Community input forum

I realize that Sythe isn't much of a democracy, but I feel that the community should have even a minute say in a few big matters that could potentially affect everyone on the site. These can include disputes, pardons, or new updates.

It would be different from Community General in the sense that it would be specific to issues. It would be different from Feedback in the sense that it wouldn't be directed towards any individual person, nor perhaps to an action that has yet to be taken. For instance, if a user is requesting a pardon, a user could create a thread about that pardon and other users post what they think. Sort of like what mods currently do in the pardon section itself, except that these regular members would have no official say in the outcome.

I'm studying city development right now, and a lot of town halls started out this way. Meetings would be held on specific development issues and citizens would be able to speak their minds or opinions on an event that could potentially affect their everyday life. There would be no guarantee that their voice would be heard, but that it could be taken into possible consideration.

I'm suggesting this because of the recent Finn pardon. I personally don't agree with the approach, and am sure other members have stuff to say about it too. Instead of posting in the spam forum to be ridiculed or in Community General to start a flame war/not get an approved thread, I think a section like this would be perfect.

A few ideas on how it could operate:

• Only open to specific issues at specific times set by staff, probably pertaining to a single issue. The forum would be closed again once the issue has been discussed and resolved/dealt with.
• Just another regular subforum where users create topics whenever they want, after approval from a moderator.
• "Free" forum, where topics do not need to be approved.

To sum things up, one of the main issues of operation on this forum is the lack of community input. If you look at the Feedback section or if you really just roam the forums after a specific issue has been brought to light, everyone gets super butthurt and starts QQing all over the site. A section like this would be able to constructively bottle situations like these, and allow users to voice their opinions without any true need for staff to be forced to take action on these opinions, but rather consider them when coming to a final conclusion on an issue.


Sorry, no tl;dr for this thread. I think it's a very worthwhile idea and I think it would thrive and give the site a bigger sense of community.

 

I like this idea. Considering we are part of the community and will have to live with whatever is decided upon and it will directly affect us, it makes sense that we should get an input on it also.

 

Members of the community should always have a say in community related changes, or at least that's my opinion on it. Disputes, Pardons not so much because that's staff related, but we can post our opinions on it in said section. I give support to this idea.

 

I like the idea even though people would be fighting us over nearly every ban.

 

I was thinking about this today actually; imagine a place where we could all comment on bans/ high pardons and give our own oppinons whether we support it individually or not. Of course they wouldn't count at all towards it but i'd rather have a section we could put all that stuff rather than get infracted for it in the spam forum.

 

I like the idea, I feel it could be very useful for some cases and should be given a chance to work, but I have a fear that this could backfire, because many people would start bitching about many many threads / decisions, etc.
I also think, that the posts about Finn (in the spam forum) were completely ridiclious, none of them actually argued on behalf of either side (E.G. Marrow thread in feedback, with the "Finn Unban Lobby, this is a serious thread" - or something along those lines.

And at the end of the day, the staff team will still have the last call. Imagine a majority of the community (say 65% or so would say unban someone), but staff said 100% no unban. This could lead to unnecessary tension between certain members and staff members.

 

Most are pretty cut and dry tbh. Only ones i retrospectively think have been handled completely unfairly (that are still in effect) are Just Un Dudes, however i feel finns pardon isn't quite being handled properly as getting everyone paid back should be priority #1. However in the part 2 of the pardon this seems to be rectified, i just kinda felt that if he feels there is no hope (as fireZ dream crusher kinda emphasized) there is no motivation for him to do any good.

Lol dont go to the spam forum then ... considering recent events i dont think a bunch of kids (falsely) bandwagoning in support of a banned user is ridiculous at all. Especially considering there is a like 12+ page thread saying nearly nothing but "free punkerpunk" and the just un dude and even alma situations created a lot of similar threads, albeit much less tongue and cheek.

OT I like the idea. However i dont feel every ban should be up for discussion or every move as shit would just fall apart. Finding the appropriate middle ground would be kinda difficult

 

Update discussion is good, but there is no need for ban discussion, that should be up to the staff.

 

It sounds like a great idea Blupig.
It could atleast be implemented to let people give feedback to mods, admins, ..

The final choice should always be by the admins or mods ofcourse, but I feel that the communities feedback could give an insight for admins. This could help admins choose the 'correct' solution.

 

What happens when staff overrule half of the ban discussions, high pardon discussions, or major changes discussion with nothing more than "we know what's best in this situation", and everyone complains what a useless section Update Discussion is when staff never even value their oh-so-insightful input? A lot of cases concern privileged staff lounge discussion and case information that can't be released without leaking, and is often crucial one way or another. Even site updates take a technical knowhow that really only the administration are privy to... take the whole vb4 fiasco. No matter how many people were begging for its installment, Sythe knows his shit, and decided it wasn't worth it. We may not know exactly why unless he shares with us his reasons, but I have faith he made the best choice for the site.


If the average users are content to know their input is valued, although generally unhelpful, then sure! I'm all for freedom to speak on forum updates and changes

 

Support. If this was ever approved then I'd recommend that users would have to have been around at least a month prior to the other users ban.

 

I was staff much longer than you, I'm well aware of all you've said. I'm also aware that a lot of decisions, sometimes very important ones, are subject to fallacy by popularity. If you consider that, "meaningless" community input could be extremely valuable in weighing a conclusion to a specific situation. Allowing for real discussions on changes going about the site would alleviate the choke-hold that many community members feel that the staff have over them while they are on here, regardless of if their opinions are taken seriously or not.

 

I agree with IDB that when it comes to updates we should all have a say but when it comes to bans that should be staff so overall i support

 

I agree with this. The site has some glaringly bad transparency issues in my opinion. Reports that go directly to the SL because they're on a big name person, no communication on things that effect the entire community, and that privileged information line is used far too often. I like Moh, but if the rest of the staff have his attitude that normal members opinions are unhelpful then Sythe isn't going to gain popularity again.

There has been a lot of feedback threads that have been locked and opinions stifled because of the perception that people are just going to flame or some similar excuse. I enjoy being able to share my 'unhelpful' opinion even if it isn't popular. Take the Finn pardon for example. I do not think he should be pardoned. He reigned over this site with an iron fist for a long time and did so many things that damaged the site that effected everyone so that it is completely unfair that only the staff have a say, so if their fancies get tickled then he'll get off with nothing more than a few months ban.

 

I didn't mean to offend, I know you have your experience on staff, but it had not yet been mentioned that a lot of staff decisions are based on privileged staff forum information, so I felt the need to clarify that point. And again, I'm fine with the suggestion if users are aware and amiable to the part "regardless of if their opinions are taken seriously or not.", to the fact that they're not always going to be taken seriously because of their inevitable lack of crucial information

I don't see how giving members an empty promise to value their opinion in all cases presented will improve "transparency issues". I don't think that's the word you wanted to use... As said, a number of cases that would be presented in this Input Forum would require full access to details which are Staff Lounge Only, and though we can absolutely call for external opinions based on what we CAN release, it's not likely they will be able to infer missing info and give an educated opinion on how it should be handled. Not to mention, and I hope no one finds offense to this, but a lot of users are clueless on how to handle staff matters. It would be a lot of work to sift through for quality/helpful inputs and weed out unhelpful opinions, while at the same time encouraging unhelpful opinions for the sake of the illusion that we value unhelpful opinions...


As with your Finn example, I really don't get where you're coming from... You seem to be hung up on the way we handled it, like "yeah you denied it, but I KNOW if one of you felt like it would be ecool, you would just as easily unban him for shits n giggs". It couldn't be farther from the truth. He has a lot of reasons for his bans, a lot of standing reasons (money he owes people), even if we wanted to for some reason, we can't accept his pardon with his outstanding debts.... We don't award pardons, and have never awarded pardons as it "tickles our fancy". If anything, I believe we're appropriately stringent on pardons.

 

couldn't agree more

 

Just gonna bump this up, I still think it's a good idea

 

Staff need to realize that they're not any more qualified than the rest of the forum to make a sound opinion on a situation (except maybe one or two), and community input and transparency on information could be instrumental to better (and probably more level headed) decisions. Now, this shouldn't necessarily apply to extremely delicate information, such as highly personal info. But I honestly doubt this happens very often anyways.

Just my 2 cents, and I think most staff are idiots. Thanks for reading!

 

Apparently this thread won't receive any admin attention until Sythe looks at it.

 

Support if staff isn't allowed to post in it. Unless it's to answer a question.