Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

[Bobsican]

Could the description of the Sandbox subforum be modified so it's also clarified that only the original poster (and bureaucrats, I suppose) can see their respective threads? It has been a common issue that users think anyone can see them and make entire CRTs linking to them without knowning better.

 

[Antvasima]

Do you have any suggested succinct explanation text for it?

 

[Bobsican]

De you have any suggested succinct explanation text for it?

"Sandbox area for preparing new posts for later publication. Only the original poster can see their respective publications in this subforum, and so if it's desired to be shared, the contents should be published elsewhere. Note that high-ranking staff still moderate posts."

 

[Antvasima]

"Sandbox area for preparing new posts for later publication. Only the original poster can see their respective publications in this subforum, and so if it's desired to be shared, the contents should be published elsewhere."

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT

Does this seem fine to add as a description text for our Sandbox forum?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Looks ok, yeah.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the reply. It seems best to wait for AKM though.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I got a suggestion for the external website, vsbattle.com

https://vsbattles.com/forums/general-discussion.4/ ~ There are a lot of discussions there.
And it is really confusing where are official discussions. What about having sections? Since this website is made by Xenoforo, my suggestion is available.
And staff can move all “official discussions” to that section. And others that are not official, rather secondary, go to the “others” section.

---

This is the concept of what am I talking.


Official discussion means a discussion about a manga
like those:
https://vsbattles.com/threads/maou-gakuin-discussion-thread.107621/
https://vsbattles.com/threads/one-piece-general-discussion-wano-kuni.115795/
More like an official discussion of verses, not discussions for one “character” or topic of this verse.

What’s the point of achieving perfection? Nothing. Not a single thing. I loathe perfection! If something is perfect, then there is nothin

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That's kind of the point of General Discussion, ain't it? These threads aren't officially recognized or anything, it's just a thread made by fans of x or y verse to... generally discuss it. Feel like it'd confuse some and not really improve anything.

 

[DontTalkDT]

We could just make a tag for it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

We could just make a tag for it.

Would be better ya

 

[Antvasima]

We could just make a tag for it.

That seems like a better idea, yes, but what should it be called?

 

[ImmortalDread]

That seems like a better idea, yes, but what should it be called?

Official discussion

 

[DontTalkDT]

That seems like a better idea, yes, but what should it be called?

Official discussion

They are not really official like wiki management threads and stuff are, though.

Since this is to index the general discussion threads in which a particular verse is talked about, maybe "General Verse Discussions" or something?

 

[ImmortalDread]

They are not really official like wiki management threads and stuff are, though.

Since this is to index the general discussion threads in which a particular verse is talked about, maybe "General Verse Discussions" or something?

Official Verse discussion perhaps?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

They are not really official like wiki management threads and stuff are, though.

Since this is to index the general discussion threads in which a particular verse is talked about, maybe "General Verse Discussions" or something?

I dig that as an alternative, yeah.

Official Verse discussion perhaps?

But they aren't official.

 

[Antvasima]

A "General Verse Discussions" tag/category seems fine to me, unless somebody has a better title in mind, but would any staff members be willing to browse through our General Forum forum and apply it where it is warranted?

 

[ImmortalDread]

But they aren't official.

How they are not official-verse discussions? If they were not, am I allowed to create a one-piece verse discussion generally?

 

[Bobsican]

Could I make a staff thread to make it so that verse-specific power pages require staff evaluation before publishing? I've noticed that lately users have been posting them without much (if any) previous evaluation, which can easily get out of hand in the long term out of some being rather unecessary out of not meeting criteria to even be around.

 

[Antvasima]

Could I make a staff thread to make it so that verse-specific power pages require staff evaluation before publishing? I've noticed that lately users have been posting them without much (if any) previous evaluation, which can easily get out of hand in the long term out of some being rather unecessary out of not meeting criteria to even be around.

That seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

Could I make a staff thread to make it so that verse-specific power pages require staff evaluation before publishing? I've noticed that lately users have been posting them without much (if any) previous evaluation, which can easily get out of hand in the long term out of some being rather unecessary out of not meeting criteria to even be around.

Do you have specific examples in mind that should be removed in your opinion due to not being evaluated enough?

 

[Bobsican]

Most common issue is that there's not enought users of a respective power, actually, we don't have a proper number on that for some reason, so may as well try to cover that in the revision whil we're on that.

I'd also think that a deadline should be given for pages that don't meet all the criteria as I've been following some of these for months with no fixes beyond "it'll eventually be fixed" (in the above case on someone "potentially" indexing more characters with it), which is no different from pages in terrible state being indefinitely kept out of someone theoretically working on them, even if at that point archiving them in a blog post/sandbox would be better.

Anyways, examples that come to mind are this, this and this, in any case I'd avoid discussing any particular cases as it'll easily devolve into talk of these in particular.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

Anyways, examples that come to mind are this, this and this, in any case I'd avoid discussing any particular cases as it'll easily devolve into talk of these in particular.

Okay.

 

[Bobsican]

Done

I'd have brought up the staff evaluation part but it seems that's currently already an standard, at least ideally.

 

[Bobsican]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT

Does this seem fine to add as a description text for our Sandbox forum?

Sorry for the double post, but should AKM be pinged again? DT appears to be already be fine with that, and I'd rather that a change with positive feedback so far to not be forgotten.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

How they are not official-verse discussions? If they were not, am I allowed to create a one-piece verse discussion generally?

I mean like

Had there not been one already, yeah, basically. I don't even think most of them were made in that exact way. I assume One Piece has a thread already though, so yours would be redundant barring discussion of a specific topic.

 

[Antvasima]

"Sandbox area for preparing new posts for later publication. Only the original poster can see their respective publications in this subforum, and so if it's desired to be shared, the contents should be published elsewhere. Note that high-ranking staff still moderate posts."

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT

Does this seem fine to add as a description text for our Sandbox forum?

Sorry for the double post, but should AKM be pinged again? DT appears to be already be fine with that, and I'd rather that a change with positive feedback so far to not be forgotten.

@AKM sama

What do you think about this?

 

[AKM sama]

I don't think any staff member can see anybody's sandbox area. They are private. So the last sentence should be removed. Rest looks fine.

 

[Antvasima]

That is true, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

I have applied the new sandbox forum description text.

 

[Damage3245]

A suggestion for a rule for CRT's going forwards.

All CRT's should mention the verse they're for in the title (if applicable to a specific verse, obviously).

There are many jokey CRT titles, and I don't want to curb people's fun if they want to make some joke or whatever as their CRT title instead of mentioning specific characters or detailing what exactly the thread is about (even though that would be more useful). But at the least I think all CRT titles should include the verse in there.

 

[Damage3245]

Another suggestion inspired by this thread.

A CRT should have some kind of summary of what changes are actually being proposed. It's not enough to just post the sandbox of new profiles and say "That's what will be on the profiles now".

I can understand that for a large number of profiles being revised at the same time in the same CRT, it might take a bit more effort to simply list what is being proposed for each of them, which is why it is a good idea to make the list as you're coming up with the proposed changes before the thread is created - but it's not asking a lot to just have a summary of the proposed changes in the OP of the CRT itself for the sake of clarity.

 

[Confluctor]

define summary

 

[Damage3245]

define summary

Some kind of list of proposed changes, or tl;dr paragraph at the very least. Something that makes it clear what specifically you're adding to the profiles.

So you're not just posting a sandbox for a new version of a profile and saying "Spot the difference" when you're evaluating it.

Instead of saying "Added a few new abilities to these six profiles".... You'd say "Added Fire Manipulation to Character A. Added Portal Creation + BFR to Character B" etc. Or "Added Space Manipulation to all of these characters."

 

[Confluctor]

That seems like far too much work to do, especially when talking about a large number of characters/profiles and/or recreating profiles from scratch. In evaluation process, you can just see the faulty stuff and question it.

I realise some do it, but I also realise that most wouldn't want to because it's just tiresome and unnecessary as a page creator/revisor ¯\(ツ)/¯. I would rather not honestly

 

[Damage3245]

How is that a large amount of work? It seems standard for the vast majority of CRT's to actually say what it is you're proposing.

 

[DMUA]

define summary

I actually did this sort of thing way back with my Terraria CRT

 

[Starter_Pack]

That seems like far too much work to do, especially when talking about a large number of characters/profiles and/or recreating profiles from scratch. In evaluation process, you can just see the faulty stuff and question it.

I realise some do it, but I also realise that most wouldn't want to because it's just tiresome and unnecessary as a page creator/revisor ¯\(ツ)/¯. I would rather not honestly

That is just an excuse for laziness. You don’t have to cover every tiny change, but noting any impactful changes from the original is extremely helpful to anyone who doesn't want to bother doing the monotonous work of comparing the two.

I agree wholeheartedly with both of Damage's proposals.

 

[Damage3245]

Thanks @Starter_Pack. I appreciate that.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I think Damage's suggestions are good, especially having a TL;DR at the end. That's something I need to incorporate into more of my threads as well.

 

[Antvasima]

A suggestion for a rule for CRT's going forwards.

All CRT's should mention the verse they're for in the title (if applicable to a specific verse, obviously).

There are many jokey CRT titles, and I don't want to curb people's fun if they want to make some joke or whatever as their CRT title instead of mentioning specific characters or detailing what exactly the thread is about (even though that would be more useful). But at the least I think all CRT titles should include the verse in there.

I think that we already have a mention of that in our Discussion Rules, but may remember inaccurately.

If that is not the case, we should definitely get it though.