What would be the key to transparency?

[Her]

taking away perks will do jack shit aside from drawing the ire of most of those who donated or earned their position

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

taking away perks will do jack shit aside from drawing the ire of most of those who donated or earned their position

https://linustechtips.com/main/

It can work. It's only up to PC as to if it will or not.

It's actually kind of sad how so many would lose their shit over some statistical advantages lmao. smh, PC. Damn.


Also, the idea of "earning your position" and the notoriety behind these usergroups is the root of the problem. Moderating and administrating is a job, and you give the staff what they will for that. In the context of a job the payment is actually rather silly – on most forums you give the moderators reverence and respect because they're not getting a shitload of benefits in return for it... lol

 

[Her]

https://linustechtips.com/main/

It can work. It's only up to PC as to if it will or not.

It's actually kind of sad how so many would lose their shit over some statistical advantages lmao. smh, PC. Damn.

Bear in mind that the forum you linked is a forum far different to PC in terms of style, structure and average age of the users. Also bear in mind that the advantages gained from donating here are, at a quick glance, vastly different to those on linustechtips.com
And of course people would be annoyed? The majority of members are unlike yourself and therefore don't have a moral highroad For The Good of PC. They donated and in return received various privileges in return for helping out the community, though of course we all know that most donate solely for the privileges themselves. Some donated many years ago; when they donated, they were afforded privileges that were understood to be binding and permanent. Things have been rearranged over the years, but they've ultimately retained what they paid for. If you take away perks, then you're violating an agreement of the time.
But yeah, you're not exactly going to win people in your favour by saying 'It's actually kind of sad how so many would lose their shit over some statistical advantages lmao. smh, PC. Damn.' Like... chill, you're no better than anyone else.

Also, the idea of "earning your position" and the notoriety behind these usergroups is the root of the problem. Moderating and administrating is a job, and you give the staff what they will for that. In the context of a job the payment is actually rather silly – on most forums you give the moderators reverence and respect because they're not getting a shitload of benefits in return for it... lol

You earn a position by standing out and being a suitable member and in return you earn some fun side effects from moderating a Pokémon forum. You're taking it far too seriously.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Bear in mind that the forum you linked is a forum far different to PC in terms of style, structure and average age of the users. Also bear in mind that the advantages gained from donating here are, at a quick glance, vastly different to those on linustechtips.com

Yes yes, different forum, different forum, different forum, different forum... obviously. That's why there's the word 'can', in the sentence, I think.

And of course people would be annoyed? The majority of members are unlike yourself and therefore don't have a moral highroad For The Good of PC. They donated and in return received various privileges in return for helping out the community, though of course we all know that most donate solely for the privileges themselves. Some donated many years ago; when they donated, they were afforded privileges that were understood to be binding and permanent. Things have been rearranged over the years, but they've ultimately retained what they paid for. If you take away perks, then you're violating an agreement of the time.

I've never heard of this binding permanence with donator perks. Legally speaking PC's disclaimer makes that negligible, anyway.

But yeah, you're not exactly going to win people in your favour by saying 'It's actually kind of sad how so many would lose their shit over some statistical advantages lmao. smh, PC. Damn.'

Am I trying to win others over? Nope. I'm answering the topic, providing my solution to the issue of transparency. I'm not some people-pleasing tryhard.

Like... chill, you're no better than anyone else.

You serious?

You earn a position by standing out and being a suitable member and in return you earn some fun side effects from moderating a Pokémon forum. You're taking it far too seriously.

And I imagine so is LTT and LinuxQuestions.org and Ubuntu Forums and a hundred other websites with fully content and functioning memberbases with far less weighed on staff and donors than PC

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.

Do you ever wonder why it's a minority complaining about these things? Hello, most people who aren't already turned off by the mere fact of the matter are met with denialist responses like these!

PC's memberbase has some problems. No one's saying the staff are devil worshippers, no one's making a statement about their work ethic, even though nearly every criticism of them turns into that. The bigger thresholds and CSS and other notice-me-senpai crap for people's e-peens has to go if you want a larger memberbase. That's the most I can say.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

Again, that's just speculation over the "minority user voicing opinion" matter. Unless concrete proof is made from either side, then we're just spitballing and generalizing as to what is actually going through the head of users.

 

[Saki]

On the topic of donation:
I donate because I like the site and want to support it, the perks are just an aspect that comes with it. It's a plus.

 

[Nah]

You earn a position by standing out and being a suitable member and in return you earn some fun side effects from moderating a Pokémon forum. You're taking it far too seriously.

I think that this (the bold) is the main problem here. People take being on staff or being a supporter far too seriously. They attach all this meaning to it when they shouldn't. Why people should be revered because they have a colored username and a thing in their postbit that says "moderator"/"community supporter", and why people should feel inferior and/or excluded because their username/postbit isn't, is beyond me. Last I checked I wasn't better than or more important than anyone else on the site. Yet some people feel that way anyway.

Chill out PC, chill out.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

I think that this (the bold) is the main problem here. People take being on staff or being a supporter far too seriously. They attach all this meaning to it when they shouldn't. Why people should be revered because they have a colored username and a thing in their postbit that says "moderator"/"community supporter", and why people should feel inferior and/or excluded because their username/postbit isn't, is beyond me. Last I checked I wasn't better than or more important than anyone else on the site. Yet some people feel that way anyway.

Chill out PC, chill out.

o_O

Wasn't this exactly what I was illustrating earlier? lmao

It seems you're looking at it wrong. People shouldn't be revered over a status bar or username, that's not what I was getting at at all. They should be revered because moderating and administrating is, I dunno, hard work? But apparently on PC it's all fun fun fun so what am I talking about

Again, that's just speculation over the "minority user voicing opinion" matter. Unless concrete proof is made from either side, then we're just spitballing and generalizing as to what is actually going through the head of users.

Right, so if you can't see it then it doesn't exist. That's the greatest thing I've ever heard. Come on, now! You can do better!

 

[Nah]

o_O

Wasn't this exactly what I was illustrating earlier? lmao

.....uh, yeah, I guess it is

It seems you're looking at it wrong. People shouldn't be revered over a status bar or username, that's not what I was getting at at all. They should be revered because moderating and administrating is, I dunno, hard work? But apparently on PC it's all fun fun fun so what am I talking about

People should be revered (if we're going to revere anyone at all) because of what they've done and who they are. Being a staff member doesn't automatically mean that one is a great person is what I'm trying to get at.

Right, so if you can't see it then it doesn't exist. That's the greatest thing I've ever heard. Come on, now! You can do better!

I agree with you on this.

Guys, just telling someone that there isn't a problem when someone feels that there is one is really unhelpful. Ya gotta explain to them why there isn't a problem or how they can fix it.

 

[Hikamaru]

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.

This is pretty much everything I agree with. I see nothing wrong with member-staff interactivity and in recent time it has actually peaked, along with more higher staff publicly posting as opposed to years ago where they usually only stayed in their private areas.

Also, I definitely agree with the "badge of assistance, not superiority" that staff carry. The reason why the names are bold is so they stand out and a new member can easily approach them when the assistance is needed. And what he says at the end is also correct, staff are not intentionally biased towards supporters, given you can see that Matt here talks to so many non-staff friends, whether supporters or not.

It's also great that we're now getting actual feedback threads in the VIP Forum, thanks to recent threads posted by Dave (Antemortem) and Shawn (Dragon), but there's also Matt's various QOTD threads which was a great effort from him to push more feedback into the section and that's why he does such a great job at getting others in on the opinion.

 

[Nihilego]

unpopular opinion time yey

regarding the staff centricity "issue", i just wanna point out a couple of things.

1) this is not something that the staff are able to resolve without either having a lesser part in the community or being less receptive towards member interactions. i can tell you right now that neither of those are going to happen.

2) if you choose to centre your view of the community on the staff then that's not exactly our issue. if you think the forum is too centred around staff then... complaining about it to staff isn't going to resolve anything. see point 1). you have more power than us to change this. if you dislike the focus on staff then it is your job, as a member, to focus on your fellow members instead of asking the staff to resolve something that is, by nature of our position, unresolvable.

i mean some of the stuff i've seen around this is honestly starting to sound pretty farfetched. i skimmed this and saw that some people are attributing it to our username formats? really? the only way to change how something works is to make that change yourself. if you don't like the way something's going then just do it differently. this is not a difficult concept.

i personally take a fairly mild stance on this. i think pc is staff-centric to a degree, i don't think this is something that's anybody's fault, and i think that if it's a real issue it can be changed by people changing how they interact with other users here. it is our job to, first and foremost, maintain the staffing of this forum. that duty is distributed between 40-50 or so of our over 13,000 currently active (according to the stats anyway) members and the maintenance of the community itself is everybody's job, staff or not. don't you see that just by pinning the staff-centricity issue on the staff themselves you're contributing to it by essentially validating the idea that we have a bigger role in this place's wider community than anyone else? if you want something in terms of the community here to change then it is your job, as part of this community, to help facilitate that change. not to point fingers until someone accepts the blame.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

unpopular opinion time yey

regarding the staff centricity "issue", i just wanna point out a couple of things.

1) this is not something that the staff are able to resolve without either having a lesser part in the community or being less receptive towards member interactions. i can tell you right now that neither of those are going to happen.

2) if you choose to centre your view of the community on the staff then that's not exactly our issue. if you think the forum is too centred around staff then... complaining about it to staff isn't going to resolve anything. see point 1). you have more power than us to change this. if you dislike the focus on staff then it is your job, as a member, to focus on your fellow members instead of asking the staff to resolve something that is, by nature of our position, unresolvable.

i mean some of the stuff i've seen around this is honestly starting to sound pretty farfetched. i skimmed this and saw that some people are attributing it to our username formats? really? the only way to change how something works is to make that change yourself. if you don't like the way something's going then just do it differently. this is not a difficult concept.

i personally take a fairly mild stance on this. i think pc is staff-centric to a degree, i don't think this is something that's anybody's fault, and i think that if it's a real issue it can be changed by people changing how they interact with other users here. it is our job to, first and foremost, maintain the staffing of this forum. that duty is distributed between 40-50 or so of our over 13,000 currently active (according to the stats anyway) members and the maintenance of the community itself is everybody's job, staff or not. don't you see that just by pinning the staff-centricity issue on the staff themselves you're contributing to it by essentially validating the idea that we have a bigger role in this place's wider community than anyone else? if you want something in terms of the community here to change then it is your job, as part of this community, to help facilitate that change. not to point fingers until someone accepts the blame.

The staff centrism is only something the collective can change. And unless everyone hops on the boat of fixing that nothing is going to change. If it's apparent people prefer the focus CSS puts on certain user groups then it will stay that way – if the collective userbase of PC prefers the opposite, that will reflect as well. The staff's decisions are a best guess as to what the members want, but it's not an all-satisfying thing. There are loud minorities in any project or cause or whathaveyou. It's important to remember that just because the majority doesn't see something as a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as a problem or not; it's still there and whether it's a valid issue is the majority's decision.

User name formatting is a little over-the-top, don't you think? Are italics on top of bold necessary, or even bold at all? I've seen other places where members have a fine time scouting out staff just by colour alone.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

If you want to be part of the collective to lead by example, try seeing what your collective would say about removing their supporter colours. I'm being serious.

That's really too much, IMO.

I really think there is a Middle Way which can be taken with these sorts of things if the members want it. Removing colours is honestly a bit ridiculous, but at the same time would I ever have 25,000 PMs? Just as an example… maybe things could be thinned out to the way they were years ago. Or not.

At this point though I may just be playing Devil's Advocate… which is a bit unnecessary. I think it's a good idea at heart but done wrong could really be rather catastrophic… to be truthful.

 

[Ho-Oh]

On Smogon we just use banners under usernames no need for username colours and everyone knows ranks as they are. We get fancy banners if you lead something (not just a mod, because all mods at basic level get a moderator badge, but if you're a leader of a section then yea), or smod or above. There's a lot of mods which more work on ideas within communities rather than moderating so its more badged user centric rather than staff. Given there's over 200 badged users, as a whole Smogon seems less based around staff and more based around any community member that contributes, everyone earns a badge if they contribute enough, and get recognition. They don't need to be staff to, and get a perk that gives them access to an area like mod lounge now. The mods are just... on ground with everyone else, they see what the other badged users see, and collectively they all make the decisions. Higher staff just discuss the high level stuff but I honestly like how being a mod there isn't like gigantic like here, because anyone feels like they can contribute evenly because of the range of contributions that they can have. Not that I want a badge system here or anything to change, just giving a comment on if this really is an issue on PC, there's other things that can be changed like that, so having a staff position doesn't mean as much, rather all it means is you can do more for your forum, but anyone that contributes as a whole is about even (other than higher staff). It's p cool. But yeah I'm fine with how PC is, and I know it's different and I know it is staff centric but who cares, it's how PC is, and it probably won't change from how it is unless things massively overhaul. The staff communicate enough with everyone else anyway so there's no real issues there. Back in 2009 or w/e the staff were totally different to now so it's good how it is given what others mentioned about the more visible approachable staff. I dunno what I'm saying but I hope you took something from this post!

I'll back away now!