• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

Bobsican said:
Could there be a text below the username of banned users in the forum that clarify that they're banned? It'd be a good thing as it's quite non-intuitive at the moment to know otherwise.
Click to expand...
If there is no concert solution, this may clear confusion (in case the system manager could not find the solvent)
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I believe white color names just mean they have banners on their profile iirc, but strike throughs and banned user badges seems like a good suggestion yeah.
Click to expand...
We already tried badges, and they did not work out at all as intended, and strikethroughs have been in effect for a long time already.

However, I would appreciate if you elaborate on the reasons for why username colours get affected.
 
Dread said:
I remember @Bobsican suggesting having under name, is it bad suggestion?
Click to expand...
Again, we already tried that, and the badges popped up with awkward sizes in various inappropriate places as well, so the suggestion did not work out properly.
 
Antvasima said:
We already tried badges, and they did not work out at all as intended, and strikethroughs have been in effect for a long time already.

However, I would appreciate if you elaborate on the reasons for why username colours get affected.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why an elaboration is needed, Random Butler already tested it out and confirmed I am correct. Users with profile banners have their usernames colored white over the profile banners while users who don't have the highlighted URL Linked style blue/red text; depending on certain settings if you open their profile page. Also, the "White username" brought up by Butler was referring to what color name was over that profile banner. Anyway, this seems like such a minor detail that was already clarified and not sure why I was asked to elaborate. I know Random Butler made mention for that to be fixed, but it's not something relevant from separating staff from regular users nor is it relevant to banned users from non banned users, it just happens to basically blend in with the background of the profile banner most likely and nothing more. So that basically answers one question of Random Butler had.

Anyway, if strikethroughs or banned user badges won't work like what is proposed by Random Butler, I'm unsure what other suggestions I have for how to signify users being banned without needing to look at profiles other than what was already proposed.
 
Okay. Thank you for the explanation. I need rather precise information in order to properly inform our system manager.
 
A suggestion for Christmas, can we have a Christmas frame around our profile?
And suggestion for donators, can we have profile picture frames tho?

Note: Profile picture frame in this context means avatar decoration
 
I do not know how to do that, but you can just update your avatar images as I have if you wish.
 
a8ddaf1c4a227e0debb9a33110511530.png


Like this what I meant.
 
Is it feasible for our development team to add a official strike/warning list onto every User?

Time and time again I see reports running into the void because it is such a hassle for Staff member to figure out past offenses and warning, completly relying on memory and posts that can be easily buried deep in a thread.

You can name it however you want, but the idea is that this a list which only Staff members and the user in question can see and only Staff members can edit it. It should be able to contain links so a official warning/strike be able to contain links to;

1. A formal Warning issued by a Staff member
2. A link to the post/Thread in general if the offense is widespread, that was deemed a rule violation
3. And a link to the post within the Rule Violation Thread, where the decision, that the user in question should receive a warning, was finalized

This list is honestly the bare minimum in order to revamp the RVT in general, because right now it costs incredible amount of nerves and time to get one report done and the fact that we rely on such a unreliable method in the first place is mind bogging
 
First_Witch said:
Is it feasible for our development team to add a official strike/warning list onto every User?

Time and time again I see reports running into the void because it is such a hassle for Staff member to figure out past offenses and warning, completly relying on memory and posts that can be easily buried deep in a thread.

You can name it however you want, but the idea is that this a list which only Staff members and the user in question can see and only Staff members can edit it. It should be able to contain links so a official warning/strike be able to contain links to;

1. A formal Warning issued by a Staff member
2. A link to the post/Thread in general if the offense is widespread, that was deemed a rule violation
3. And a link to the post within the Rule Violation Thread, where the decision, that the user in question should receive a warning, was finalized

This list is honestly the bare minimum in order to revamp the RVT in general, because right now it costs incredible amount of nerves and time to get one report done and the fact that we rely on such a unreliable method in the first place is mind bogging
Click to expand...
I found this idea in other xenforo forum, like this
fd14a2f17b0929d47f3441e0a5447fcb.png
 
First_Witch said:
Is it feasible for our development team to add a official strike/warning list onto every User?

Time and time again I see reports running into the void because it is such a hassle for Staff member to figure out past offenses and warning, completly relying on memory and posts that can be easily buried deep in a thread.

You can name it however you want, but the idea is that this a list which only Staff members and the user in question can see and only Staff members can edit it. It should be able to contain links so a official warning/strike be able to contain links to;

1. A formal Warning issued by a Staff member
2. A link to the post/Thread in general if the offense is widespread, that was deemed a rule violation
3. And a link to the post within the Rule Violation Thread, where the decision, that the user in question should receive a warning, was finalized

This list is honestly the bare minimum in order to revamp the RVT in general, because right now it costs incredible amount of nerves and time to get one report done and the fact that we rely on such a unreliable method in the first place is mind bogging
Click to expand...
Dread said:
I found this idea in other xenforo forum, like this
fd14a2f17b0929d47f3441e0a5447fcb.png
Click to expand...
This seems like a good idea. I will ask about it.
 
Less pressing and important as the suggestion of mine above, but is it possible to implement a Time-out ability for Discussion Mods and above?

Basically give Staff members of at least Discussion Mod rank the ability to ban people for a maximum duration of Half a hour/ a Hour. The Idea behind this is that we often have cases where normally wellbehaved and constructive members get into a heated debate and get reported for it, leading to page long discussion about wether or not they deserve a warning, wether or not more punishment is required, are we too lenient or too harsh etc.

So instead of allowing discussions to reach this boiling point, giving people forceful breaks to calm down and collect themselve to prevent more drama seems far better.

The Idea is simple: Imagine a heated topic between a seasoned User and a Newcomer. It is clear from the flow of the conversation that both are getting really heated and will reach clearly toxic levels. But what can a Mod do to calm the situation down? Warn them, something that can be ignored (Not maliciously) in the heat of the moment? Delete posts which might disrupt the entire thread as, even if posts were toxic, they may contain important points? No, I think forcing those 2 to take a break is the best way to intervene. 30 Minutes/A Hour is not long enough to be punishment, but isnt as undisruptive and ignoreable like a warning.

Granting Discussion mods the ability to ban people for a really short period of time would not mettle with Admin's and above's final authority of banning people properly, meaning that a Discussion Mod abusing the power woudnt be as distructive, it would give Discussion mods more tools to, well, moderate Discussions and thus give them a more defined role that dosnt boil down to Second class Admins and it will help bogging the RVT with petty drama we tend to handwave away either way.

Tl;Dr

Discussion Mods should be able to ban people for a Maximum of 1 Hour
 
You mean timing out since banning won't work for a specific time is bad. But muting would work.
 
Last edited:
First_Witch said:
Less pressing and important as the suggestion of mine above, but is it possible to implement a Time-out ability for Discussion Mods and above?

Basically give Staff members of at least Discussion Mod rank the ability to ban people for a maximum duration of Half a hour/ a Hour. The Idea behind this is that we often have cases where normally wellbehaved and constructive members get into a heated debate and get reported for it, leading to page long discussion about wether or not they deserve a warning, wether or not more punishment is required, are we too lenient or too harsh etc.

So instead of allowing discussions to reach this boiling point, giving people forceful breaks to calm down and collect themselve to prevent more drama seems far better.

The Idea is simple: Imagine a heated topic between a seasoned User and a Newcomer. It is clear from the flow of the conversation that both are getting really heated and will reach clearly toxic levels. But what can a Mod do to calm the situation down? Warn them, something that can be ignored (Not maliciously) in the heat of the moment? Delete posts which might disrupt the entire thread as, even if posts were toxic, they may contain important points? No, I think forcing those 2 to take a break is the best way to intervene. 30 Minutes/A Hour is not long enough to be punishment, but isnt as undisruptive and ignoreable like a warning.

Granting Discussion mods the ability to ban people for a really short period of time would not mettle with Admin's and above's final authority of banning people properly, meaning that a Discussion Mod abusing the power woudnt be as distructive, it would give Discussion mods more tools to, well, moderate Discussions and thus give them a more defined role that dosnt boil down to Second class Admins and it will help bogging the RVT with petty drama we tend to handwave away either way.

Tl;Dr

Discussion Mods should be able to ban people for a Maximum of 1 Hour
Click to expand...
If this is possible to implement, this is a damn fine idea. Seconded.
 
No, though they were able to do it in the dark ages of Wiki Chat.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
No, though they were able to do it in the dark ages of Wiki Chat.
Click to expand...
Alright, sounds a great idea for thread moderator, tho I thought they have the permission either, but it seems they only have lock threads permission right now.
 
I do not think that such a change is possible to implement, but thread moderators can already prevent other members from responding to specific discussion threads at least.
 
Antvasima said:
I do not think that such a change is possible to implement, but thread moderators can already prevent other members from responding to specific discussion threads at least.
Click to expand...
By muting them or just verbally telling them if I am allowed to ask?
 
Thread moderators can literally thread-ban others by editing the settings for a specific thread, and they are authorised to use this ability if other members severely misbehave in them.
 
Is it possibe to have more react emojis?

As of now, the only way to react is with a like emoji.

What if we could react with heart emojis or haha emojis like in facebook?
 
Cimafranca133 said:
Is it possibe to have more react emojis?

As of now, the only way to react is with a like emoji.

What if we could react with heart emojis or haha emojis like in facebook?
Click to expand...
I think this was rejected due to the possibility of this being misused for much more toxic purposes.

Don't quote me on this though, just a messenger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
70
Views
8K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
AKM sama
Super Moderator Promotions and New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
Greenshifter
Greenshifter
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
69
Views
11K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
DarkGrath
Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision
3 4 5
Replies
175
Views
9K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
Back
Top