Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

[Antvasima]

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.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Elizhaa @Theglassman12 @Planck69 @PrinceofPein @Agnaa @Everything12 @TheUnshakableOne @Ovy7 @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Astral_Trinity439 @RatherClueless

What do you think about this?

 

[Ovy7]

Yes, that suggestion makes sense.

 

[Antvasima]

Just a clarification that I meant that you are all listed there, so if you think that you no longer qualify after our recent tiering system changes, you are free to remove yourselves from being listed.

 

[PrinceofPein]

For the most part, I know the new tiering system. This is why I have not been commenting on the new tiering system, as I am still waiting for more actual examples, not just theoretical ones.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem then. This was just a mention that if you or the other listed members do not understand our new tiering system, you should probably remove yourselves from being listed until you do understand it again.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Elizhaa @Theglassman12 @Planck69 @PrinceofPein @Agnaa @Everything12 @TheUnshakableOne @Ovy7 @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Astral_Trinity439 @RatherClueless

What do you think about this?

Makes sense
Though, I understand the new tiering system to a deeper extent as well, and added my name after the Tiering System had been revised.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is good then.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Elizhaa @Theglassman12 @Planck69 @PrinceofPein @Agnaa @Everything12 @TheUnshakableOne @Ovy7 @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Astral_Trinity439 @RatherClueless

What do you think about this?

Agree, let me stay though. As I have understood the new tiering system.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is also good then.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Elizhaa @Theglassman12 @Planck69 @PrinceofPein @Agnaa @Everything12 @TheUnshakableOne @Ovy7 @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Astral_Trinity439 @RatherClueless

What do you think about this?

I understand the new tiering system well and feel knowledgeable on how tier 1 works including the 1-A's in the tier.

Actually, I think it's simpler now lol

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for your reply.

 

[Bobsican]

Would it be ideal to make it so that all words that are automatically censored in the forum, instead of just turning into a string of " *** ", they became more specific to the severity? Say, slurs saying "(REPORT ME TO A MOD)", and other words that wouldn't net at least a warning to something like "(CENSORED)"

 

[Antvasima]

I think that seems unnecessary and too specific to be possible to apply in our settings.

 

[Mantidil]

A minor criticism: I noticed that this site's log in tends to glitch out when I attempt to use password managers like Dashlane. I can work around it so not a huge deal, but worth mentioning since it's kinda annoying.

 

[Jinx666]

Being more lenient with how much input is required to pass revisions for Verses that only have 1-2 members overseeing them

 

[Antvasima]

A minor criticism: I noticed that this site's log in tends to glitch out when I attempt to use password managers like Dashlane. I can work around it so not a huge deal, but worth mentioning since it's kinda annoying.

I think that is likely a standard XenForo setting that we cannot affect.

Being more lenient with how much input is required to pass revisions for Verses that only have 1-2 members overseeing them

What do you have in mind, more specifically?

 

[Jinx666]

What do you have in mind, more specifically?

Just that whenever smaller verses without as much support, say with like 1 person actively maintaining the profiles, need a revision thread, that it should require less staff input for approval.

This is just because since theres only 1 or 2 knowledgable members, who arent staff members, then its difficult to muster up enough approval (and even then, it would just have to be a FRA reason since they wont know the verse that well.

I also wouldnt mind one of those Wiki Management Threads like this one, for adding a few missing Powers and Abilities to a profile, without needing to make a whole thread on them. Say, someone can post a request to add a Power/Ability to a page if they think something is missing (and as long as its only 1 or 2), and provide proof for it. Then if its sound logic, a member of staff can give it a thumbs up and they're free to add it. This gets rid of the necessity to make a thread for like, 1 simple ability addition while also allowing for engagement before they make edits to the profile

 

[Antvasima]

Just that whenever smaller verses without as much support, say with like 1 person actively maintaining the profiles, need a revision thread, that it should require less staff input for approval.

This is just because since theres only 1 or 2 knowledgable members, who arent staff members, then its difficult to muster up enough approval (and even then, it would just have to be a FRA reason since they wont know the verse that well.

I also wouldnt mind one of those Wiki Management Threads like this one, for adding a few missing Powers and Abilities to a profile, without needing to make a whole thread on them. Say, someone can post a request to add a Power/Ability to a page if they think something is missing (and as long as its only 1 or 2), and provide proof for it. Then if its sound logic, a member of staff can give it a thumbs up and they're free to add it. This gets rid of the necessity to make a thread for like, 1 simple ability addition while also allowing for engagement before they make edits to the profile

It seems better to start a staff forum discussion thread about this. These are not issues that I and our forum system manager can easily decide and apply on our own.