Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

[Ogbunabali]

I think this is the exact feature that distinguishes a discussion thread from an article. Though, I guess it has its own problems...

Didn't know the articles had that function. It does look kinda ugly though.

 

[Antvasima]

i have an idea for the mod/staff (mainly thread mods)
i think they should be able to temp mute someone for breaking rules/being rude since the admins are busy and not able to handle it

I think that thread moderators already can prevent others from responding to specific threads if they misbehave.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Can we make it so the first post shows up even when you're on different pages in threads here on the forums? It'd be much more convenient and helpful. In CRTs you can check arguments/scans from the OP without having to go back, VS threads can keep count of votes and whatnot, even general threads are benefited that have the lists, etc. We're probably one of the few wikis in that, pretty much every, thread would be an improvement with such a feature.

Sounds reasonable, if we can do so without showing the about section in the thread like it is for articles.
I'm not sure if that is easily possible, though.

 

[Bobsican]

In theory it should be possible given that the code is right there and some lines probably would have to be removed at most, assuming the source code of that stuff can be accessed.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I might be able to ask our system manager if this is possible to apply, but this would be a big deal, and many members would likely find the change distracting and out of place, so we should probably start a staff forum thread about the issue first.

 

[AKM sama]

We can ask him whether the about section can be removed. If that's possible, it should work imo.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I still think that we should ask our staff as a whole for input first via a staff forum thread though, as this would be a very big deal.

 

[AKM sama]

If we ask about 50 staff members and if they agree and then it turns out that the problem cannot be fixed, that would be pretty ...ehhh

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Would you be willing to send an email to our system manager (and the rest of those of us who should participate) to ask him about if this is possible to do in theory then? Just make sure to explain that we are just asking a question so far, not asking him to actually apply this change yet.

After he has replied, we can ask the rest of our staff via a staff forum thread.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Is it possible to simply delete the "Opponents, Neutral and Opponents" from the verse page? It's kinda useless and it has the same function of the Knowledgeable Members List (Verse) page and this shouldn't even be a page. The idea of having opponents is ridiculous, and this is also useless, no one uses that.

Adding the Knowledgeable Members List on the verse page makes more sense than the "Opponents" bullshit. If you want people to look for knowledgeable members of a verse, then.... simply go to the verse page lol.

 

[Damage3245]

It does feel like a bit of a legacy feature from early days of the wiki.

I think that "Supporters" could be fine to stay since a person doesn't necessarily have to be fully knowledgeable on a verse to be listed as a supporters who could be contracted for Versus threads and revision threads.

But listing yourself as "Neutral" seems entirely pointless, and "Opponents" just seems to invite antagonism for no good reason. I can't rememeber the list time I've listed myself as an "Opponent" to a verse, if I've ever actually done that before.

 

[MistaClean]

I think the "Opponents" part should stay to act as a signal to the mods to not contact them for a certain verse for a CRT but I don't know.

 

[Damage3245]

I think the "Opponents" part should stay to act as a signal to the mods to not contact them for a certain verse for a CRT but I don't know.

That would be a good usage of the "Opponents" section.

But "Neutral" needs to go IMO.

 

[MistaClean]

But "Neutral" needs to go IMO.

Yeah, seems kind of pointless

 

[KieranH10]

Supporters, Opponents, and Neutral sections serve to show whether a user is actually willing to talk about a verse imo. If you're a supporter, you don't have to be knowledgeable in the verse.
If you're neutral, your either willing to talk about certain aspects of it, or are knowledgeable, but have moved on from it.
If you're an opponent, you clearly don't want to be notified about a verse.

That's how I see it personally.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I think the "Opponents" part should stay to act as a signal to the mods to not contact them for a certain verse for a CRT but I don't know.

If we use "Opponents" for that, then we really should change the name of it.

 

[Bobsican]

Supporters, Opponents, and Neutral sections serve to show whether a user is actually willing to talk about a verse imo. If you're a supporter, you don't have to be knowledgeable in the verse.
If you're neutral, your either willing to talk about certain aspects of it, or are knowledgeable, but have moved on from it.
If you're an opponent, you clearly don't want to be notified about a verse.

That's how I see it personally.

Actually, you're meant to at least be tangentially knowledgeable to be listed, if you just dislike (or plan to join) a verse yet don't know anything beyond what the pages on the wiki may say, it just clogs the list for no good reason.

 

[Confluctor]

Can something be done about editing P&A inside tabbers? Switching to Source Editing makes it more confusing and complicated, and frankly really annoying. It also makes referencing extremely hard.

Basically, make it possible to edit the content of tabbers without having to switch to Source Editing.

 

[Antvasima]

Actually, you're meant to at least be tangentially knowledgeable to be listed, if you just dislike (or plan to join) a verse yet don't know anything beyond what the pages on the wiki may say, it just clogs the list for no good reason.

This is correct, yes. Our members should only list themselves if they are willing to help out with forum discussions about a certain verse, regardless if they like or dislike the setting.

Anyway, it seems like a too big project to start wiping out and replacing these sections, and it would also have very negative consequences as I and others would often not know of enough members to summon to content revisions discussions.

 

[Antvasima]

Can something be done about editing P&A inside tabbers? Switching to Source Editing makes it more confusing and complicated, and frankly really annoying. It also makes referencing extremely hard.

Basically, make it possible to edit the content of tabbers without having to switch to Source Editing.

Everybody are supposed to use the source editing mode for the VS Battles wiki. We have clearly stated this in our Editing Rules.

Also, we are not able to adjust how the fundamental code that Fandom uses works.

 

[Confluctor]

I know, but it's pretty complicated/harder to edit.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I think that the source code editor is fairly simple to use though. What do you have problems with exactly?

 

[Cosmic_King_of_SAO]

I suggest an agree, disagree, and neutral button for the OP to make it easier to keep track of who agrees and whatnot.

In practice once you press one of the buttons, a bar shows up showing who agrees, disagree or is neutral and how many people are in each of the aforementioned categories. It's basically like the youtube community polls.

Of course, this could also apply to comments in general since new solutions and topics might come about when discussing what was originally proposed by the OP.

 

[Antvasima]

That would not be good for content revisions threads. It is important that our members usually provide arguments there, so they do not turn into pure popularity contests.

Also, for versus threads they would often end up with misleading results, as the polls would continue to be active after the voting within the threads has officially finished.

 

[Cosmic_King_of_SAO]

That would not be good for content revisions threads. It is important that our members usually provide arguments there, so they do not turn into pure popularity contests.

Also, for versus threads they would often end up with misleading results, as the polls would continue to be active after the voting within the threads has officially finished.

Ahh, that does make sense. I didn't take that into account. You can ignore my suggestion then.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Damage3245]

Can we introduce some kind of rule that going forwards all calculations for completely separate feats have to be posted as separate blogs?

If a calc has multiple ends, or multiple methods for a particular feat then that's fine IMO to all be part of one blog. But if someone is posting five or six completely different calcs for various feats in a single blog, I think it wouldn't be too much trouble for them to be posted as separate blogs each.

 

[Antvasima]

In theory that may sound good, but in practice it would be very impractical to start to disqualify calculations as soon as several are posted in a single blog. Our members would usually not even be aware of the rule.

Maybe we could set a maximum of 5 calculations per blog though.

What do you think @AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality and @DarkDragonMedeus ?

 

[Promestein]

There's no point, who cares? What's the issue? Just link to the specific section for the calc.

 

[Damage3245]

It would be easier to keep track of individual calcs if they're in individual blogs.

I'm not suggesting invalidating the calcs; just making a request to the creators that they split them up into separate blogs and this will gradually become more widespread as people stop putting in multiple calcs into one blog.


Also, this isn't a thread for complaining about major issues. This is a suggestion for improvements thread, and I think that this would be an improvement even if the current situation isn't majorly inconveniencing anyone.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it would be more problematic for me personally to post my standard instruction message in many more new blog pages every day, and I do not think that what you are describing happens frequently in a genuinely problematic with a lot of calculations crammed into a single blog. Just a few calculations at once does not seem like a problem to me.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If they're all done by different people, I could understand the different blogs method, but if all done by the same person. I don't really see a need to force a new blog as opposed to updating an already existing one.

 

[Antvasima]

Maybe we could set a maximum of 5 calculations per blog though.

What about this possibility?

 

[Arceus0x]

ik it probably won't get accepted but i dislike the time limit for each message. Ik that it prevents spam but when i cannot reply to my own thread in an active convo it just becomes anger inducing.

My suggestion is either

A. Remove or severely lower the time limit for messages when it comes to the person replying to their own thread
B. Generally lower the message time limits.

I believe that option A would be beneficial.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not think that this is a serious problem. You can inciorporate answers to several other members in the same post, and we need a certain degree of spam protection against trolls.

 

[Damage3245]

What about this possibility?

I'm fine with that if others don't think it warrants separating all separate calcs into different blogs.

 

[AKM sama]

What's this about the time limit? First time I am hearing about this.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that XenForo thankfully has automatic brakes for each member only posting one message a minute or somesuch.

 

[AKM sama]

Good feature to avoid spamming.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

What's this about the time limit? First time I am hearing about this.

I'm hearing about this for the first time as well. I guess it never really came up as a topic for me though I do understand the intention of avoiding spamming.