ResetEra March 2018 Newsletter
- Thread starter SweetNicole
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
You are reading what you want from other people's posts. For all I care you can take my thread creating rights and use all you want - Im just not seeing any reason to be so bothered specially when according to your own words you don't post much. It's just creating threads and at most it will take two more months. You can survive using the "adopt a thread" thingy till then. No one is silencing you.
My two cents on the moderation issue: It's necessary in the beginning of a new venture like this to go overboard a little, because you have to make it very clear that there are new boundaries and expectations. You have to establish new norms. The old site let people (and mods) get away with junk that shouldn't have been allowed, and it created a community that was toxic and juvenile at times. So in establishing a new site with many of the same people, there has to be a period where you go out of your way in showing people where the new lines are -- where you post warnings, etc., letting everyone know that "this is frowned upon." People need to understand that this site will be run different than the last. I support that. I think you've done a great job of that, especially with such a large community, and in such a short period of time.
I also support dialing it back a bit, now that most people seem to understand the new expectations. There was a sense that sometimes the mods were going a bit overboard in their vigilance. I never had an issue with it -- I knew where it was coming from and was glad to see it, especially because I saw how the community changed in response -- but I think that phase is over now.
I would just suggest, don't dial it back too too much. It's still early. Backsliding into old patterns can happen. You don't want mods getting cowed by a minority of complaining members. There still needs to be follow through with the new expectations/guidelines.
Thanks for all the work you do. It's a great site.
I also support dialing it back a bit, now that most people seem to understand the new expectations. There was a sense that sometimes the mods were going a bit overboard in their vigilance. I never had an issue with it -- I knew where it was coming from and was glad to see it, especially because I saw how the community changed in response -- but I think that phase is over now.
I would just suggest, don't dial it back too too much. It's still early. Backsliding into old patterns can happen. You don't want mods getting cowed by a minority of complaining members. There still needs to be follow through with the new expectations/guidelines.
Thanks for all the work you do. It's a great site.
Just to add my feedback, I do find the change from 100 posts/1 month to 300 posts/3 months a little unfortunate. I've been on the site since October 28th but I mostly only comment on stuff when I feel I have something to add (If someone hasn't posted similar thoughts or opinions to my own, for example). Someone has usually already said what I want to say, so I am normally content to just lurk and read other posts but I had been planning to make some Xenoblade X/BotW themed threads when I got full member status so those will have to wait a while longer (2.5 years from now at my current pace, ha). I'll deal with it, I suppose, if there's no other way around it but I do feel pretty disappointed. I do take my time when posting and try to put thought into them, and I do feel the higher post count will probably encourage the opposite.
I have to admit I'm one of those people. There's been a few discussions I wanted to throw in my 2 cents, but noticed some posts get warnings or outright banned for what seemed like entirely reasonable posts to me. So I instead just stay out of the discussion and stick to posting in pure gaming threads. I personally dislike confrontation, so maybe it's for the best anyways, but if these moderation changes help make Era feel a bit more welcoming then I'd say it's a good change.
I have to admit I'm one of those people. There's been a few discussions I wanted to throw in my 2 cents, but noticed some posts get warnings or outright banned for what seemed like entirely reasonable posts to me. So I instead just stay out of the discussion and stick to posting in pure gaming threads. I personally dislike confrontation, so maybe it's for the best anyways, but if these moderation changes help make Era feel a bit more welcoming then I'd say it's a good change.
One thing related to Resetera i'd like to ask, is registration ever going to be made more open? I get the idea of making it manual approval and even somewhat I understand only accepting "paid" email providers for sign ups, especially given the circumstances that led to people moving from the old place to this new one. That said, I only got into this place because I had a school email (one that can't actually send emails outside of accounts on the school network, so hopefully I never need to actually email anyone here), and if I somehow lost access to this account after I finished school, i'm boned because there will be no access to that again. And it's not like I can currently change my account to use my actual email address because that's not a paid one.
Apologies if this isn't the place to ask this question, I just don't see where I would ask such a question.
Apologies if this isn't the place to ask this question, I just don't see where I would ask such a question.
Great newsletter.
A thought along the lighter moderation touch: If we have any mods or admins with current ties to video game companies, such as being devs, social media managers, etc., we think they should resign their forum position. Them being a mod or admin on the forum, while working for a gaming company, creates the perception of a conflict of interest, potentially. Maybe in reality it has no actual effect. I'm sure that's the case. But it's hard to argue it doesn't create the possible perception of a conflict of interest. It's great we have posters in the gaming community on this forum. But they should not be in a mod or admin position, in our opinion. Thanks for your consideration.
A thought along the lighter moderation touch: If we have any mods or admins with current ties to video game companies, such as being devs, social media managers, etc., we think they should resign their forum position. Them being a mod or admin on the forum, while working for a gaming company, creates the perception of a conflict of interest, potentially. Maybe in reality it has no actual effect. I'm sure that's the case. But it's hard to argue it doesn't create the possible perception of a conflict of interest. It's great we have posters in the gaming community on this forum. But they should not be in a mod or admin position, in our opinion. Thanks for your consideration.
Then something needs to be done to those who bait users (either personally or a group) across multiple threads til said user or groups go off then only they get banned not the baiter.
I don't have a solution just noticing things from time to time. Site ain't been around long enough for me personally to worry but not stupid enough to think I won't be baited sometime in the future
I don't have a solution just noticing things from time to time. Site ain't been around long enough for me personally to worry but not stupid enough to think I won't be baited sometime in the future
My thoughts on warnings and moderation after reading this thread:
-I like the visible moderation on the site.
-We have sticky threads, can a thread have sticky posts that appear on the top of every page? I'm suggesting it since sometimes a mod will make a red post saying that anyone doing X after this will face consequences, but honestly those posts are easy to miss, especially when they are posted long after the post that triggers X behavior.
-To have warnings less disruptive, could it be an alternative to have them at the bottom of the post rather than the top? That way at least you can read longer warned posts with more of an "open mind".
-whoever suggested changing the color of warnings to yellow had a good idea.
-so does the user who suggest adding a cue/counter to show if a post has been quoted already.
-I like the visible moderation on the site.
-We have sticky threads, can a thread have sticky posts that appear on the top of every page? I'm suggesting it since sometimes a mod will make a red post saying that anyone doing X after this will face consequences, but honestly those posts are easy to miss, especially when they are posted long after the post that triggers X behavior.
-To have warnings less disruptive, could it be an alternative to have them at the bottom of the post rather than the top? That way at least you can read longer warned posts with more of an "open mind".
-whoever suggested changing the color of warnings to yellow had a good idea.
-so does the user who suggest adding a cue/counter to show if a post has been quoted already.
Aw man. I don't know how I feel about the Junior to Full Member changes. I'm a member since the start and have barely 65 comments and at this rate I will have full privileges in two years. I have a couple of ideas for threads that I was saving, I read everyday a lot here. Hopefully not a lot of people is in my situation.
In exchange, I've seen a couple of threads derailed recently, so hopefully those things will be less frequent, cause they're not cool to witness.
I just really don't like to speak if I don't have something to add that hasn't been said before.
In exchange, I've seen a couple of threads derailed recently, so hopefully those things will be less frequent, cause they're not cool to witness.
I just really don't like to speak if I don't have something to add that hasn't been said before.
I’m in the same boat as you, I mainly comment if I feel my post is worth it and tend to stay outta the more controversial/political discussions.
And I’m in full agreement with the moderation having a bit of a lighter touch unless needed, unless someone is being an absolute jerk or whatever. Try to let the person express their point without being too quick to ban them. Unless we’re talking about someone being pretty vile, but I haven’t seen a whole lot of that (then again, I don’t post very often either :-p)
And I’m in full agreement with the moderation having a bit of a lighter touch unless needed, unless someone is being an absolute jerk or whatever. Try to let the person express their point without being too quick to ban them. Unless we’re talking about someone being pretty vile, but I haven’t seen a whole lot of that (then again, I don’t post very often either :-p)
These newsletters are a great feature of this board! I hope they stick around forever. It's a nice resource for everybody, and the layout is easy to follow until the end. Also great to have a monthly roundup for everybody (plus people who haven't visited in a while are able to catch up), and a look into what's next.
TL;DR: Thank you. Sincerely.
TL;DR: Thank you. Sincerely.
I honestly don't understand the post count requirement for thread creation rights. I feel all it does is encourage spam posts. I'm quite a lurker myself, and there have been times already where I wanted to create a thread but couldn't.
Seems like I'll take a couple years to reach 300 *meaningful* posts, which is highly nonsensical IMHO.
It would be more logical if the condition was an "OR", not an "AND".
Seems like I'll take a couple years to reach 300 *meaningful* posts, which is highly nonsensical IMHO.
It would be more logical if the condition was an "OR", not an "AND".
Hear hear. Back when I was a new member, the first thing I did was just add my voice to the crowd a lot of the time, merely to get to the number of required posts. I made sure my posts weren't bad, of course, but this policy certainly did encourage me to spam. 100 posts is a fine number; 300 seems too much.
Exactly. I mean, of course I'd also make sure my posts weren't bad, but just the fact that I have to post to increase my post count to get thread creation rights is such a convoluted way of doing it. Contrary to you, I really don't feel comfortable with myself just doing that, so, as I said, I envision me taking ages to get to the necessary post count.
I agree, but only partially. I don't think the number is the core issue here, but the evaluation algorithm itself. In my mind, it doesn't make sense to use this restriction as a gauge of a good poster. That's why I suggested changing the logic to be "either 3 months, or 300 posts". But then, you get to an even weirder situation where there could be people rushing to 300 posts causing a flood in the board, which is also similarly terrible.
My conclusion is that considering post count at all is arguably a poor mechanism in and of itself and should be reconsidered.
Please don't get me wrong here: I fully understand the fact that we need a restriction. But maybe there would be a different way of managing it.
Has someone considered the possibility of posters having to provide proof of their background in some way? Like, posts/threads in other forums, etc, as proof that they are well intentioned and good mannered? I know this is more of a manual approach, but it would be very suitable considering we really just want to have trully good people posting here (which again, I totally agree with).
I agree, but only partially. I don't think the number is the core issue here, but the evaluation algorithm itself. In my mind, it doesn't make sense to use this restriction as a gauge of a good poster. That's why I suggested changing the logic to be "either 3 months, or 300 posts". But then, you get to an even weirder situation where there could be people rushing to 300 posts causing a flood in the board, which is also similarly terrible.
My conclusion is that considering post count at all is arguably a poor mechanism in and of itself and should be reconsidered.
Please don't get me wrong here: I fully understand the fact that we need a restriction. But maybe there would be a different way of managing it.
Has someone considered the possibility of posters having to provide proof of their background in some way? Like, posts/threads in other forums, etc, as proof that they are well intentioned and good mannered? I know this is more of a manual approach, but it would be very suitable considering we really just want to have trully good people posting here (which again, I totally agree with).
Last edited:
- Status