Suggestion anonymity

[nodnarbusn]

I personally don't think you should remove a person's credibility just because people agree with them. Ultimately the decision is left to the admins if they see potential in an idea they should work from there and see how the community feels about it by working with the OP to see his/ her insight to the new idea.

Whether people bandwagon or not a good idea will not be bad and vice versa. In reality speakers don't hide their faces when they make a speech.

I dont think you get it, in reality someone like weird al wouldnt be taken seriously voicing for some new gun laws or something, but if he has a good fucking idea weird al or not he should be heard and taken seriously (he wouldnt though, because hes weird fucking al). Your analogy to speakers in "reality" is flawed, no one listens to fucking randoms IRL and they arent even given the platform to speak 99% of the time (once again doesnt mean what they have to say is any less valid)

Fuck credibility, a random or person with a HORRIBLE reputation should be taken just as seriously as a mod or admin (or ex mod what the fuck ever) when it comes to suggestions for bettering the site and anonymity when posting here would insure that.

tl;dr Fuck your post. Your analogy is stupid +1 Anonymity.

 

[Punjabi3]

I dont think you get it, in reality someone like weird al wouldnt be taken seriously voicing for some new gun laws or something, but if he has a good fucking idea weird al or not he should be heard and taken seriously (he wouldnt though, because hes weird fucking al). Your analogy to speakers in "reality" is flawed, no one listens to fucking randoms IRL and they arent even given the platform to speak 99% of the time (once again doesnt mean what they have to say is any less valid)

Fuck credibility, a random or person with a HORRIBLE reputation should be taken just as seriously as a mod or admin (or ex mod what the fuck ever) when it comes to suggestions for bettering the site and anonymity when posting here would insure that.

tl;dr Fuck your post. Your analogy is stupid +1 Anonymity.

Its actually people like you which discourage members from posting in suggestions because rather than discuss a suggestion people put their own personal flames and biases into it which won't change whether everyone's anonymous or not.

So you're basically saying an emotionally distressed mother should be taken at the same credibility as somebody who has proven gun laws being stricter do not actually help prevent dangerous crimes. That insight is amazing I wonder how well

People shouldn't include anywhere in their posts about discrediting somebodies opinion on a topic because they may be new or not as knowledgeable. They shouldn't be allowed to call them out on the fact of it. If posts like that were infracted the suggestion forum would change and people would take other opinions seriously but with people actually posting ways to discredit people their credibility will never change. Whether someone's anonymous or not you can still add biases in to the decision and still compel others to follow your opinion by discrediting the other person on one point.

And tl;dr fuck your post because it was horrible and made no sense because people actually do listen to random people, look at youtube as an example.

 

[Wolfdog]

I agree with this. I think doing so would help to prevent a lot of suggestions being agreed with or shot down purely based on who the posted the topic (or who disagrees for that matter) ... Good suggestion.

 

[Verts]

Yes, anonymous posts where we can see the IP anyway. I'm not sure if I'm the only one who does this, but I read through denied suggestions just to make sure nothing has been missed. I couldn't really give a flying fuck who posts them as long as they're decent.

I'd be fine with leaving suggestions for administrators only though, (unless on the DNS list) but giving moderators the opportunity to chime in and add their thoughts.

 

[the_dealer]

This is a great idea. Often, I see posts being denied, perhaps because of a bad reputation, when, in fact, the suggestions being good.

 

[Emperor Nero]

I'd be fine with leaving suggestions for administrators only though, (unless on the DNS list) but giving moderators the opportunity to chime in and add their thoughts.

I don't think this is the way to go. Our community has been slowly progressing to well, a community and by cutting off the ability to discuss possible changes and to argue the pros and cons wouldn't bolster community participation.

That being said, I do agree highly with the OP. It is easy for someone with a rank, or a few years, or a couple thousand posts to come in and drop an idea like a rock. Ideas should be merited for their potential for improvement and not for who suggested them. That way ideas can still be discussed among the community members, but ideas can still be heard. That is another huge problem with Sythe in my eyes - unless you've donated $500 or have a mod rank it is sometimes difficult to get heard unless you're making a seriously confrontational post about something. In that case everyone jumps on it and brands you an outcast a la x339.

 

[Verts]

I don't think this is the way to go. Our community has been slowly progressing to well, a community and by cutting off the ability to discuss possible changes and to argue the pros and cons wouldn't bolster community participation.

That being said, I do agree highly with the OP. It is easy for someone with a rank, or a few years, or a couple thousand posts to come in and drop an idea like a rock. Ideas should be merited for their potential for improvement and not for who suggested them. That way ideas can still be discussed among the community members, but ideas can still be heard. That is another huge problem with Sythe in my eyes - unless you've donated $500 or have a mod rank it is sometimes difficult to get heard unless you're making a seriously confrontational post about something. In that case everyone jumps on it and brands you an outcast a la x339.

My suggestion wouldn't be cutting anyone off. It would just mean that only administrators can approve/deny suggestions.

 

[x339]

My suggestion wouldn't be cutting anyone off. It would just mean that only administrators can approve/deny suggestions.

Unless every administrator got active in the forum then that is a horrible idea because:

1. None of the admins would bother to moderate it enough

2. It would only be 1 or 2 of them like FireZ and n4n0, and with them deciding what gets done and what doesn't, Sythe would be a train wreck.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

I'm sure if it were changed from all-mods to admins only, they would understand the necessity to step it up in the suggestions forum. Also, verts isn't suggesting sole moderation privileges for admins only, she is suggesting that they can only be approved or denied by an admin. There would still be section moderators to keep it clean (and I imagine to enforce DNS) and all staff would still be allowed to support or refute.

 

[Verts]

Unless every administrator got active in the forum then that is a horrible idea because:

1. None of the admins would bother to moderate it enough

2. It would only be 1 or 2 of them like FireZ and n4n0, and with them deciding what gets done and what doesn't, Sythe would be a train wreck.

As I stated above, I regularly read the suggestions forum (including the suggestions that have been moved to the denied section)

 

[Emperor Nero]

My suggestion wouldn't be cutting anyone off. It would just mean that only administrators can approve/deny suggestions.

Oh okay, that is more reasonable. I took your post out of context and read it as locking the spam forum up like the RaSC.

 

[nodnarbusn]

And tl;dr fuck your post because it was horrible and made no sense because people actually do listen to random people, look at youtube as an example.

Watching people rant or do stupid shit on youtube and listening to them are two entirely different things, nice logic.

So you're basically saying an emotionally distressed mother should be taken at the same credibility as somebody who has proven gun laws being stricter do not actually help prevent dangerous crimes. That insight is amazing I wonder how well

Aside from this part not making any sense at all it deviates from my point, i think everyone should be heard and LISTENED to with the consideration as others. If a distressed mother decided to discuss gun laws yes she should be heard but everyone listening with any sense would realize she is obviously biased and emotions might be overtaking logic.

An example is this:
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?p=11748698#post11748698
OP is obviously butthurt, and isnt a credulous as a more thought out post without so much anger and biased.

Its actually people like you which discourage members from posting in suggestions because rather than discuss a suggestion people put their own personal flames and biases into it which won't change whether everyone's anonymous or not.

with this you are just justifying the case for anonymous suggestions further..

Credibility (when it comes to suggestions) should not be based on your standing within the community or if your ex-mod, mod, admin or just a normal member (in good or bad standing). It should be based upon the content of your words and only your words. Peoples hangups with eachother DOES get in the way of them supporting eachothers ideas good or not. Ignoring this is ignoring the fact that people by nature are egotistical.

 

[Punjabi3]

Watch nothing apart from more spam will change because if ips are the only way to keep track of people who post it will be impossible to determine who is spamming if they share ips with multiple people. Obviously some will get caught spamming but majority won't on threads like that you posted it would get flamed and spammed to the ground within minutes if everyone posted anonymously. Not to mention if its anonymous posting the section might actually end up being dead, if posts are anonymous I doubt anybody is getting post count for it which really gives a lot of people no reason to post there and then whats the point of even keeping newcomer's posts being safe from bias if they won't post there anyways.

A mod, ex mod, ex admin, highly reputable person's opinion affects nothing if a suggestion is good or if it is bad. If it can be implemented and is a good suggestion it will be implemented if its bad then there's no reason to implement it.

Making everyone anonymous won't stop anyone calling somebody out on something it will just promote it.

I'm curious how do you plan on keeping track of who is posting what? If I say oppose something and am poster 5 but poster 6 starts arguing my point. How will poster 6 know that I am retaliating against his post as poster 5 and am not a new person assume poster 7.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with the above he just wants to call out people's points no real sense in arguing with him if he's going to go on one point and bias his whole opinion based on that one portion of the post.

I'd also love to see a list of suggestions which were shot down because they were leaning favorably until a highly reputable member posted and was then shot down but would have been implementable and actually a good suggestion and vice versa.

Edit: took a look at the suggestions and more suggestions were shot down due to vb4 rather than actual biases and those who actually posted biases didn't even affect anybody else's opinion because nobody continued on their point.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Right up to the top lolz

 

[Dave]

Denied.

It's not necessary. It would cause a bunch of spam and it would be difficult to keep track of things. Suggestions aren't based off of who posted them, it's the idea that counts.

Ily Tony <3.