What would be the key to transparency?

Dragon

Dragon

lover of milotics
  • Pokémon General General Pokémon General Cadet Level Ball Master Ball
    • 11,152
    Posts
    11
    Years
    Well, you know, new year, new adventures, but.. maybe same problems? Well, its been heard all the time: this forum is too staff centric, there's not enough transparency, and so on, and, I can understand that; what if the maximum enjoyment of this forum.. only comes from being a staff member? It's... not a good thought. D:

    So today, I thought it'd be nice to hear what you guys think on some things:

    How can the relationships between staff and member improve? What do you think we can do to improve on transparency between staff and member? Maybe there can be more communication involved?

    Any other thoughts you'd like to share on this topic? Feel free to tell. :3
     
    I've not been here very long, so I expect my opinion on this is going to be either incomplete or misinformed in some fashion, but I'll share my thoughts anyway.

    I honestly don't think the forum is staff centric; on the contrary, the staff members that I've spoken to are quite approachable, and member feedback isn't ignored; if anything, it's sought after. Of course, without knowing how staff operate behind the scenes and how decisions are made I can't say for certain just how staff centric the forum is, but...well, I don't NEED to know that, and neither does anyone else not on the staff really. It's up to the staff to make decisions regarding the forum's structure, and be responsible for their individual sections.

    It's the same on every forum; it's not a process that needs transparency unless there is a serious disagreement, or unless an individual has a specific question...and then it's just a matter of clarifying decisions, which in itself isn't an unreasonable thing to ask for or a difficult thing to do. Just saying "We're not doing this because [insert reason here]" if members ask for something, or saying "We've given you a warning because [insert reason here]" if a member thinks they've been dealt with unfairly; that's all the transparency you really need.

    There is a feedback and Q&A section for members to raise questions, say what they think of existing staff members, and make suggestions about how the forum can improved. Short of giving all members mod powers, I don't really see what else can be done to improve transparency. Unless you want to make the staff section of the boards (I'm going to assume this forum has one; it'd be very strange if it didn't. xD) visible for all to see anyway, but that would be quite extreme and highly unnecessary, as the main way members can have their say on the running of the forum are more than adequate. Most forums I've been on don't have a staff feedback thread, and a lot ignore their Q&A sections. Mods are unapproachable and often little better than machines, there to do their job and nothing else. I've been chatting with some of the mods here since the day I joined, and I've never really felt intimidated by them...well, not because of their position, anyway; I'm a naturally shy person until I warm up to people, but my point is that the staff I've dealt with here have been both approachable and reasonable, at least to me. Maybe I haven't been here long enough to have an argument with one yet, but until that happens, I can only base my opinion off my current experience. I could go and do something controversial to provoke one and see what happened, if it'd help? xD

    There is always going to be a level of disparity between staff and member; it's what comes of having the position, and of having the power to make decisions and manage sections; of being able to do what members can't. Communication is always good, and when it comes to major decisions or actions on member feedback, it's nice to know what is going on, but beyond that? Well, members don't really need to know; it's what the staff were chosen to do, so it's up to them. That doesn't make a forum staff centric, and if the staff are actually doing it, that just means they're doing their jobs properly.

    Anyone who thinks that you can only get the maximum enjoyment out of a forum by being on the staff needs to shift their thinking a little. Being a moderator is a privelege, and it does make the experience more enjoyable by and large, but you can have just as much fun on a forum being a regular member. Being a staff member can be quite stressful and take up a lot of your time, especially on larger forums: you have expectations and responsibilities to fulfil that you don't have as a member; it's not all fun and games all the time. That kind of complaint, in my opinion, typically comes from faulty perceptions, or from people not knowing exactly what the job involves. Obviously I've not been a mod here, but I HAVE modded large forums in the past, so I think I have a fair idea in a general sense. Staff members are well-known and often popular, but it is quite possible to be both of those things without being on the staff, it just requires a little more time and effort usually. But that isn't the fault of the staff or a flaw in the system; it's just something else that comes with the job. The forum isn't going to work very well if the mods are all despised, is it?

    In short? I'd say just carry on as you were. So long as staff members are active, helpful and, most importantly, approachable, and member feedback continues to be taken into account, I don't see the need for greater transparency or drastic changes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    There is a high probability I'm ignorant of a lot of things, or misinterpreted this topic; as I said, I haven't been here that long, and I've not really noticed any issues. The most ruckus I've seen in my time here was concerning something Sodom said, and that was primarily sparked by a troll I believe. But maybe I've not noticed anything because there hasn't been anything to notice. But that's just my two cents on it~
     
    Last edited:
    Whilst I won't be as eloquent as Zeria, I tend to agree. The staff members have always seemed quite approachable to me and clearly the forum is open towards making changes that will improve the enjoyment of users.

    The best thing that the staff can do is to continue you be integrative and inclusive towards non-staff and to create and be involved in forum and community events that bring users together through either cooperation or competition.
     
    Team Fail said:
    I too agree with Zeria, but I'd like to make one point of my own.

    The board's description does say, "Additionally, your valued input may be required on PokéCommunity-related issues so check in often!", however, in the entire time I've actually been a supporter (I'd say just over three or four years, I'd have to double check that), I think that's only ever happened once or twice. Is the staff just not doing that as often anymore because it's not required, or...
    Click to expand...

    We noticed that recently too :< don't worry, we're working on it ><.
     
    Yeah I haven't had any problems with the staff in the year I've been around. Just the opposite. I see the 'pokecommunity degenerates' thing in a few signatures, and I don't get it at all. But I would say we need to get some disgruntled voices in here, to hear their side. This is a total echo chamber right now lol

    In general, the more we're all in communication, the more we'll see each other as ordinary people, and the harder it will be to hate. That's the theory anyway, works most of the time


    EDIT: I should also add that I heard on NPR about a study of people on train rides. They found that people who engaged in conversation with the stranger next to them ended up in a happier state of mind than those who kept to themselves. They also found that most people were willing to talk, but assumed that the other person wasn't!

    I dunno how much that applies to online interaction, but I'd be willing to bet that the same principle is at work.


    EDIT EDIT: It seems like people really wanna know what's in the staff forum o_O. Probably just because it's secret. I bet it's all just mundane business stuff for the most part heheh.

    But here's a thought. The staff could evaluate what needs to be confidential and what doesn't, and allow the users to see and maybe even participate in a few staff activities. Not knowing what the staff does, my suggestion might be impossible or it might already be happening, but that's my two cents.
     
    Last edited:
    Zeria said it really :P

    I haven't been on in a while so it may be a quote unquote "issue" that's arisen in that time, but from my experience (6 years off and on now) PC staff are quite the opposite of closed off and staff centric. On the contrary, they're easily one of the most open, approachable staff groups I've come across and they're generally awesome people. ^^ This is mostly apparent when a staff member resigns their post - in general they stay on and continue to be an active part of the community. They genuinely want to be here and tend to work together in the site's best interests. Not only that, but the level of staff members interacting normally between regular users on a day-to-day basis is almost unprecedented compared to other sites.

    I think it's that level of 'transparency' that always draws me back here. They're friendly, helpful and open to good ideas. Of course there are discrepancies (we're human, we can't be perfect), but broadly speaking PC has a great record imo.
     
    I don't have a problem with the current transparency of the forum management.

    I can see it in a way though. There are decisions made without consulting the user base. Name changes for example. But IMO, as a normal user, it's also not our place to worry about potential forum policies. I'm content letting the forum management decide witch direction to take the community. It's the really nice thing about being a normal member is not having the extra responsibility. I like having a place that I can come and hangout without having to do something. PC is a place to chat with friends.

    I can see how some might say it's not transparent enough, but I don't see the forum as staff centric. It's probably just new people who are are little overwhelmed by the size of the forum. It doesn't help that the most active people are the staff members.
     
    Zeria up in here with a bomb ass post what up.

    But really, Zeria covered all the points. There's nothing more that really could be said about the subject other than what the first post itself says, communicate. Chat with the members as much as you can. Let them know that the opinions that were claimed to be valued are actually valuable to you. People don't need to be told their opinions matter, but it's always nice to know that they've been heard and taken into consideration when it comes to a section or thread. Plus, the people here aren't supporters for the hell of it. They love PC! Their opinions want to at least be acknowledged.

    Much of this is something I was guilty of as a staff member, and I get it, MANY times it's never intentional, things just get a little out-of-hand. One thing I regret is never going in and REALLY trying to make it better.

    All of this being said, in the recent months, the communication that staff has been trying to have with the memberbase has really been incredible. MUCH more than it used to be from what I remember it, and that's awesome!
     
    in my opinion the lower/blue mods seem to have the transparency/accessibility thing under control, or at least, they try to make up for it

    that's never been the matter for higher staff
    while i understand that they have to keep various aspects of the forum under wraps as part of their job, it doesn't seem like they've ever done anything to remedy the long-running complaint of them shutting themselves off from the rest of the forum
    naturally i'm aware that they've tried to fix this perception, but the effort that seems to go into it has historically only been short bursts and only after a complaint has been made
    and thus other people get the impression that they're indifferent and only make an effort when it's time for them to keep up appearances
    to their credit this seems to have been maybe 20-30% fixed during the year or so that i was gone from here, mainly due to the hiring of socially 'out there' mods (sheep, juli, etc), but the disconnect still exists

    however i'm not here to simply be critical, and i am conscious of the fact that i've never been inside the staff forum, so i would love to discuss this
     
    I am going to avoid writing paragraphs here. Honestly there's not much we can be transparent about that we're not already letting people know. We tend to let users know if we're working on something if it happens to be relevant to a discussion in CQ&F or something similar. We work our asses off when we have a chance to bring new features, styles, and site improvements and announce them as soon as they're ready. Seriously, there's very few forums still on vB 3.8 that offer as much diversity and modernisation as we have been attempting to create and offer as often as possible.

    Now community integration is another matter entirely. The higher the ranks go, the less involved staff seem to be right? That's been the way of PC for a long time. However that's beginning to change over the last year or two. There's 3 Super-Mods (Sheep, Sydian, myself) in the top 12 most publically active staff. There's usually an Admin or two (Went, Razor Leaf), however they were each on leave recently. As a unit we really are trying to make a push to be more involved in the community than the stigma suggests. Of course there's some who will remain quieter in public, but at least not all S-Mods and Admins are hiding away like we were used to for years on end.

    Truthfully I'm in the same boat - the more involved staff are in the community the better the forum runs.
     
    Also staff forums, and coding for PC take it out of you man, no matter what you don't have the same time to post everywhere as you used to once you "climb the ranks" so to speak.
     
    The forum is far-too staff-centric. At least it's not as bad as it's been before, with the upping of supporter perks. It's still not the greatest.

    A few things need to happen to better member-staff relations, and the biggest one I can think of is to cut down what both staff and supporters get in exchange for their time/money. HTML usertitles, gargantuan avatars, insanely lengthy signatures (though that is universal), and God, the username formatting! It's too much, really – the way staff usernames just take over the entire page is far from acceptable if you want members to feel on a more equal footing with their posts and opinions.

    As great and wonderful as the staff can be, the opinions chalking this up seem biased. Imagine someone who hasn't been on PC ever before, or is maybe even new to forumming altogether – I gander they'd agree with me with how cliquey things appear. As nice and approachable and all the staff and supporter regulars are this does not change the unspoken bias that's presented towards us.

    I would suggest to cut the bold out entirely from usernames, and leave colours in place universally. The supporter and staff usernames really need not be differentiated between so much with the likes of italics and bold.

    All in all, having a lot less perks would help better member integration. Good luck convincing anyone to want to do that, though.
     
    The thing is, it's the same anywhere. If you get people using a service and put them in a conversation with the staff supporting and running this service, the users are going to feel intimidated and back down a little.

    With this forum it's the same. The mods are incredibly active and very friendly. This is in no way a bad thing, however it does intimidate the regular users and makes them feel a little out of place if the staff are all communicating in a friendly manner to the supporters and older users. Supporters and staff generally appear as 'higher-ups' compared to regular users. And while not everyone is put out by this relationship, a lot will be. When you scroll through a thread the amount of colours you see on the left for the usernames of all the users posting is immense. Silver, blue, gold, italics, bold. Now take a regular user with a grey username and no fancy supporter badge or moderator banner. They will feel like a lesser poster, because they don't have all this bling to go with their post.

    In short, people weigh the value of their post partly on how their user is portrayed. If you want users and moderators to feel on more equal terms, you need to take away these colours and bold and italic usernames and fancy user titles and immense profile pictures which all add to the dominating appearance of supporters and mods. Subtlety is the key when differentiating between users. The minute you separate people with such a barrier as coloured usernames and big avatars, those without these benefits will feel oppressed and less willing to talk for fear of appearing small and insignificant.

    Now I've said all that I don't want to sound anti-staff either. On the contrary, I absolutely ADORE the staff on this board, because of how friendly, approachable and mature they all seem. Honestly, I feel a bit bad about my previous two paragraphs. But that's the mentality a lot of users will take. I know, because I see it every day. Everywhere I go. I think, the design for users on the board needs to be revised for regular users to feel more open to post more. I could give a lot of suggestions on how to change the appearance of staff and supporters, such as moving the banners and making them smaller, removing the italic and bold usernames, and perhaps limit colours to user titles and reduce the size of avatars to regular. Give profile privileges still, and blogs etc. but the regular appearance of those with the privileges needs to be cut down.

    Now then. This is where the supporter system gets hit, if these changes are made. Because I'm sure that there are those who donated solely for the perks given, and not because they particularly wanted to support the forum. If changes like this are made so you don't gain so much by supporting the forum, then less people will support the forum. But the equality will be a lot greater, more regular users will post more, and the disparity in posts from regular users and staff will decrease and the board will flourish. That's how I see it anyway.

    Maybe you agree maybe you don't, but I can tell you more people than you think will be thinking this way, because more people than not see staff as absolute opinions on matters, and when you broadcast your status in such an... obnoxious way (not by choice I know, but that IS unfortunately how it appears to some) people will be nervous to have an input that may not agree totally with them.

    Again, to end my post I feel bad about speaking out against you staff, because I think you are all amazing people for the work you put into your various boards to make them as good as they can be. I have not a single complaint against you, in all the time I've spent here, old and new. I speak only on the user appearances, not against any of you (love you all!) ><
     
    Senusret said:
    The forum is far-too staff-centric. At least it's not as bad as it's been before, with the upping of supporter perks. It's still not the greatest.

    A few things need to happen to better member-staff relations, and the biggest one I can think of is to cut down what both staff and supporters get in exchange for their time/money. HTML usertitles, gargantuan avatars, insanely lengthy signatures (though that is universal), and God, the username formatting! It's too much, really – the way staff usernames just take over the entire page is far from acceptable if you want members to feel on a more equal footing with their posts and opinions.

    As great and wonderful as the staff can be, the opinions chalking this up seem biased. Imagine someone who hasn't been on PC ever before, or is maybe even new to forumming altogether – I gander they'd agree with me with how cliquey things appear. As nice and approachable and all the staff and supporter regulars are this does not change the unspoken bias that's presented towards us.

    I would suggest to cut the bold out entirely from usernames, and leave colours in place universally. The supporter and staff usernames really need not be differentiated between so much with the likes of italics and bold.

    All in all, having a lot less perks would help better member integration. Good luck convincing anyone to want to do that, though.
    Click to expand...

    I'm sorry, but what exactly is staff doing wrong when it comes to interacting with members? Are we being negligent? Are we ignoring people overall? Do we have an attitude where we feel superior to others? Because honestly, besides a few instances in the Staff Feedback thread where users have butted heads with another, I strongly believe that relationships between staff and members have been very, very positive.

    You talk about things being cliquey if one joins PC and they see these bolded usernames and whatnot, but what's wronn with that? If I was a new user that saw an italicizef blue name - which, remember, would also seem strikingly similar to the Crystal tier - then one could easily get the two mixed up. The main reason why names are bolded is so that these new users and users in general can know "okay, if I have an issue on staff, I can approach this person and have my problem addressed." It's not a badge of superiority, but rather one of assistance.

    Furthermore on the idea of cliques, you're always going to find a clique - whether on the Internet and real life. Everyone had their own group of friends and while it may seem that we as a staff tend to be inclusive on matters, were really not. We have a tendency of chatting with one another a lot because we have to work together a lot. That being said, those aren't the only friends we have: i can easily name how srinator, Ryanna Jameson, Arc, Juno, derozio, Archer99, gimmepie, maccrash, Luck Hax, Hikamaru, Sonata, and on and on the list goes are just some of my friends that I talk to on a constant basis.

    Staff doesn't have an unspoken bias toward supporters. As a Platinum supporter myself just like you Alex, you can at least have my word that we don't. Considering I paid $100 to get to this rank, I know how underutilized this section and some of its perks may feel. The VIP Forum is supposed to be a location where staff and supporters can work together for the future of the forum, which in recent months I have actively been pushing for more and more feedback integration into the section. Thankfully, we're finally doing that (which wasn't a result of me, but rather the iniativie of mod's like Antemortem and Dragon - I had no association with that.)

    Outside of the VIP Forum, we do our best to make sure we can create the most positive experience for everyone. But obviously not every interaction is going to be a good one. Sometimes a staff member will clash with a regular member on an issue, and people by and large in the end are still held accountable for their actions even though it may not seem like that on the surface. But I reassure you that we are not being biased towards supporters.
     
    El Héroe Oscuro said:
    I'm sorry, but what exactly is staff doing wrong when it comes to interacting with members? Are we being negligent? Are we ignoring people overall? Do we have an attitude where we feel superior to others? Because honestly, besides a few instances in the Staff Feedback thread where users have butted heads with another, I strongly believe that relationships between staff and members have been very, very positive.

    You talk about things being cliquey if one joins PC and they see these bolded usernames and whatnot, but what's wronn with that? If I was a new user that saw an italicizef blue name - which, remember, would also seem strikingly similar to the Crystal tier - then one could easily get the two mixed up. The main reason why names are bolded is so that these new users and users in general can know "okay, if I have an issue on staff, I can approach this person and have my problem addressed." It's not a badge of superiority, but rather one of assistance.

    Furthermore on the idea of cliques, you're always going to find a clique - whether on the Internet and real life. Everyone had their own group of friends and while it may seem that we as a staff tend to be inclusive on matters, were really not. We have a tendency of chatting with one another a lot because we have to work together a lot. That being said, those aren't the only friends we have: i can easily name how srinator, Ryanna Jameson, Arc, Juno, derozio, Archer99, gimmepie, maccrash, Luck Hax, Hikamaru, Sonata, and on and on the list goes are just some of my friends that I talk to on a constant basis.

    Staff doesn't have an unspoken bias toward supporters. As a Platinum supporter myself just like you Alex, you can at least have my word that we don't. Considering I paid $100 to get to this rank, I know how underutilized this section and some of its perks may feel. The VIP Forum is supposed to be a location where staff and supporters can work together for the future of the forum, which in recent months I have actively been pushing for more and more feedback integration into the section. Thankfully, we're finally doing that (which wasn't a result of me, but rather the iniativie of mod's like Antemortem and Dragon - I had no association with that.)

    Outside of the VIP Forum, we do our best to make sure we can create the most positive experience for everyone. But obviously not every interaction is going to be a good one. Sometimes a staff member will clash with a regular member on an issue, and people by and large in the end are still held accountable for their actions even though it may not seem like that on the surface. But I reassure you that we are not being biased towards supporters.
    Click to expand...
    I think part of my post may have gone over your head – I wasn't being sarcastic when I said the staff were great and wonderful. You'l be hard pressed to find problems with the staff's behaviours, yes – that's actually PC's strong point in the scheme of things. I wouldn't be so defensive if I were you, just to say.

    The problem with the staff being great and wonderful is that not everyone necessarily has the interest to see that! It's a very internet-centric thing for anons to clamour around abstractions to do with hierarchies — in other words, people still see the big bold yellow or red or blue username far more easily in the recent users list and regardless of the staff's behaviours any day that can put people off – and that's just one example. The abstractions behind the duties and other things with staff (and the money supporters give) should be cut down so as to help those who aren't already staff and don't have money to give to the site feel closer to home with things. Once again I reference Linus Tech Tips as an example of a forum where a username isn't par for the course of being a really integrated forum member.

    Luck Hax is an interesting case though – I donated for George once and he really really disliked it and asked me to remove it. From what he's told me he wants to be that 'integrated' sort of regular without the abstractions and perks I mentioned earlier. Which is good on him.


    Really though, as much as I could agree with you that a bold username isn't a badge of superiority, on too many a site it is and anons are going to see what they will with that. It's not a personal thing, trust me.
     
    Senusret said:
    I think part of my post may have gone over your head – I wasn't being sarcastic when I said the staff were great and wonderful. You'l be hard pressed to find problems with the staff's behaviours, yes – that's actually PC's strong point in the scheme of things. I wouldn't be so defensive if I were you, just to say.

    The problem with the staff being great and wonderful is that not everyone necessarily has the interest to see that! It's a very internet-centric thing for anons to clamour around abstractions to do with hierarchies — in other words, people still see the big bold yellow or red or blue username far more easily in the recent users list and regardless of the staff's behaviours any day that can put people off – and that's just one example. The abstractions behind the duties and other things with staff (and the money supporters give) should be cut down so as to help those who aren't already staff and don't have money to give to the site feel closer to home with things. Once again I reference Linus Tech Tips as an example of a forum where a username isn't par for the course of being a really integrated forum member.

    Luck Hax is an interesting case though – I donated for George once and he really really disliked it and asked me to remove it. From what he's told me he wants to be that 'integrated' sort of regular without the abstractions and perks I mentioned earlier. Which is good on him.
    Click to expand...

    Then I honestly think that a minority of users - which is how I personally portray it - shouldn't outweigh a majority's feeling and understanding of a feel of a forum. I find that a lot of users say that the forum is staff centric, but very rarely back up their assertion with actual claims or evidence.

    In the end we're just speculating how new users feel about this kind of issue. We have no idea how they actually feel.
     
    El Héroe Oscuro said:
    Then I honestly think that a minority of users - which is how I personally portray it - shouldn't outweigh a majority's feeling and understanding of a feel of a forum. I find that a lot of users say that the forum is staff centric, but very rarely back up their assertion with actual claims or evidence.

    In the end we're just speculating how new users feel about this kind of issue. We have no idea how they actually feel.
    Click to expand...

    Maybe a public poll could be done, then? Here and there I've just seen a few speck-members say similar to what I did. It'd be really helpful to have evidence for this.
     
    I think this sort of issue is unavoidable - members wanting more transparency. I've seen it on every forum, and game I've been on to be honest. I truly believe that there will always be individuals who wish to know more, and they are allowed to want to know more and express that. You don't often hear people letting you know that they are telling you enough or too much though. So in a way you will only get feedback on this subject from the ones who want more, unless you make a thread like this one (good job).

    Although I am not a super senior member here I do feel that the staff are helpful, approachable, and provide information when probed for it. I don't feel an utmost distance. Do I have admins/smods writing on my profile everyday trying to be my friend? No haha, but that's totally fine. Even if I didn't see admins posting on a regular basis I would be fine with that. I understand they have other responsibilities and their position doesn't exactly require them to be super active posting wise. They should be open to questions when need be, but eh, I am pretty accepting of how this place is run for what I know so far. My experiences with smods (I don't think I've asked much of an admin) have been positive, and it's the same case for my experiences with mods. The forum is huge, and busy, it's hard to know all the staff and know everything they are doing. The other thing is we don't need to know all that they do.

    As long as the staff are open to constructive feedback and respond in a mostly open way then I think the staff are as transparent as they really can be! Good job, folks. ^_^
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top