Community Open Discussion

[LATER BUDDY]

Nah we used to have one and I remember it causing a lot of problems.

I think a big factor of people hardly posting as much as this place used to years ago are the status updates actually. They aren't bad necessarily, but the fact people can just shotgun thoughts on the side of the main page in a few words means less people spend time posting a paragraph or two in a topic they have to fish around for. And it's totally understandable, and most of our media outlets online anymore function in this manner because it's convenient. And to tie into that, I don't think it's any secret that forums in general are a dying breed, especially when you got reddit around haha. I just don't see or hear about dedicated fan forums as much anymore, at least not in grand scale.

But I'm not saying "BAH REMOVE THE STATUSES, I WANT MY '06-WHATEVER SSMB EXPERIENCE BAAAACK," but I think it's just something to keep in mind that the forums aren't going to be as active when you have an easier form of communication hanging around. And of course there are other factors too that help this fluctuate such as when we get a new main Sonic game to talk about, E3 is around the corner, and what have you. We've had slow seasons before on SSMB and I swear these kind of topics and addressed problems come up every time.

[TCB]

I've been a member as long as I've been a lurker and it's no surprise to hear one of the big reasons new members feel intimidated or reluctant to post their opinions and stuff without being talked down or feel foolish is due to the "attitudes" or "management procedures" of the moderating staff. What Aoi is saying I do agree with, and while it's unfortunate that has been stirred up into a reason from an outsider's perspective at the same time that shouldn't be the case at all. I know of other forums I've used to visit that does frankly feel more welcoming, and even has a 'New Member Hangout' section for that purpose; to ease and welcome New people into the boards.

I come to get that yeah OK if that's who they are and be whatever, but don't let it cloud your duties here and like what Aoi said be hypocritical and play the victim card. For one personally I sure as hell wouldn't take you any more seriously like that.  Which bring me to another thing, changing for the better. I'm someone who wants to see it when I believe it, and if this change is restore then you have to do your part. Don't wait for it to be handed to you otherwise you didn't change. I've seen this be said time and time again, and I'm sure it's going to be said in the future. 

Coming back toward the whole discussion thing, the veterans/newcomers dissention hasn't changed, and the previous posts are examples of why. Which is why if you're gonna be posting in the Sonic Discussion, good luck and you better know what you're talking about. Not trying to play Devil's Advocate here but I can see why non members have such an unfavorable idea about this place if they hear about heated arguments from memebrs or whatever, then a mod intervenes and do what Aoi described, or its a mod/member going at it. I don't blame them one bit. You're the public face more or less after all of this site. To me I see no hassle in getting into spats like that as it's a waste of time getting worked up about the subject matter of what this board was made for.

Then again, I'm someone who's is just there anyway so I don't feel what I said here would change people's minds or be that outspoken regardless. 

[WhoWhatMan]

Yea, I honestly have a hard time posting in discussion threads because I always feel like I get upped by someone else (mostly by users who have established popularity) and basically make me look dumb. Like many others said, I think it kinda unprofessional when a mod go like "OK, you're banned now for being a idiot" or whatever in s topic and just get 10 likes even though it didn't really add anything to the discussion and basically a "Ha, I win" message? I'm probably explaining this poorly but I feel like it would be better to ban or give a strike to a user behind the scenes instead of making a seemly big deal of it.

 

I remember one time where some seemly popular person on here got banned and everyone is going crazy in the status about it while people who didn't know what going on are like "yo tell me what happen" and add more fuel to the fire. So yea, idunno, I recommend when it come to banning or striking person I think the mods shouldn't publicly announced it and just do it.

[Badnik Mechanic]

25 minutes ago, I'm Dan said:

I recommend when it come to banning or striking person I think the mods shouldn't publicly announced it and just do it.

You know I used to think that, but now I don't.

I actually think it should be mentioned, aside from the whole accountability argument. Some people who I know on here I only have contact with on here so if all of a sudden they're not here I would like to know why, and can someone actually give a good reason why members shouldn't know about who got banned or the reason why? 

In all the years I've been on here, only once have I seen a member been completely banned unfairly and ironically, had people not seen it odds are it wouldn't have been overturned let alone known about, and this was back when we used to have chaos emeralds under our post counts.

But also, knowing why someone got banned does actually help with how people act if you ask me. 

Take the reason why this topic exists, I had no idea who it was, I had a suspicion as to what topic events occurred in, but having no information as to who it was or why... well... how does that help get a message over as to what is considered over the line? Heck, I probably would never have figured it out had I not checked the TSS inbox and seen a 'why was I banned email' reading it I clicked 'yeah not that surprised at that one.'

 

Not saying it should be banners with Banned on them or some kind of 'why X was banned' etc. But if someone says 'why was X banned' it shouldn't be a 'we don't discuss it! Locking status!' kind of deal. I'd kinda like to know if I'm not going to see people who I know and interact with in the future. 

It doesn't even have to be a huge discussion to follow it up either. E.g. "Why was X banned" Answer: either quote the forum rules or link to post. That's all the official line has to be.

[Mauro Fonseca]

Yeah, having a clear log of why bans happened helps with the mood, I think. Might cause disagreement with specific bans, but the alternative just causes the feeling of "secret police", you know? "oh, Ivan's gone, don't say anything, the KGB won't like it".

EDIT: Oh, hadn't even noticed Dan's mention of this seems to refer to my ban (sorry for the egotism if it doesn't). Yeah, that was kind of a fun mess. Ignoring whether the ban was right or not or how I had no warning of it, from an outsider perspective, it really would've helped to have some sort of log to point to, since I just remember suddenly everywhere SSMB touched there were people going "why the fuck was KKM banned?". Lots of noise that would've easily been cleared.

@Chris- I feel you may have taken my rambling a bit personally, not in the sense of against you personally, but in the sense of it being about Nepenthe. I won't disagree to some bias there on my part, but I'm trying to convey a worry that goes beyond her- again, from what she says, she's working on confines that allow her to rant, be publicly angry and biased, etc. like a normal member. I'm calling attention and disagreeing with the confines themselves, not her.

 

EDIT: Put another way, as far as I can tell, she did nothing wrong, since "getting emotionally involved in a public fight with a member" appears to NOT be a verboten option. If it were legal for people to steal others' cars, I might disagree with the law, but the burglars themselves are doing nothing wrong.

[Regulus]

I'm not bothered about ban details being undisclosed, but why do we have to be secretive and shifty about it. Take this for an example, why do we have to refer to Mr Taxi as 'a member' or 'that member' e.t.c. It's like at work and someone gets fired and you aren't allowed to mention them again, it's unpleasant

Sure, we shouldn't be telling mods what to do and e.t.c, but why can't people just say Mr Taxi got banned. We all know he did, and we all know his banning is what started this thread. But for some reason it's like Voldemort, he who must not be named

 

[Mauro Fonseca]

18 minutes ago, Aoi said:

We have a set of rules and a warning/strike system so moderators can work out these situations individually member by member. Having the entire community know how and why a member was banned sounds like it leads to more public humiliation, shit talking, and fear mongering. Which adds more fear and then makes the forum more boring.

Let's put SSMB in a workplace situation. When someone is fired, a boss will say, "This team member was let go due to personal differences with management." Not, "Yeah, here is a list of EVERYONE that has ever been fired. And why. Here are all the rules they broke. That guy was basically a jerkoff." It just doesn't send the best message to the other employees. If moderation is done right, it doesn't even have to come to that.

Hahaha, you guys are acting like bans are happening every day. I don't think the staff can stop anyone from talking about a banned member. But I don't think it's appropriate for everyone to have an open source 'ban log.' If I were a staff member and was approached by an individual with "Why was XXX banned?" I would tell them openly and honestly what I felt about the situation without any use of personal attacks. Open source ban log sounds tyrannical. Honestly a "list of shame."

Eh, comes across as that to you, to me just comes across as a clear open "this is what we're doing".

Bumbleking had this system, and it worked fine as far as I'm concerned. Someone was banned? No spamming the statuses, FB, etc. going "what what why". It's there in the thread for it- "April 4th 2016, Member Such and such, banned for breaking rule this. Ban lifts never due to previous warnings."

[TCB]

Methinks the idea of an 'open source ban list' works/gel well enough with some places and other don't. Depending on general atmosphere and how big that forum's community is in my eyes determines whether or not having a list of banned members and how they got banned is reasonable. For a place like this....eeeeeeh I don't think that would be a good idea if by 'open source' it's viewable to non members. That said even if something like that WAS made public it'll likely be viewable to like singed in members and on the specific subforum or something. Plus I just don't think this place can handle having something like that anyway but that's just me.

With that said, the notion of 'hush-hush no talkie of that member of whom must not be named' never really works, especially if their banning became something of attention and expecting people to just look the other way and not even have a slight curiosity behind why? Nah I don't see it like that. If someone wants to know so-amd-so about a member...and this is a stretch-isnt that what PMs are for anyway if you really want find out so you know 'oh OK here's what happened OK I'll won't say anything else thank you'?

[Daisy-Fan]

Hey its cool to see you posting around again Aoi. i do still remember the old pre 08 SSMB. I'm not sure but i was lurker around the board and my English was very terrible at some point back then. But i do totally remember back then i was feeling be less welcome at that time somewhat. maybe that's just me but that new SSMB i do love lurk around and read post and trying to get in the discussion about the current state of sonic games or about the old ones compared to the past board. maybe that's just me feel right to post stuff.

[Yoko/葉子]

Pardon my naivety, I have avoided the Sonic discussion, but only because I can't think of any thoughts to share. Has there really been that much arguing?

[Chris]

5 hours ago, Aoi said:

Hey hey, lurker incoming. And these two support everything on my mind.

I think the situation was poorly moderated. This may attribute to the like system. I’m not sure, ‘cause it’s never been my thing. The community may also deem the moderator banner shinier than it used to be.

I think in this specific situation, an admin or even a separate moderator should have stepped in and diffused the situation. An impartial party. And then the original moderator can continue the conflict over PM. And that’s the problem I’ve seen with current moderating. Whenever I had a problem member, I would basically post, “Let’s continue this over PM.” Write up a response via PM and delete their following posts to the specific topic. Then we would hash out something over PM and action would take place there.

The culture now is for a moderator to come after a spammer or a problem member only via the community. I’ve seen topics where a moderator will have a 5-6 post exchange with a member. The community doesn’t want to see that, it seriously derails the topic. It also brings fear into the community. Members now see if they cross a moderator or an affluent member they will be punished or humiliated, so you never should disagree with either of those two parties.

Honestly, I think this forum has been boring for a long time because no one even wants to post their opinions anymore. It’s all surface value discussion (that opinion is strictly chitchat/personal because I have no interest in Sonic). I’ve seen so many discussions where it goes completely dead after a controversial opinion or it’s a 1v10 argument (bandwagon) where one poor sucker gets obliterated by more clique members or moderators. I’ve even seen these arguments devolve into bullying calling the opinion ‘weird’ or the member an idiot.

What worries me is this new need to exert power. And that’s what happened with Palas situation. Instead of taking a more professional or passive approach like, “Hey we’re taking care of this situation out of this topic, continue this discussion.” It was much more aggressive. Even though it mentioned the administrative action, I basically read, “Haha, Palas. I win. Moderators win. The admins let me. You’re banned. Give me likes.” ..And I don’t think my interpretation is too out there. There might be more private moderating taking place and that’s the staff team’s business. All I know is, for how little time I spend here, I still see a lot of this aggressive moderating approach.

I’m also not generalizing every staff member, I find others to be super chill or never here (I’ve totally been there). So I’m not knocking the staff down a peg, just disagreeing with many new member management methods.

I would also like to suggest a New Member program/topic/whatever again as the two above mentioned. Is there a topic anymore? There is no new fresh ideas because our forum is basically full of insiders and new members are intimidated. To cultivate good members, staff members and people who care about the forum need to be the ones welcoming them in rather than being the authoritative law. During my earlier member days and as my time as a staff member, whenever anyone posted in the new member topic, I’d either post in the topic, PM them, or add them to MSN Messenger. Get to know them a little, guide them through the rules, usually correct their bad grammar and answer any questions they may have. I probably did this with at least 100 members a year. And many of them became great contributors, including Gunther. I also made a lot of friends this way. Once they had a friend on the moderating team or a popular member friend, they felt confident to voice their opinions. They felt like they were a part of a larger community and that someone would have their back. I’ve seen these ties severed over the last few years. And this project is totally unrealistic if a new game is announced, but it’s nice to pick up during Sonic game lulls.

One more word of advice, I guess. It’s just something I’ve noticed through this entire altercation. Please just be true to yourself. If you’re a more accommodating moderator, own it. If you’re an asshole moderator, own it. I hate to mention *THE LEGEND*, but that’s why everyone appreciated Roarey Raccoon. He was an asshole and he would openly say “Yeah, I’m being an asshole.” Not everybody saw him eye-to-eye, but he did his job and he wasn’t a hypocrite. If you’re going to be a condescending prick moderator in every post you make and then look around and say, “Why does the world hate me?” The members will see how insecure you really are if you play the victim.

And if you feel yourself growing bitter, coming from an ex-mod who served two terms, TAKE A BREAK. I know it only feels like volunteer work now, but you don’t miss something until it’s gone. And Chris is cool, he’s understanding, and he’ll let you take a hiatus from your duties. It’s honestly so worth it. And when you’re ready, you can jump right back in and contribute solid leadership to the community rather than bringing a subpar I’m-not-sure-why-I’m-still-here leadership.

I know it may not come to a surprise, but after all this has happened, I’ve been considering never posting here again. The forum has such a negative aura to it, that I just don’t need this in my life. SSMB isn’t fun and now more of a chore to visit. :\

The below comments are going to be all over the place (migraine) but I hope my thought process is clear.

I agree with the points on topic derailment and power exertion (or well, not taking it behind closed doors). I should have been the one to step in and deal with the issues in that topic first hand. This shift in direction is probably [partially] my fault because of the (albeit rare) image only posts I'd do when banning members, but that's another topic entirely.

The new member program is an interesting idea hankering back to the introduction topic. Over time these became phased out because of the status updates but could still have a purpose. It's really hard to tell what actually had an effect because of the status update module overwhelming the rest of the forum.

Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better for me to take Roarey's direction as members still seem intimidated to ask me anything. This management direction I've taken doesn't seem to be having as much of an impact as I'd hoped.

1 hour ago, I'm Dan said:

Yea, I honestly have a hard time posting in discussion threads because I always feel like I get upped by someone else (mostly by users who have established popularity) and basically make me look dumb. Like many others said, I think it kinda unprofessional when a mod go like "OK, you're banned now for being a idiot" or whatever in s topic and just get 10 likes even though it didn't really add anything to the discussion and basically a "Ha, I win" message? I'm probably explaining this poorly but I feel like it would be better to ban or give a strike to a user behind the scenes instead of making a seemly big deal of it.

I remember one time where some seemly popular person on here got banned and everyone is going crazy in the status about it while people who didn't know what going on are like "yo tell me what happen" and add more fuel to the fire. So yea, idunno, I recommend when it come to banning or striking person I think the mods shouldn't publicly announced it and just do it.

These situations are part of my concern and will be addressed to the best of my ability.

1 hour ago, The KKM said:

@Chris- I feel you may have taken my rambling a bit personally, not in the sense of against you personally, but in the sense of it being about Nepenthe. I won't disagree to some bias there on my part, but I'm trying to convey a worry that goes beyond her- again, from what she says, she's working on confines that allow her to rant, be publicly angry and biased, etc. like a normal member. I'm calling attention and disagreeing with the confines themselves, not her.

I haven't taken anything personally! There are some points I agree with and others I disagree with, but your feedback is noted.

49 minutes ago, Aoi said:

Nah, I don't agree with this one bit. I think that would just stir more animosity into the mix.

We have a set of rules and a warning/strike system so moderators can work out these situations individually member by member. Having the entire community know how and why a member was banned sounds like it leads to more public humiliation, shit talking, and fear mongering. Which adds more fear and then makes the forum more boring.

Let's put SSMB in a workplace situation. When someone is fired, a boss will say, "This team member was let go due to personal differences with management." Not, "Yeah, here is a list of EVERYONE that has ever been fired. And why. Here are all the rules they broke. That guy was basically a jerkoff." It just doesn't send the best message to the other employees. If moderation is done right, it doesn't even have to come to that.

Hahaha, you guys are acting like bans are happening every day. I don't think the staff can stop anyone from talking about a banned member. But I don't think it's appropriate for everyone to have an open source 'ban log.' If I were a staff member and was approached by an individual with "Why was XXX banned?" I would tell them openly and honestly what I felt about the situation without any use of personal attacks. Open source ban log sounds tyrannical. Honestly a "list of shame."

I'd be more in favour of the suggestion that was brought up earlier regarding the report system. We would scrap the posts in topics partially (if not entirely) regarding actions and instead talk to those involved directly; if the report we received didn't receive an action, we could discuss the matter with the member who made it.

At the very least, that would open the floor for them to talk to a moderator about it. Doesn't ensure that action will be taken, but their voice would be heard. Right now the report systems feels too much like a void.

28 minutes ago, The KKM said:

Eh, comes across as that to you, to me just comes across as a clear open "this is what we're doing".

Bumbleking had this system, and it worked fine as far as I'm concerned. Someone was banned? No spamming the statuses, FB, etc. going "what what why". It's there in the thread for it- "April 4th 2016, Member Such and such, banned for breaking rule this. Ban lifts never due to previous warnings."

I'm not interested in going more public with this information. At best, it creates an atmosphere like we have now: people would rather not post than have an action against their account.

33 minutes ago, Regulus said:

I'm not bothered about ban details being undisclosed, but why do we have to be secretive and shifty about it. Take this for an example, why do we have to refer to Mr Taxi as 'a member' or 'that member' e.t.c. It's like at work and someone gets fired and you aren't allowed to mention them again, it's unpleasant

Sure, we shouldn't be telling mods what to do and e.t.c, but why can't people just say Mr Taxi got banned. We all know he did, and we all know his banning is what started this thread. But for some reason it's like Voldemort, he who must not be named

I originally wanted to avoid addressing him by name but I guess it's pretty obvious.

23 minutes ago, Aoi said:

Agree to disagree then. I'd be upset if the staff disclosed why I was banned, but I guess you have no rights to privacy if you're not a member.

I really wouldn't want to.

As for the reputation system: It used to be expanded with both likes and dislikes. The dislike function required a lot of specific tuning and was subject to abuse; it was the better option at the time to disable that side of the feature entirely and focus on likes. We're facing a similar situation now and need to encourage a positive attitude but that tuning isn't available. I'm not sure I want to go down that road again but we'll see.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I really hope dislikes don't come back. I already have shitty opinions in general but to see others think so is not something I am ready for.

[Diz]

On the subject of banned members, while currently we do not allow discussion of banned members in public outside of specific topics like this one, you can still send a private message and ask. Staff is currently not required to respond to such requests, but the few times up through years I have been asked, I have released some few details. This helps quench questions for closure. If anything needs to change about information regarding banned members, I think being more open to such requests via private messages would be a good alternative. While I am not opposed to, or while neutral to having consequences publically announced, I am against having a dedicated list of banned members and related information publically available as I think it is highly disrespectful regardless. This might be my local culture speaking, as where I live, doing something like this in a store etc. is illegal due to privacy violation, and while the Internet does not equal real-life for many reasons, I feel similar principles should apply. This is merely my own opinion on the subject, we are naturally grateful for all feedback and suggestions, so who knows what we end up implementing!

Regarding dislikes, as mentioned, we used to have it here, but it ended up being modified into the system we have now. The dislike portion of the feature allowed members to downvote topics and posts, but nobody wishes for their own content to be downvoted. Ultimately, what does it mean? Everyone thinks of it differently. Do users disagree, or do they outright hate the post? Would it be better if the post was not there at all? Would it be better if I was not there at all? Dislikes were scary, because you never knew what their motivation would be. I find the current like system better than the previous system because now there is no way to apply negativity in any other way than directly address the topic or reply by posting, and that is what I think forums should be about, action through posting and showing yourself, interacting more directly with each other and understanding everyone a little better, the magic wonders of online communities.

I like the idea that was brought up regarding a newcomer section or something around those lines, as an extra layer to settle newcomers into the stadium of Sonic.Then again, I used to store most of my activity in the good old Station Square Meet & Greet section, so ... that might have something to do with it!

[Ryannumber1gamer]

I'm not really sure if I was around back when the forum wasn't as cynical or such (I'm been here since around the middle of 2014), but I certainly noticed how absolutely toxic this place gets as soon as a new Sonic game released (Of course, it was Rise of Lyric, but everyone was practically smashing any opinions apart if they happened to say "Can we give this game a chance to release first before we out right call it shit"). There was that, and some other really terrible examples of the forums getting toxic, so I don't know if I just about hit that stage where it was changing or not. 

Honestly, it's a big reason why I started Game Night, and more recently Sonic XStream. Those are my attempts of trying to provide a positive atmosphere for SSMB members to just have some fun with each other.

[PaddyFancy]

I would personally want the like system to be scrapped entirely. The number of likes people is intimidating and a lot of the time they don't have to do much to get a sea of likes. I know I keep coming and going but I look at my post/like ratio and see I'm extremely post heavy compared to the number of likes I received, see how unpopular I am.

To be brutally honest when I see someone fishing for likes anywhere, like "I'm 15 likes away from 3000 can you help a brother out?" or "I'm nearly at Amy status, give me a hand" in the status updates, I don't think particularly highly of that person.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

I also vouch for getting rid of the like system entirely. People have said here that the like system is better the reputation system (up vote/down vote) but it's all the same to me.

In response to Diz's post, I remember having a serious argument with a couple of people, and I got zero likes while the others had 20 or so likes. I also had these questions in my head, "Wouldn't it be better if I wasn't here at all?" "Do people really hate me for my opinion?"

And guess what? I actually left SSMB for almost 2 years because of this. The like system isn't any much different from the up vote/down vote system SSMB used to have.

Maybe now since IPB 4 when even status updates can get liked and disliked, maybe the like system is preferable but to me it's all the same.

I mean, I am more of a lurker today because of this whole reputation/like systems, now that I think about it.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

How about we give members a choice if they want to have reputation or not? Like they can turn off the upvoting and hide community reputation of other members if they chose.

[Diz]

I am not sure if there is a way to hide the reputation system without disabling it. Something which has been mentioned earlier in time, either in public or behind the scenes, is that the reputation system can only be disabled as a whole and not individually per user, which is a shame. I wish to be easily approachable for everyone, so if at some point it becomes possible to disable reputation on a per user basis, I would gladly accept being the first to have it removed, as in me being unable to give or receive reputation points, if there is a chance that it might contribute toward a better atmosphere on these boards.

At the very least, it has gone through my mind on multiple occasions up through time that I would like to disable reputation on certain posts that I have made while moderating topics as I do not want staff action to apply toward such. This was confirmed to me when reading feedback about staff members receiving a sea of reputation points, so I do not mind having mine disabled overall.

[PickleBrows]

As someone who looks for the positives in everything by nature, I'm generally not having as much trouble with the boards as others are.

Because of that nature though, I can definitely see the broken atmosphere that's been around certain parts of the board recently. I think a big part of that really is just down to where we are with Sonic just now. We've had a string of titles that have ranged from divisive to controversial in the past few years (Though I personally didn't hate any of them by any means). In fact, I think the last release we've had outside of Taxman remakes that the majority was really positive about was All-Stars Racing Transformed in 2012. Add that with a lack of releases last year and the secrecy this year and we're in a bit of a tight spot until SEGA finally reveals what their plans are for 25th Anniversary games.

This lack of info is what led to the 25th Anniversary threads getting off-track. I say off-track because the discussion moving away from what it was meant to be about could really have been solved with a simple 'back on topic guys' if that's where the problem ended.

The thing is, it didn't stop there and it eventually just turned into this mess of back and forth and by the time it was all over, I honestly had no idea what was going on anymore. I've never really understood how one manages to sustain heat-of-the-moment anger long enough to type up an angry reply and post it. This isn't like arguing in person where everything is spontaneous, there's pauses in between every post so you have time to think, time to cool down. For some reason, this just doesn't happen and those involved manage to get entire pages of thread space out of that.

The worst thing about all of this is whenever we have one of these situations where a thread becomes so broken that it has to be locked, it's never down to more than a few people that kept the arguments going. You'll find that a large amount of people of were posting in the thread suddenly go quiet when trouble brews. They're actively choosing to not get involved and to wait until things simmer down again. I'm glad to say that most people here will back out early. That means though that the few involved in the arguing literally hijack the thread, whether they realise it at the time or not.

The mods can't always stop situations like this from happening in the first place. Often they're not going to get there until it's already been going on for a bit which is absolutely fair enough; you don't expect emergency services to turn up literally the moment a situation breaks out. When it gets to a point though where a mod makes a post with something like 'we've had X amount of pages of this guys', I'm left wondering why it's went on that long. Sometimes the page count racks up really quickly, in which case fair enough. If though I can see mod posts that literally contribute to an argument or off-topic discussion before then seeing a later post that actually stops it, I'm left wondering if a perfectly valid thread could have been saved if things had been stopped sooner.

I'm not having a go at anybody here, member or mod,but this all goes back to my point about those moments between posts. There's really no reason why people aren't able to catch themselves and realise they need to just drop it or walk away until they're ready to come back.

I'm personally happy with our current mod team so I can't say there's much that I want to see change there. I do wonder though whether it would be worth considering how future mods are chosen. I'm curious about whether or not it could be an interesting idea to let the regular members have some level of input in choosing the new mods. Right now, it seems that now and then we get a 'New Mods Announced' thread and that's literally the first time most of us become aware that new mods were being brought on in the first place. If there are indeed some potential issues with member-mod comfortability then I can't help but wonder if those could be improved by letting members in some way put forward people that they are already friendly with and would therefore be comfortable with having them look after the boards.

I think there are people on here who could make great mods; level-headed and recognised as friendly and approachable. That in mind, I did debate the idea of letting members literally put themselves forward for consideration as mods when the need for new ones arises and have their individual eligibility be decided by things like their personality, how they articulate themselves, how they get on with the other members etc.

We're talking about how to make this a better place, if there are people here who believe they can help make that happen then I really think they should be given the chance and I think they'd appreciate the opportuity, I know I would. And yes, I might well be saying that because of just seeing Zootropolis the other week but let's just brush past that.

EDIT: Oh, and think positive guys! Figured I'd better throw that in there somewhere, you know me!

[Ryannumber1gamer]

I disagree with the like system being scrapped. I see it as a good way for members to actually give feedback on something without needing to give a lengthy post of this, this and that. For example, say I make a Game Night post, the person can either like the post, or do a lengthy post stating "I enjoyed this this and that". They both share the same purpose, and both let me know that I'm doing a decent job with the event. The difference is the post has more detail in it so it can be more "I enjoyed this and that, but could have saw this improved".

I mean honestly, I don't see how reputation should have an effect on someone being approachable. We're all on the same level on SSMB. It's not like if I had 2000 likes, and you had 200 likes that I would suddenly act like a jerk and act like I'm above your level or something. Reputation and the like system is more or less just there so people can give positive feedback in regards to something, nothing more, nothing less. 

I do agree though that the like baiting is incredibly annoying though. I feel the likes should at the very least be earned if that makes any sense. 

[The Deleter]

I don't think the like system should be scrapped, either, as I feel it does way more good than bad now. The like tally on user pages is a bit daunting to newcomers, though. Maybe keep the like system, but get rid of the numerical tally to make sure no one feels like they're second rate when their post-to-like ratio isn't the same?

Also, I know I'm in the minority here, but I can't help but feel that all this talk of toxic atmosphere and "having to do something about it" is a bit of hoopla. Every community goes through it's phases, has highs and lows, and usually they come and go with or without any pushing or shoving. But this forum really doesn't feel all that toxic to me. In fact it feels like it's only gotten better and more chill than when I first joined here, funnily enough. So on the subject of these new rules incoming, while I'm not all that against the current guidelines getting revised to be less "Roary", I just hope it isn't on the more hand-holding side of things like "You can't repeat 'The Sonic series is in a bad place' more than once" or "No mentioning SA3 at all in threads from now on" or the like. Doubt it'll be that excessive, but still...

But eh, if you guys really feel more rules are needed to make this a better place, that's fine by me. It is your forum after all.

(Also I don't know about the situation with Palas entirely, but I must admit the idea of users being able to be banned without warnings, strikes or suspensions seems a little... sketchy.)

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

I feel that the "Like" System is actually beneficial in multiple ways. Giving feedback and letting someone know of your support with wasting posting space of course.

But there's also another hidden benefit I find, in that it serves as a good mental hurdle. It challenges you to overcome the sense of being easily overwhelmed mentally against someone who may have an alleged higher status than you, based solely on likes. Don't let a bunch of rank numbers cloud your fighting spirit! Keep making your debates solid and logical, and you can just keep on climbing up through any set of trials and tribulations, this forum may throw at you!

It certainly helped me out like that when I was first starting out here!

Taking away that system would come off as an unfair motion to those who use it to set goals, shoot for the stars, and use it for good in mind.

Find the good in it and work around it; yes sometimes it can be a popularity contest, but that doesn't mean it's completely invalidated either.

[Diz]

Reading the last few replies, I think I may have worded myself a little wrong. I have edited my previous post to correct this. What I meant, contrary to disabling the reputation system as a whole, was to suggest the ability to disable reputation on specific users or posts only. This could be one way of limiting seas of likes on post content not relevant to the topic at hand, for instance staff locking a topic, and as far as I have gathered from feedback, this was one of the concerns being brought up for discussion. This is merely a thought. Also, this might not be possible to implement at this current time, but such an option might be available in the future.

I doubt the reputation system as a whole will disappear anytime soon, as it is for the most part convenient and a nice touch to the boards.

[Kuzu]

Well, since we're getting things off our chests.

Tbh, I've been feeling this way about the site for a while, but honestly I feel the inherent problem with the site lies with how its being run. No offense to any mods because I am sure they are decent people in real life, that said, there are way too many things that most members get away with and it led to some...very disturbing things that I've heard if they're true. 

There's no filter on this site, and most members that join clearly do not have very good social skills to interact and get into reasonable debates on mostly trivial topics. Its a site about an anthropomorphic, fictional hedgehog. I don't care how "passionate" you are about the series, no amount of passion justifies getting so emotionally heated to the point where you lose sense of common social norms in order to get your point across.  At that point, its no longer even sound discussion, but two people having a shouting match. Nobody learns anything, and nothing is resolved before a mod comes in and tells them to "stop it" before they start up the same tired arguments again about three months later. It is literally an endless cycle. 

There's also a significant age and maturity gap among most members here, so there's this dissonance between who actually knows what they're talking about and doesn't. 

 

This site honestly needs a specific demographic and clear goal on who its trying to appeal to. I know we want to be "welcoming to everyone", but that opens the door to very specific types of people that I'm sure nobody wants on this site. So either start trying to find a specific focus on how this site is run, or things are just going to end up back to the same old, same old in about three months and nothing will be accomplished. 

We like to act like everything is fine, but there's something very clearly wrong with this site and the foundation of it starts at the leaders. 

 

I come here every now and then just to see what's up, but I've mostly distanced myself from this place just because of the amount of shit that I've seen go on, but none of it actually being addressed. This site is honestly become the embodiment of everything the internet accuses Sonic fans of being "A bunch of angry man-children with no social skills" and I honestly can't say I disagree.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I think its a bit of a stretch to say most people here have little to no social skills. Most of us have friends, family and jobs.