Community input forum

[SuF]

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!

The staff is actually much better than the community at making decisions. It stems from us choosing not moronic people, having a ton of experience deciding shit, and having access to a lot more information than the public does.

 

[mage3158]

The staff is actually much better than the community at making decisions. It stems from us choosing not moronic people, having a ton of experience deciding shit, and having access to a lot more information than the public does.

Oh god, haha, are you kidding? Get off your fucking high horse, holy shit.

Let me break this down:

The staff is actually much better than the community at making decisions.

Why?

It stems from us choosing not moronic people

You should really watch your footing here. Which reminds me, how do you pick staff again?

having a ton of experience deciding shit

This doesn't even make sense, how could you even begin to make this claim?

and having access to a lot more information than the public does.

And this is the -real- issue, and something I clearly suggested as being more available. Staff have never given a real reason as to why information is so secretive.

 

[KnowP]

The staff is actually much better than the community at making decisions. It stems from us choosing not moronic people, having a ton of experience deciding shit, and having access to a lot more information than the public does.

Only certain people are given staff positions. There could be a newcomer with 10x better ideas than staff or a whole group of people. You could say a percentage of the community is worse at making decisions than staff, but saying ALL staff are better at making decisions than regular users isn't correct. For example, I'm pretty sure half the people that DO NOT want moderator would be a lot better at making decisions that some staff at the moment. It's the staffs job to weed out bad decisions and collaborate with other staff, but you can't say that staff is better at making decisions than a regular user, that's just stupid.


So it's the communities job to give feedback on decisions staff make and how they like it or not, because not everybody is always right. I'd support a section for this because there's nowhere else to do it without getting constantly flamed or infracted for saying something that isn't "You're doing a great job" or "This site has the best moderators on the internet!".

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

Oh god, haha, are you kidding? Get off your fucking high horse, holy shit.

Let me break this down:


Why?


You should really watch your footing here. Which reminds me, how do you pick staff again?


This doesn't even make sense, how could you even begin to make this claim?


And this is the -real- issue, and something I clearly suggested as being more available. Staff have never given a real reason as to why information is so secretive.

If information has confidential info on it or things that they might not want users who could use it to scam to have, they deal with it. You're just amazingly pissed because you're not on the staff, no matter how hard you try. The staff are probably better at making decisions for multiple reasons, such as having the resources and information, working as a team and mainly having similar situations day in day out. Please tell me how many scam reports you've dealt with. I also believe that the staff picking policy is all discussed here, you might want to have a look. http://www.sythe.org/3217600-post1.html Attitude plays a large part so it looks like you're fucked there sunshine.

That explained a bit better? (I'm actually hidden admin )

 

[malakadang]

Out of interest. Say this gets implemented (I think it should be integrated with the feedback forum). Say that 80% of the community thinks x should happen. The staff also discuss it and say that x should not happen.

What should the decision be?

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

Out of interest. Say this gets implemented (I think it should be integrated with the feedback forum). Say that 80% of the community thinks x should happen. The staff also discuss it and say that x should not happen.

What should the decision be?

Staff override members. Simple. Either that or let sythe decide, but then it would make staff's views useless aswell. The current system I personally think works fine, it's fair and they understand peoples problems, like nerfed's PP issue, and he has still been allowed to make donations because its fixed, that's a good decision. I wonder what % of the community disagree. Also, deathsnova would be perm banned if it came down to this, it'd be like MOTM, a popularity contest, but the only difference is, is that unbans could lead to scams.

 

[mage3158]

If information has confidential info on it or things that they might not want users who could use it to scam to have

I did mention omitting delicate information, or are you blind?

You're just amazingly pissed because you're not on the staff, no matter how hard you try.)

I'll never be staff for obvious reasons, and I don't give a flying fuck.

The staff are probably better at making decisions for multiple reasons, such as having the resources and information

Which is why I suggested information be more transparent to the community.

working as a team

Team community.

Please tell me how many scam reports you've dealt with.

And how many have initial staff handled? This point is moot.

Out of interest. Say this gets implemented (I think it should be integrated with the feedback forum). Say that 80% of the community thinks x should happen. The staff also discuss it and say that x should not happen.

What should the decision be?

There should be a middle ground, or if not that then an admin explanation of why decision x by the community was not put into motion.

Communication is key, and making the community at least feel involved is important.

Staff override members. Simple. Either that or let sythe decide, but then it would make staff's views useless aswell. The current system I personally think works fine, it's fair and they understand peoples problems, like nerfed's PP issue, and he has still been allowed to make donations because its fixed, that's a good decision. I wonder what % of the community disagree. Also, deathsnova would be perm banned if it came down to this, it'd be like MOTM, a popularity contest, but the only difference is, is that unbans could lead to scams.

You should really review the suggestion, this isn't about giving members any power in decisions.

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

The last bit at the bottom was replying to malakadangs comment, so it was in context. The fact that you did write that delicate information was stated, but I didn't pick it up in your post on the previous thread. With information being transparent to the community, I reckon with a lot blanked out because it's 'delicate', the whole story wouldn't be told and decisions wouldn't be a full in-sighted response. Team community works, as the community dev team have proved, however with handling bans etc, friendships need to go out the window, and the community would take people for granted and be too lenient. Not a good idea. Initial staff? That means staff from the beginning, correct? At first, none, but they will have the chance. Users would never be able to deal with scam reports, we'd just get some pardon information, not the actual scam and what is needed to be done. Admins explanations of the community's decision being bypassed would be simple, I can think of 3 which would leave everyone silent anyways.

A) Sythe said no.
B) He is a threat to the community.
C) It's not in our best interests.

Remember staff may have some info about the user that could never get given out to the community, and it's that info that could be stopping the decisions being made. I really can't see this working, no matter how nice it would be to get a say.

 

[mage3158]

With information being transparent to the community, I reckon with a lot blanked out because it's 'delicate', the whole story wouldn't be told and decisions wouldn't be a full in-sighted response.

I consider delicate information to be:
Personal information
Details on methods (not the method itself)

For nearly any situation you do not need to give out those two things to get a reason of banning across. For example you can say the person black mailed to reach a specific goal, but you don't have to explain the fine details on the blackmailing itself.

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

I consider delicate information to be:
Personal information
Details on methods (not the method itself)

For nearly any situation you do not need to give out those two things to get a reason of banning across. For example you can say the person black mailed to reach a specific goal, but you don't have to explain the fine details on the blackmailing itself.

Yeah, that's how currently they describe bans, but they made the decision on the severity of the blackmail, which we would not get to decide how severe it is.

 

[mage3158]

Yeah, that's how currently they describe bans

There have been plenty of bans with no information released to the people.

but they made the decision on the severity of the blackmail, which we would not get to decide how severe it is.

Blackmail is blackmail is blackmail, there is no difference in severity when it comes to a situation like that.

With scamming you could easily describe severity through amount scammed, number of people scammed, number of times evaded to scam, and others. But you need not mention how they scammed, who they scammed, etc.

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

There have been plenty of bans with no information released to the people.

I agreed with that point that you made before, by saying they currently describe bans with no information released to the people, so you pretty much stated a fact that was agreeing with my point. Bit pointless?

Blackmail is blackmail is blackmail, there is no difference in severity when it comes to a situation like that.

With scamming you could easily describe severity through amount scammed, number of people scammed, number of times evaded to scam, and others. But you need not mention how they scammed, who they scammed, etc.

If someone was banned for scamming 5 times (only one ban), but they only scammed 20m in total, I'd rather have them pardoned than someone who's evaded 3 times and scammed 10m. They showed no remorse, the other gave up once he'd been banned. If the community were given the decision on stui right now, I can guess he'd be unbanned, yet on paper he's what we need banned.

 

[mage3158]

I
If someone was banned for scamming 5 times (only one ban), but they only scammed 20m in total, I'd rather have them pardoned than someone who's evaded 3 times and scammed 10m.

Then that's your opinion on a given situation. Discussions on any particular situation can be good for the ultimate STAFF decision.

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

Blackmail is blackmail is blackmail, there is no difference in severity when it comes to a situation like that.

With scamming you could easily describe severity through amount scammed, number of people scammed, number of times evaded to scam, and others. But you need not mention how they scammed, who they scammed, etc.

With scamming I see where you are coming from, but still, who they scammed could be a large factor. If they were scamming newcomers then they are more of a threat than if they were scamming trusted members, as the newcomers are more likely to fall for the scam tricks. The method also could matter, as if they scammed via a lure/social engineer/teamviewer it could give an idea to how determined they were, and how planned it was, or if it was a spur of the moment un meditated scam.

Blackmail does have different severities, from a number of situations

A) Give me x or I get you banned on sythe (really serious, most likely deserved)
B) Give me x or I ddos you (6 month ban minimum)
C) Give me x or I get you a TWC
D) I have information that you need, I'd trade for this and keep pushing until they do for an amount that you desire.

The sythe ban/twc are serious for the person getting blackmailed, as if they did have a good reason to ban them, they will obviously pay it. However, it would also benefit sythe as he could take the goods, and with them he would technically blackmailed, but he could also use them to counter-scam and repay the people he scammed when evading etc. IK counter-scamming is a grey area tbh, as it's allowed in certain situations but not others, this could get messy. Either way, there is a limit to how much normal members could find out without it being leaked information, and that could lead us to have irrational decisions. If there was a section for this, there should be a minimum post count.

 

[Purple PartyHat]

Support 100%

 

[SuF]

Oh god, haha, are you kidding? Get off your fucking high horse, holy shit.

Let me break this down:


Why?


You should really watch your footing here. Which reminds me, how do you pick staff again?


This doesn't even make sense, how could you even begin to make this claim?


And this is the -real- issue, and something I clearly suggested as being more available. Staff have never given a real reason as to why information is so secretive.

1) You're clearly an idiot that's trying to cause trouble. I answered your first question in what you quoted. Dumbass.

2) That is 100% public information. Stop being a dumbass.

3) Again. Dumbass.

4) Because it is. You want us to tell everyone exactly how we catch every ban evader and ever scammer and ever leaked? THE FUCK ARE YOU ON? OH LOL LETS TELL PEOPLE HOW WE CATCH THEM SO THEY CAN LEARN TO NOT GET CAUGHT LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Fucking dumbass. Stop wasting my time.

Only certain people are given staff positions. There could be a newcomer with 10x better ideas than staff or a whole group of people. You could say a percentage of the community is worse at making decisions than staff, but saying ALL staff are better at making decisions than regular users isn't correct. For example, I'm pretty sure half the people that DO NOT want moderator would be a lot better at making decisions that some staff at the moment. It's the staffs job to weed out bad decisions and collaborate with other staff, but you can't say that staff is better at making decisions than a regular user, that's just stupid.

Ideas are not decisions. This is why we have the suggestions forum. I never said all the staff are better at making decisions. I said that the community (implying the entire thing) is not as good as the staff (implying the entire thing) in making decisions. This is clearly a fact and if you can't accept that, then whatever. You can be wrong somewhere else.

 

Just thought I'd interject and clarify that this forum would only be for discussion. Should staff want/need external input, they'll have it. If there is enough community outcry over a certain issue, then that should be addressed.

Pretty simple lol, no harm done to either party.

 

[Fuzzybear]

This has nothing to loose lots to gain. A more educated community is a commuinty better capable of understand decisions. Oh fuck the community doesn't like something but Sythe does, who gives two shits its comming in anyway and just have it for community IMPUT.

 

[SuF]

Bump.

 

[Le Laptop]

Support,

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

Defiantly this