Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

[Bobsican]

I pictured it more as a quality of life thing than something to overly rely on out of that, yes, and it may be worth to limit this to more simple stuff on that regard such as VS Threads to avoid being detrimental for staff threads as mentioned.

 

[CloverDragon03]

For CRTs in particular, I feel like enforcing the need for actual reasons for voting would become much more difficult if there was just a poll. Like, you could just cast your vote in the poll and be done with it. What need would there be for you to comment?

It may have its place in VS Threads, but even that's iffy because even those require a stated reason for your vote. It just seems like something that's better in concept than it is in practice

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Medeus and Clover here.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Umm... @Dark_Soul20189 has told me that he is getting Gateway 502 error while entering forum and can't open forum.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

It is fixed now, but for some reason I was blocked from the forum 8just the forum) for over a hour.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Maybe there was a system update then?

 

[ByArrow]

My first suggestion, is that users should be able to follow tags like they can follow Threads. I mean, it would be nice if a user could follow the MCU tag and get notified when a thread using the MCU tag is opened.

And I think that the message editing time in conversations should be longer than 5 minutes or even abolished.

 

[Antvasima]

My first suggestion, is that users should be able to follow tags like they can follow Threads. I mean, it would be nice if a user could follow the MCU tag and get notified when a thread using the MCU tag is opened.

I do not think that is possible.

Also, our members extremely frequently seem to very irresponsibly use tags that do not use the original wiki page titles, so you would likely have to follow around 8 of them for every verse.

And I think that the message editing time in conversations should be longer than 5 minutes or even abolished.

Please explain further.

 

[Dereck03]

Please explain further.

Arrow seems to be talking about private messages, the time limit to edit them is less than 5 minutes, after that it's impossible to edit or delete them.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will ask our system manager about fixing the issue.

Would 30 minutes be an appropriate time limit?

 

[Dereck03]

Personally I have no interest, although I tend to think that it is a bit annoying the short time that sometimes there is to edit the message, I would say that between an average of 10 to 30 minutes would be fine, I'm more inclined to 10.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. What do the rest of you think?

 

[Bobsican]

A good suggestion to minimize clutter here would be to have a rough list in the OP of the kind of changes that are often proposed but are simply unplausible with the current resources, as I've been noticing that most suggestions brought up here, even if good, are simply rejected out of budget limitations, so that may be something for starters to list on there if this is deemed fine.

 

[Lou_change]

The editing rules page still features rules for collaboration web fiction which refers back to our old SCP standards, I assume that needs to be changed. It also indirectly mentions the concept of multiple levels of tier 0 in the "inclusion of verses" section something that no longer exists.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that the message editing time in conversations should be longer than 5 minutes or even abolished.

Arrow seems to be talking about private messages, the time limit to edit them is less than 5 minutes, after that it's impossible to edit or delete them.

Okay. I will ask our system manager about fixing the issue.

Would 30 minutes be an appropriate time limit?

Personally I have no interest, although I tend to think that it is a bit annoying the short time that sometimes there is to edit the message, I would say that between an average of 10 to 30 minutes would be fine, I'm more inclined to 10.

Thank you. What do the rest of you think?

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Planck69

Your input would be appreciated here.

A good suggestion to minimize clutter here would be to have a rough list in the OP of the kind of changes that are often proposed but are simply unplausible with the current resources, as I've been noticing that most suggestions brought up here, even if good, are simply rejected out of budget limitations, so that may be something for starters to list on there if this is deemed fine.

I think that would likely make the first post of this thread too cluttered, and I do not remember what I should mention there.

The editing rules page still features rules for collaboration web fiction which refers back to our old SCP standards, I assume that needs to be changed. It also indirectly mentions the concept of multiple levels of tier 0 in the "inclusion of verses" section something that no longer exists.

Bambu and Ultima, are you willing to handle this please?

 

[Bobsican]

If clutter is a concern the forum has a innate feature to just hide it into a box, namely:

Spoiler: Example

this is an example.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I do not recall that this thread has a major problem with repeated suggestions, so I am not sure what I would even place there.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I believe the reason for why PMs typically have messages unable to be edited is because some people could use that as an excuse for wrong doings. If someone could just remove their own hostile/toxic messages, some could use that as an advantage to delete evidence of harassment. But the solution is that edit history and staff members being able to read remove posts much like public messages would make up for that. People should be able to fix typos or reclarify if they said something but meant something else entirely. I think PMs should look like the messages we see on the various threads in all those regards IMO.

 

[Bobsican]

Broadly speaking it's clear that most changes involving changing how the forum works (aka, implementing new features that would require programming/APIs) are generally declined, so that could be something to start with.

 

[Antvasima]

Broadly speaking it's clear that most changes involving changing how the forum works (aka, implementing new features that would require programming/APIs) are generally declined, so that could be something to start with.

No they are not. We have applied plenty of new features that have been both reasonable, constructive, and possible to apply.

 

[Chritin]

So I understand that this might be an outlandish request, but a closed mouth doesn't get fed so I thought I might as well ask.

Currently, the process of overwriting an image on the wiki can be solved in a few ways. A person can upload an entirely new file (taking up redundant space on the wiki), get a staff member to upload a new version of an image (a lengthy, slow moving process due to many staff having more pressing duties), or simply doing nothing and leaving an image as is. This is extremely frustrating in my opinion, and thus I was wondering if it may be possible for general users to have permissions on overwriting images. I mostly detailed why I would like to see this change in this thread here, as well as a few ideas supporting it which I will reiterate here.

My overall argument is that many of the concerns that some people may have over allowing anyone to overwrite images are greatly outweighed by the accessibility the feature provide people. Now I understand that the primary reason the ability isn't allowed for most users is the fear of dealing with vandalism and image disputes. However, I see ability to overwrite images as a feature no different from editing character profiles and verse pages, which is something a vast majority of members can do, and is much more prone to abuse. By the sites very nature as a subjective wiki (despite the fact that all pages are based on evidence), it's obvious that it would incur attacks by people who disagree with our views, and thus cause editing disputes or acts of vandalism. On the contrary, images are much less prone to these kinds of attacks. Most images on the wiki display purely factual information and most if not all people seeking to change them would only do so to improve their quality and effectiveness on the wiki.

What I mean by all of this is that if we allow people to have free access to edit most pages, then I see no reason why they shouldn't also have access to overwrite images, since they are only factual visual aids that, when updated properly, can improve the visual clarity of the wiki as a whole.

I hope that all makes sense (I can get needlessly wordy sometimes) , and I would totally understand the staff wouldn't want to implement this, but I thought I should still ask.

 

[Antvasima]

Trolls used to systematically overwrite our previously existing images, that are displayed in our wiki pages, with pornography or otherwise extremely inappropriate content, and this type of vandalism is much harder for edit-patrollers to notice.

Also, even non-maliciously intended, but still inappropriate, replacements of our visibly displayed wiki images would turn much harder for edit-patrollers to notice.

So in combination this results in a definitive no. My apologies.

 

[Chritin]

Trolls used to systematically overwrite our previously existing images, that are displayed in our wiki pages, with pornography or otherwise extremely inappropriate content, and this type of vandalism is much harder for edit-patrollers to notice.

Also, even non-maliciously intended, but still inappropriate, replacements of our visibly displayed wiki images would turn much harder for edit-patrollers to notice.

So in combination this results in a definitive no. My apologies.

All good, and yeah that makes sense.

 

[Arkenis]

Not sure if this is the thread and this is a small issue but there's a ton of vampire hunters and witch hunters yet there is only two in vampire hunters, Leon Belmont who I just put and then Richter Belmont. There isn't a category for Witch Hunters at all and I can name characters who are witch hunters Hansel and Gretel, Tasha Godspell, Madoka Kaname, and then in their verse there's more so a Witch Hunter category should be made and the Vampire Hunters category needs more attention since its lacking.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Planck69

Your input would be appreciated here.

I think that would likely make the first post of this thread too cluttered, and I do not remember what I should mention there.

Bambu and Ultima, are you willing to handle this please?

I'm just now getting to this last bit.

The rule previously said this:

Verses with a strong online collaborative element, such as SCP and many forms of The Backrooms, have special rules applied to them. This is in part because of their constantly-evolving and freeform nature brought on by allowing anyone on the internet to contribute, confusion regarding canonicity and centralisation, and several other reasons. Rules regarding these verses are currently shaped by SCP's presence as follows.

• Any form of collaborative, community fiction with open participation needs noticeably strict and harsh standards for what they allow on their website. There needs to be significant quality control, with precise and thorough evidence showing this process to be at least comparable to SCP's.
• The verse in question needs to be centralised, with a clear definition of what is canon and what is not, without crossing outside of its own community in any way. Any indexing of a verse has to stay within that site and definitive canon, with no noticeable overlap

Would it be alright to change it to this:

Verses with a strong online collaborative element, such as many forms of The Backrooms, have special rules applied to them. This is in part because of their constantly-evolving and freeform nature brought on by allowing anyone on the internet to contribute, confusion regarding canonicity and centralisation, and several other reasons. Due to SCP's removal from the wiki, these rules have changed to reflect that.

• Any form of collaborative, community fiction with open participation needs noticeably strict and harsh standards for what they allow on their website. There needs to be significant quality control, with precise and thorough evidence showing this process to be superior to that of the SCP Foundation.
• The verse in question needs to be centralised, with a clear definition of what is canon and what is not, without crossing outside of its own community in any way. Any indexing of a verse has to stay within that site and definitive canon, with no noticeable overlap.

...or would you rather the rules be rewritten to entirely disallow such things? This is in part an element of the Afterlife of SCP thread I made, but not much attention has been had on the subject. Less than I'd hoped for, at least.

 

[Antvasima]

Not sure if this is the thread and this is a small issue but there's a ton of vampire hunters and witch hunters yet there is only two in vampire hunters, Leon Belmont who I just put and then Richter Belmont. There isn't a category for Witch Hunters at all and I can name characters who are witch hunters Hansel and Gretel, Tasha Godspell, Madoka Kaname, and then in their verse there's more so a Witch Hunter category should be made and the Vampire Hunters category needs more attention since its lacking.

You are free to do so on your own, but it doesn't seem like a task that is necessary to request from our staff.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm just now getting to this last bit.

The rule previously said this:


Would it be alright to change it to this:


...or would you rather the rules be rewritten to entirely disallow such things? This is in part an element of the Afterlife of SCP thread I made, but not much attention has been had on the subject. Less than I'd hoped for, at least.

I have responded elsewhere regarding this topic.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-afterlife-of-scp.170313/post-6662571

 

[Quibster]

This may already exist, but is there a list of abilities that are slated for removal or are in dire need of updates? If not, this would be handy for me to reference.

 

[Antvasima]

Please elaborate. Do you mean our "Powers and Abilities" pages?

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

So, regarding the available editing time for private messages in our forum. Would it be appropriate to increase it from 5 minutes to 30 minutes, or is some other time limit better?

Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

I pictured it more as a quality of life thing than something to overly rely on out of that, yes, and it may be worth to limit this to more simple stuff on that regard such as VS Threads to avoid being detrimental for staff threads as mentioned.

vsbattles.com

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, that'd be a marked improvement I'd say.

 

[Quibster]

Please elaborate. Do you mean our "Powers and Abilities" pages?

Yes.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

So, regarding the available editing time for private messages in our forum. Would it be appropriate to increase it from 5 minutes to 30 minutes, or is some other time limit better?

Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

I pictured it more as a quality of life thing than something to overly rely on out of that, yes, and it may be worth to limit this to more simple stuff on that regard such as VS Threads to avoid being detrimental for staff threads as mentioned.

vsbattles.com

Sure, 30 minutes works for me. I'm okay with it as long as it's not just 5 minutes.

 

[ByAsura]

30 minutes is way better, yes.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

30 minutes is better than 5; though not quite as much as abolishing time limits + giving staff permission to see edited and/or removed posts similar to regular thread messages. But still an improvement regardless if the system manager isn't able to do the latter.

 

[Antvasima]

This may already exist, but is there a list of abilities that are slated for removal or are in dire need of updates? If not, this would be handy for me to reference.

Please elaborate. Do you mean our "Powers and Abilities" pages?

Yes.

Thank you.

I think that we have an ongoing powers and abilities revision thread, yes. Is somebody here willing to link to it please?

 

[Antvasima]

30 minutes is better than 5; though not quite as much as abolishing time limits + giving staff permission to see edited and/or removed posts similar to regular thread messages. But still an improvement regardless if the system manager isn't able to do the latter.

Thank you for all replies here. I will ask about it.

 

[Antvasima]

I have asked now.

 

[Antvasima]

Our system manager has changed the editing time limit to 60 minutes now, but the other settings are not available in XenForo.

 

[Bobsican]

Per the new Tiering system revamp, shouldn't the knowledgeable Low 1-A and above sections have the users listed removed for the most part, then let them manually readd themselves if they still deem themselves pertinent on such topics? It'd be recommended to ping them in any case to comment on this matter regarding themselves.