort, but a lot of the goals you had in mind (atmosphere, accessibility, activity) can't be achieved by the staff alone - that's entirely up to the memberbase. We could flood the area with threads, but if people don't show up to post in them, it's not going to help.

The accessibility of the area was already toned down from D&D and RT was meant to alleviate that pressure, BUT I will agree that we probably need to amp up the effort of differentiating between what goes in Treehouse and Round Table. Not that that's always an easy task either. It comes down to the thread's creator (in some cases) to decide what kind of responses they want.

Activity can't be achieved without members wanting to be there and we also can't be the sole contributing element, but I still recognize where we've made some errors with it. Appreciate you bringing it up again though. I know you're trying yourself, so the least we can do is give it a serious look and see what results we can come up with.

Click to expand...

While I completely understand the criticisms about the memberbase not holding up their end of the deal, so to speak, I think it comes back to staff kinda leaving the forum to its fate and therefore it stagnating, as there hasn't been any effort to give it a new identity past the name change. The name was changed and then... nothing happened? And while I'll always appreciate dear Nick, he's just been too busy as an smod and more importantly as a real life person to give it attention as of late.

Ausaudriel said:

Honestly, even despite the rebranding and changes, I still think of that forum as D&D and never browse it. I literally never went in there before and habit is a hard thing to break, so even if the forum is different now, its previous identity haunts it. I think there are a lot of people like me who just don't go there.

Click to expand...

This comes back to how there hasn't really been any effort (from all sides, really) to combat the preconceived notions of the section.

This forum has the members to have some legendary debates -- but I feel like the staff are having trouble defining what the true purpose of that board should be. The Round Table needs to be a place purely for topics which foster genuine discussion, but instead even slightly profound topics from the Treehouse are just sorta getting dumped in there. I mean just look at Serebii's debate forum for instance. Their platform is simple and straightforward with little intervention from the moderators, and the members can freely express their opinions in a formal environment. I'm not sure if that's your vision for The Roundtable but that kind of setting gets some damn good talks going. Just a thought.

Honestly, I preferred the old D&D to the Round Table (love the name change though). I agree that the heated discussions were definitely throwing people off, but I also tend to feel that those heated discussions are what people came for.

It seems to me that in the effort to make the Round Table more accessible and toned-down, we've also lost what made it's memberbase interested in staying active. There's something of a thrill that comes from arguing a point, and whilst we definitely still have that option in RT the rebranding and emphasis on a more relaxed nature might have hidden that from the vision of our debaters.

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority with that view though.

I sure as shit don't go to D&D/RT for the heat

I think that the lack of effort on improving D&D/RT comes from the fact that very little has been discussed on how to fix D&D. There's been a lot of identifying problems with the section but hardly any specific things proposed in the way of how to actually fix it. Ya can't really begin to fix something if you don't have any ideas to try out. I also assume that hstaff didn't do much in regards to the section after the rebranding because they, for the most part, felt that the rebranding would breathe extra life into the section.....even though it only did so initially.

At the very least, one thing we can work on for sure is making the distinction between the Treehouse and the Round Table much more clear, since the lack of distinction between the two is hurting both sections right now and everyone seems to agree on that. The question is what exactly shall the distinction be?

Before D&D was just a place people avoided with clear guidelines on what goes there.

Now the Round Table has been rebranded to be more loose, and thus blends slightly with Treehouse due to that fact. However, making the Round Table really serious again would just put it back to square one. With how well D&D prospered, I'd say it's likely people that visit Pokecommunity just aren't interested in debates or serious discussions.

I think the biggest problem is just that, honestly. PC is light-hearted and serious discussions don't have much of a place. Just my two cents though.

I mean don't get me wrong, I really like the Round Table and enjoy posting there, but it's just... people typically don't seek out heavy things to reply to. Maybe the next step would be to observe how other big forums do a serious section and get some feedback through that? (See: Spiff's post) Though in my experience, serious discussion sections never do have bustling activity, or really any activity for that matter. It's not the lack of staff input.. people just typically enjoy lighter things.

Though, I think putting Round Table back to a more formal setup (not as tight as D&D, mind you) might be beneficial. Receiving the more "serious" topic rejects from Treehouse doesn't seem like a good place for the Round Table to be.

I think what also needs to be said is that the memberbase here are very.... suspect with what gets designated as 'heated'.
It's no small wonder that D&D had such a bad reputation.

As Universe mentioned, there just doesn't seem to be much of an interest in serious discussions which explains why the activity isn't as much as we were expecting. Most people here just like light-hearted discussions better, and most serious stuff can often descend into fights when something goes wrong.

1. The previous "reputation" is a little exaggerated/overstated. Other Chat/Other Chat & Discussions/D&D had its moments, sure, but let's not confuse being held to a higher standard of discourse with words like "heated", "scary", "srs bzs", etc.

2. Yes, we need to differentiate it some more/do something else with it, whether that be a reversion to old D&D or something else, I do not know. I'd rather return to old D&D with maybe some tweaks to the formula, personally.

3. The section doesn't have a ton of established regulars so it's simply not as active as it used to be. It was different about a year or so ago, but going through three different Moderators in a short amount of time, (late 2013-early/mid 2014) really hurt it. And I no longer have the time to fix it again. Members make a section, a staff member can only do so much. The interest is there, its just that the topics need to be compelling and the atmosphere needs to be conducive to creating a community feel.

A staff member can only do so much, but as we both said, you're too busy nowadays and so there isn't really a staff member present in there to begin with :/

God said:

A staff member can only do so much, but as we both said, you're too busy nowadays and so there isn't really a staff member present in there to begin with :/

Click to expand...

Truth. Part of the problem is that we've looked for a mod there for quite some time, and sadly nothing has panned out in there. But the first step to fixing it is finding a dedicated Mod for the section.

Stormbringer said:

Truth. Part of the problem is that we've looked for a mod there for quite some time, and sadly nothing has panned out in there. But the first step to fixing it is finding a dedicated Mod for the section.

Click to expand...

What happened to the previous mods in the section? I wasn't around for the end of 2013/p much all of 2014 so the prolonged death of D&D wasn't during my presence.

The way I see it, things do ultimately fall on the members, but my original post stemmed from the fact that staff have left the section to flounder because of inaction. Make a mod for the section, get the mod to consult with higher staff about the proposed future of the place (we already have nuuuumerous member thoughts) and then put things into action. Members either want a return to the old D&D or they want a D&D with looser restrictions. Round Table was, in theory, the realisation of the more relaxed D&D people wanted, because of the exaggerated perception of the place. But once the name was changed, nothing else followed because, well, you were too busy and staff didn't take notice afterwards.

I think the Round Table still has promise; the blurred lines that people have about the section are around because no one's been around to shepherd a defined difference between Treehouse/Round Table. As I said, the name was changed and then the place stagnated due to inaction. The idea of Round Table is quite clear: relaxed higher discussion. Deeper than the post and go nature of Treehouse, but not as 'analytically focused' as D&D. It wasn't that much of a step down from D&D, and it didn't borrow much from Treehouse. It just took enough to try appease to those who felt alienated by the section. It was supposed to have a more personal focus as well, a place where people could talk about themselves and their life. I, for instance, made a relatively successful thread asking for personal experiences about weed, LSD and my own interest in the subject. It went well. I think the distinction between Treehouse and Round Table is quite clear, it's just been muddled and confused because there's been so little opportunity (from both members and staff) to really play around with it.

I, too, agree that it falls down to the member base. Forgive me if I sound too pessimistic in my opinion that there aren't many straightforward things we could change about the Round Table.

It is my opinion that the number one factor responsible for D&D's previous success, as well as the lack of activity currently seen at the Round Table is regulars, as pointed out by Stormbringer. The old D&D had its success due to a balance of regulars - those who argued with more passion vs. those who had moderation, as well as those who, in broad brush strokes, sat on the left vs. the right. There were "rivalries" that bled into contentious discussions across many threads, and this has the effect of bringing people in, affecting upon them an emotional response - just in general giving them something easy to respond to.

Also, contention seems to (at least for this community) be a necessary condition to activity. I have a feeling that there's roughly the same number of posters as there always has been, but the back-and-forth between a few posters responsible for much of the activity (let's describe activity as post-per-time) just isn't there. A dispassionate pursuit of knowledge might be noble, but it's heightened emotions gets the fingers typing.

Now to address God's point: did members want a more relaxed D&D? I'm sitting here and I'm thinking that our (at least my own) perception that members wanted a more relaxed D&D was not entirely accurate. The memberbase at large might have an opinion on D&D, but it might be the case that the although memberbase at large expresses an interest in a more relaxed D&D, it isn't any more motivated to participate in what is now the Round Table. Basically, we based a decision upon the perception of people who aren't into the discussion style of the Round Table, no matter how heated or not it is - people who aren't significant stakeholders in the section.

At the end of the day, I don't believe the Round Table is a place where you just simply talk about things, because I'm sure that's not what captivated regulars in the past. The Round Table is a place where you give arguments, premises and conclusions, and contentious ones at that. I think that aspect is non-negotiable and it means that OCD/D&D/Round Table would have a relatively narrow following, compared to more relaxed sections. That's just something we have to live with (but keep in mind that it's something that we've always lived with, even if we didn't recognize it).

Now, if we treat the scrutiny and analysis of posts and opinions within the Round Table as a given, then I think it would be appropriate to bring back the contention and controversy. Nobody enjoys a heated conversation for its own sake, but I'll wager that those who are attracted by the analytical style and social-scientific-political subject matter of the Round Table, even if they post there once a month, would rather a section that's more sizzling than flat - even if we would all vent about how polarized the section is from time to time.

In summary, I'm becoming attracted to the idea that it was D&D's contentiousness that made it compelling and that's something the Round Table is missing at the moment. I think the only real solution is to have a moderator or two who will trudge through the little or long while. OCD/D&D came about organically, and while I'm not opposed to having events on principle, I do believe that they need a more established community to be self-sustaining. I think the best solution is to have some person(s) give the section some direction, nudge it along so to speak. I think I have more to say but it's like 4:20 in the morning (blaze it!) so I'll leave it right here and get the fuck to sleep. The fucking birds have started chirping and I will not have my silence :(

Nah said:

At the very least, one thing we can work on for sure is making the distinction between the Treehouse and the Round Table much more clear, since the lack of distinction between the two is hurting both sections right now and everyone seems to agree on that. The question is what exactly shall the distinction be?

Click to expand...

Yunno, I've never really liked the idea of "legislating" a distinction between the sections and agree with flight. I feel that a "you'll know it when you see it" approach is best and that was how things were done in the past. The general consensus is that the Round Table is less active than the D&D and OCD days, but interestingly enough, I feel that D&D/OCD was less distinct from GC/OVP back then. I think GC/OVP was doing pretty well back then too. I have a feeling that creating distinctions is going to be less effective than we think it would be. I don't know, it's worth talking about.

Also, also, also. I did a quick count of the post counts of threads created in the two most recent monthly periods (from today back to May 18, and from May 17 up to April 18) and the counts are 343 and 372, respectively. I remember I made a thread about D&D in the mod section wayy back when and I had uploaded some Excel files detailing post counts sums of threads created within a certain month. I can't find the original file on any of my computers and I can't remember where I had uploaded the files, so if somebody could get a hold on those Excel files, that would be highly appreciated. It'd be nice to have some kind of objective measure of activity between now and the past, just for the sake of comparison. From what I remember, 343 and 372 seem to be on the low end of those months that I have recorded but not unprecedentedly low. But that doesn't mean anything unless I have something to compare to. The thread containing these files was probably created between December 2013 and February 2014. I'd be so grateful if I could get my hands on them again :)

God said:

What happened to the previous mods in the section? I wasn't around for the end of 2013/p much all of 2014 so the prolonged death of D&D wasn't during my presence.

Click to expand...

Well, there was two who were promoted in late 2013 (one of which being Kanzler over there) and they both ended up quitting due to real life issues, and the one who followed them (aka the one who was promoted early 2014) ended up losing his spot due to inactivity, and no one has replaced him since meaning we've now gone through over a whole year of the section completely being in higher staff hands, and as we know they all don't have enough time to look there.

As mentioned, promoting a new regular mod is the first step to help the section get back on its feet. And that should hopefully bring a new generation of dedicated regulars to the board.

Many thanks to Omicron apocalypseArisen for helping me out with those excel files!