Regarding the creation of a new forum
|
Post by Rock on Jun 16, 2011 2:34:53 GMT
If that's his opinion, then yes, it does.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 16, 2011 2:35:24 GMT
Oh, just go read my last post. Internet cut out and now it's an edit instead of a new post. Long story.
I am not "agreeing with the crowd". I'm stating that my opinion does not matter if the public is opposed to it. Frankly, I want to give it a try. If anything I want to move, I WANT to... if it will work. At the moment, it doesn't look like it will.
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on Jun 16, 2011 2:37:04 GMT
So you're trying to force him to agree with someone? Doesn't work that way. i'm not trying to force him to agree with someone. He is waiting until the decision is unanimous so he can say "Oh I agree, let's do it." That is what you would call 'Going with the flow.' Furthermore, your opinion does matter even if the public is opposed to it. I am not sure where you got that thought from.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 16, 2011 2:37:55 GMT
I think Proboards provide a very shitty forum. With the current H/F its also damn slow and there are many reasons to move the forum and run it on a real forum software. But I don't like the idea to use some self written software. I don't know your skills, but many people contribute to big forum software packages and add features and fix security holes that you alone can't match. Also what happens if you ever loose interest in the forum? Who will fix security holes and stuff like that then? Also there is free software out there that have all that you say plus currencies and much more. Actually I am for removing stuff like DBs, colored names (name changes altogether) and much more, but the people seem to like all that shit, so I think "the folks like it" is an argument for something. Also where do you plan to host that forum? That would be another reason against it, I assume you run the server, that means you are the Administrator of the forum. Now think about how Rock/Qwerty/... will think about it? On a sidenote, I think the last move showed that moving is possible. The move before by Listo was just executed very stupidly and people didn't understand why it happened. I actually thought someone found an XSS security hole in the old forum and tried to trick people into using the new one. (But that was before I knew how crappy you have to code Proboard forums.) If you a) lock the old forum b) give them a page on the old one where and why it moved c) make it easy to register on the new one, then I think all active members will move to the new one. If you run both forums in parallel (for more then a few days) the move will not work. Also to make the move easier, one can copy all the threads from the old forum and import them in the new one. (Although you have to write your own crawler as Proboards doesn't let you backup your Database.) That's a pretty fair concern. I've been developing bits and pieces of this forum software for the past year or so, now it's a really a matter of putting it together. Now, any admins will get FTP access to the forum. Unfortunately this wouldn't actually help until at least one of them learns PHP. Also, the forum software is just a prototype of a forum software I'll be releasing open source. Once it's done and ready, feel free to read through it and fix any security problems you see. I already know a few programmers who are interested in the software and want to help with it once I open source it. Also, it's a shared hosting plan that I'm using. It's surprisingly reliable, but mostly it's cheap. It's served me well for the past year or two, so no complaints from me. I'm thinking the best option would be to have the new one run in closed beta for the purposes of testing. Also, I've been known to make incredibly simple registration forms (I hate annoying and long registration processes myself after all). You don't have to worry about that. Also, mind if I use your proboards crawler (I know you have one)? I cba to write my own.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 16, 2011 2:38:37 GMT
I just now said I want to move, but if the public doesn't want to I'll respect that. Actually, I'd HAVE to respect it. An admin can only do so much.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Jun 16, 2011 2:40:17 GMT
Oh, since Mono's trying to bully me to silence:
No. I don't want to move for several reasons: For one, the removal of member boards, dan-balls, name colors and stars I don't like I simply don't. They are a well-functioning part of this forum that many people like, and quite frankly, there's no real reason to remove them. Also, the very fact that we ae going trough a move, as I have said repeatedly and you have ignored, has turned me away. IT would take a long time to get the move- and if half the people don't agree with the move, it will be wasted time, and it even may cause both forums to die. This forum cannot survive with half population. Also, we're moving to a new host and location, and in my opinion, the whole move is more ffort than it's worth if ll it does is split us in half.
There's your post Mono. Now you can feel free to disregard me because of length, but I'm jus tnot good at posting superwalls of text.
|
|
|
Post by monokr0me on Jun 16, 2011 2:41:11 GMT
I think the problem here is that users see the removal of features just for the purpose of the removal of features. In general, anything that's removed is going to be removed because they advantages they offer isn't worth the extra complication they add to the site. The general paradigm for anything even remotely associated to design (be it engineering, web design, product design, etc.) is: KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid (by the way, the "stupid" is actually a mistranslation and means idiot-proof). Any new feature you add is another feature that needs to be learned, more information for the user to process, and more complication to the interface. The removal of custom name colours and stars seems to get a lot of support, because they don't actually offer much. I wish to use this to backup my aforementioned arguement. If anything thats being removed is because its not worth the extra complication, explain to me the problem with things like name colors, custom stars, and custom titles? It doesn't actually create a problem. People can use it or ignore it. Why not add an option to display them all as default if you don't like other users' colors? (obviously for this to work, title changes will have to be purely cosmetic, and not change the actual name). If you think it creates a large impact on the opinion of new members, you can even extend this to be the default setting for people not logged in. No matter how you spin it, though, this doesn't work as a justification for your removal. The same arguement works even better for my defence of badges as-they-are. I fail to see how the extra complication of a badge-ticker in your miniprofile is worthwhile. I've already explained why we should keep it, now I want to point out that I see your arguement for their removal as flawed. I've used your own logic against you, which means you're doing something wrong. The reason for keeping badges in a form, is that they are unique to our forum, and keeping them in a more intuitive, less invasive way seems far greater than just putting them in a sig. The reason for the removal of the user colors is not so much of the complications, but because they are intrusive and can make reading the actual name difficult, which will be an especially large problem once we begin to grow.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 16, 2011 2:42:24 GMT
I think the problem here is that users see the removal of features just for the purpose of the removal of features. In general, anything that's removed is going to be removed because they advantages they offer isn't worth the extra complication they add to the site. The general paradigm for anything even remotely associated to design (be it engineering, web design, product design, etc.) is: KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid (by the way, the "stupid" is actually a mistranslation and means idiot-proof). Any new feature you add is another feature that needs to be learned, more information for the user to process, and more complication to the interface. The removal of custom name colours and stars seems to get a lot of support, because they don't actually offer much. I wish to use this to backup my aforementioned arguement. If anything thats being removed is because its not worth the extra complication, explain to me the problem with things like name colors, custom stars, and custom titles? It doesn't actually create a problem. People can use it or ignore it. Why not add an option to display them all as default if you don't like other users' colors? (obviously for this to work, title changes will have to be purely cosmetic, and not change the actual name). If you think it creates a large impact on the opinion of new members, you can even extend this to be the default setting for people not logged in. No matter how you spin it, though, this doesn't work as a justification for your removal. The same arguement works even better for my defence of badges as-they-are. I fail to see how the extra complication of a badge-ticker in your miniprofile is worthwhile. I've already explained why we should keep it, now I want to point out that I see your arguement for their removal as flawed. I've used your own logic against you, which means you're doing something wrong. Sooo, Fox, you call telling me I have my head in my ass civil? I'm also trying to be civil. My only opinion here is that my opinion is useless unless it is unanimous. I'm sure they've presented their arguments very well, and I have read them. I simply don't have an opinion on them. Like I said, i'm not trying to offend you. I have... a unique, rough way with words. I don't expect you to agree, but the reason is as follows: Functionality under the hood is what makes KISS work. Name colours, custom stars, and all that crap is just information for a reader to process. Even if you do ignore it, it still clashes with the layout and sticks out like a sore thumb. A lot of people seem to agree that name colours and custom stars are pretty useless, so they might as well be removed to prevent the complication. Now the reason why the hypoethetical achievement system works is because it's functionality under the hood. Instead of a bunch of random images appearing in somebody's signature, which can easily be done through just cheating with the image source, it's just an unobtrusive set of icons in the user's miniprofile. Unlike the stars however, they actually present some sort of relevant information about the user. It's functionality under the hood. Simpler for the user, not simpler for the programmer. I think with the achievements thing, you're going to have to see the mockup first before you start forming an opinion about it. Who knows, maybe people won't even like it after they see the mockup for it.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Jun 16, 2011 2:45:30 GMT
James, it doesn't take any effort to see different colors, and indeed, name colors and custom stars can help distinguish someone without you even having to read their name. It's much more effortless for me to read decorated usernames than guest names, and for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 16, 2011 2:48:37 GMT
That's just because the font size is small for name sizes, guest names are unbolded, and the background colour behind the text doesn't work well.
Use 14pt bold helvetica with enough padding, and you'll have no problem distinguishing names.
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Jun 16, 2011 3:10:26 GMT
I wish to use this to backup my aforementioned arguement. If anything thats being removed is because its not worth the extra complication, explain to me the problem with things like name colors, custom stars, and custom titles? It doesn't actually create a problem. People can use it or ignore it. Why not add an option to display them all as default if you don't like other users' colors? (obviously for this to work, title changes will have to be purely cosmetic, and not change the actual name). If you think it creates a large impact on the opinion of new members, you can even extend this to be the default setting for people not logged in. No matter how you spin it, though, this doesn't work as a justification for your removal. The same arguement works even better for my defence of badges as-they-are. I fail to see how the extra complication of a badge-ticker in your miniprofile is worthwhile. I've already explained why we should keep it, now I want to point out that I see your arguement for their removal as flawed. I've used your own logic against you, which means you're doing something wrong. Like I said, i'm not trying to offend you. I have... a unique, rough way with words. I don't expect you to agree, but the reason is as follows: Functionality under the hood is what makes KISS work. Name colours, custom stars, and all that crap is just information for a reader to process. Even if you do ignore it, it still clashes with the layout and sticks out like a sore thumb. A lot of people seem to agree that name colours and custom stars are pretty useless, so they might as well be removed to prevent the complication. Now the reason why the hypoethetical achievement system works is because it's functionality under the hood. Instead of a bunch of random images appearing in somebody's signature, which can easily be done through just cheating with the image source, it's just an unobtrusive set of icons in the user's miniprofile. Unlike the stars however, they actually present some sort of relevant information about the user. It's functionality under the hood. Simpler for the user, not simpler for the programmer. I think with the achievements thing, you're going to have to see the mockup first before you start forming an opinion about it. Who knows, maybe people won't even like it after they see the mockup for it. I've provided solutions to both problems that are workable. You can create an option to deactivate custom name-colors, titles, and stars. You can make this option forced-on for people who are not logged in, and you can make it so people have to expressly opt-in in their profile settings to use it. On the Bungie.Net forums, there is a greasemonkey script that allows people to completely change their appearance, and the appearance of their posts, but its visible only to other people with the script, and it works fine with only interested parties involved. As for Badges, i'm willing to back off on this point, given a certain point of functionality; Users ought to be able to select which of their badges are displayed in their miniprofile as a 'trophy' system (maximum four, six, or eight, depends on how much space you want to devote to it), with the default being the most recent badges for people who don't want to mess with it. I've provided completely managable solutions and compromises. Hopefully you'll agree to them. =ON ANOTHER NOTE= So as not to inhibit the metaphorical meshing of gears, I want to formally apologize to Qwerty. Despite the fact that I expressly said that I meant you no personal insult, we both misunderstood eachother, and I should have picked my words to be less hostile. The only way you have of determining my intentions is in what I write, and I failed to write to that purpose. I meant you no personal insult, but instead it was a rough, fox-esque way of pointing out that you should pay more attention to the goings-on around you.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 16, 2011 3:16:19 GMT
A greasemonkey script is made by a third party and computed locally. If you want it to be opted on like that, you might as well make your own greasemonkey script for it.
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Jun 16, 2011 3:19:38 GMT
A greasemonkey script is made by a third party and computed locally. If you want it to be opted on like that, you might as well make your own greasemonkey script for it. It connects to an online database. You can see other people's setups, as well. You're missing the point. The point is that it only affects people who opt-in and the result is smooth. I've presented a reasonable solution, and this is, more or less, the only thing inhibiting my full support. I think its really reasonable that if you want support on this project that you be willing to make reasonable compromise.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 16, 2011 3:28:35 GMT
Well having a greasemonkey plugin to do it seems reasonable. But still, somebody else would have to make it (obviously somebody who wants name colours and stars). Just because it uses a database doesn't mean it has to be integrated into the server. If it's done through greasemonkey, having the database on the server doesn't actually make it any easier, you're making AJAX requests either way.
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on Jun 16, 2011 3:30:39 GMT
Well having a greasemonkey plugin to do it seems reasonable. But still, somebody else would have to make it (obviously somebody who wants name colours and stars). Just because it uses a database doesn't mean it has to be integrated into the server. If it's done through greasemonkey, having the database on the server doesn't actually make it any easier, you're making AJAX requests either way. Why is it that somebody else would have to create the code?
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Jun 16, 2011 3:51:01 GMT
Well having a greasemonkey plugin to do it seems reasonable. But still, somebody else would have to make it (obviously somebody who wants name colours and stars). Just because it uses a database doesn't mean it has to be integrated into the server. If it's done through greasemonkey, having the database on the server doesn't actually make it any easier, you're making AJAX requests either way. Once again, you're missing my point. My point isn't that you should make a greasemonkey script, my point is that you should make the display of the name colors, custom titles, and custom stars so that it can be toggled on-and-off. Then you can force it to be off for people who aren't logged in, and if you're confident that it will be a negative for new users, you can make it so that you must go to your settings and opt-in to see them. The first thing most people (or at least I, anyway) do when they make an account somewhere is go through to set all their settings.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 16, 2011 4:01:48 GMT
*GGoodie likes this thread*
|
|
|
Post by V.I.R.O.S. on Jun 16, 2011 4:01:52 GMT
I like all of it, except this paragraph. This paragraph is something I want to kill with fire
The rest is quite nice, actually. It all seems very streamlined, but we don't need to do as much streamlining as the above paragraph suggests.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 16, 2011 4:15:20 GMT
Fine, let's just make this clear. We ARE testing it. We are NOT locking the old forum unless it is obvious to all that a move has occurred. If a move is not evident in, say, a week, we close the new one, accept the loss, and resume debating between V.2 skin and V.3 skin.
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Jun 16, 2011 4:23:15 GMT
Fine, let's just make this clear. We ARE testing it. We are NOT locking the old forum unless it is obvious to all that a move has occurred. If a move is not evident in, say, a week, we close the new one, accept the loss, and resume debating between V.2 skin and V.3 skin. So we're going to leave it up to see if people take instead of following the majority vote in a poll? Well, I guess it makes sense, but what do we do if its not obvious, and people are halfway?
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Jun 16, 2011 4:38:27 GMT
HOw much would be a majority? Almost unanimous, right?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 16, 2011 4:43:54 GMT
I thought I was pretty clear: If a move has occurred. If so much as a quarter of the people are still using the old one, the move has failed and we must go back however much people love the new one.
|
|
|
Post by monokr0me on Jun 16, 2011 4:46:50 GMT
I thought I was pretty clear: If a move has occurred. If so much as a quarter of the people are still using the old one, the move has failed and we must go back however much people love the new one. Not necessarily; If such a large amount of people wish to stay there, who are we to say no? At this point the others would have to move eventually, as the old forum would die quite soon with only three or four active members.
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Jun 16, 2011 4:51:18 GMT
HOw much would be a majority? Almost unanimous, right? I thought I was pretty clear: If a move has occurred. If so much as a quarter of the people are still using the old one, the move has failed and we must go back however much people love the new one. This is why we need to hold a vote BEFORE we attempt a move. Then, if the vote is less than near-unaniumous (obviously, your simple 51-49 majority isn't enough for this, so I say a minimum of 85-15) we don't even attempt a move. If you attempt a move and not enough people transfer, but the majority does, then forcibly recalling them is going to be disasterous. As much as I like the idea, its not going to work. We have to base this on a preliminary vote, not on just trying it and recalling it if it doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 16, 2011 4:51:55 GMT
If such a large amount of people want to stay there, then we're the admins to say no. There's a predetermined solution. We cannot risk half the forum members on a slightly better display and a post liking feature. We can't even risk a quarter of them.
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Jun 16, 2011 5:30:43 GMT
If such a large amount of people want to stay there, then we're the admins to say no. There's a predetermined solution. We cannot risk half the forum members on a slightly better display and a post liking feature. We can't even risk a quarter of them. But then you risk losing the people who liked the new forum. Worst case scenario, you lose all 75% and keep the 25% who didn't want to go. Thats not likely to happen, but you have to remember whats at stake here. Either one of those losses is too much. With that in mind, before we do ANYTHING, its not that much trouble to make a poll and give users a while to vote (with a couple of mockups to look at, of course). That will give you an idea of what people's opinions are, and if its too torn or the majority is against the move, then you know its probably a bad idea to open up the new forum.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jun 16, 2011 5:38:58 GMT
As an administrator, I have various requirements for a new forum if we ever move against the odds of those who will stubbornly refuse moving no matter how much advantageous to all parties a move would be: - I must not have to worry about a server or site becoming unavailable, let alone for "personal" reasons such as the hoster and me getting into a disagreement or worse. ProBoards couldn't care less about that, and for all practical purposes, they are a neutral, reliable host that is available almost 24/7/52.
- I must be able to make changes as necessary, at least to the extent that ProBoards allows. I should be able to change how the site looks, add or remove functionality from the site, and so on without having to worry about receiving someone's permission each time.
- Adding/removing/editing code should be relatively easy.
- I must be able to ban offenders, and it should not be overly difficult to ban offenders.
- Posts must be ordered in a manner more than simply "chronologically." This is supposed to be a forum, not Facebook or Twitter. I should be able to look at a series of posts and see that they are all related, and none of the posts are unrelated (except whenever an idiot spams in it).
- All posts must come conjoined with mini profiles indicating who authored each post.
- A profile must be customizable to some extent, with the absolute minimum of having an avatar and personal text. I think the idea of removing custom name designs is alright, especially since that will allow ready distinguishing between users and staff who can help users and guarantee that all names will be readable regardless of whatever skin change appears.
- I must be able to delegate different powers to different people so as to have a staff that can care for the forum in my absence.
If any one or more of those requirements are not met, I must deny the new forum. I will have more to say, but have yet to formulate an appropriate response. Until then, I will merely express disappointment in those who stubbornly refuse to move without even giving a thought to trying the new software...
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 16, 2011 10:54:23 GMT
Yes to all of those.
Like I said before, the admins will get FTP access, you'll be able to change the source code as much as you want once it's done (but of course, after it's done, it's a lot harder to work when people are changing it while it's in progress). But if you guys want that to be useful at all, you're going to have to learn back-end web dev.
The rest of the points are a given, considering that I'm just making a simpler and revamped version of forum software, not a social network.
Although one thing I will say, is that the permissions system will be much simpler. There are going to be 5 ranks stored by an integer value:
-1: Banned 0: Guest 1: Registered Member 2: Mod 3: Admins/programmers (also gets FTP Access) 4: Site Owner (not going to be me, I'm not active enough, but there should be one distinct owner of the site. Now that you'll have the power to change the back-end all you want, you're going to learn that people will adapt to your changes no matter how bitter the backlash, but there always will be backlash even if the change is for the better. It's common for users to rage about a change when it first happens, but love it in a week. Somebody has to make the calls on what's going to be done/added)
The site owner can assign users to any rank except 0.
The admins can assign users to any rank except 3 or 4.
Any rank 2 or above gets to post in the announcements blog.
Having a rank system that isn't dynamic ensures we never come across those issues with overstaffing, or a faulty staff complication. Pretty much, if the person is needed to make big changes, or is a programmer, make them an Admin.
As long as the admins have no problem keeping up with the posts, you won't need a mod at all. Mods are just to fill in where the admins can't keep up.
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on Jun 16, 2011 11:44:49 GMT
I agree with every word in the OP, the new forums would be amazing, seriously, adding new features whenever we want, no more shitty danball hoarders like Spark, and best of all, complete control over the forum. And after seeing Jame's various improvements in web design, I can safely say that I completely support this.
|
|
|
Post by disabled on Jun 16, 2011 12:52:44 GMT
Another request: I'd like OpenID authentication support. I don't want to store a password on a server that >=4 people I don't fully trust have FTP access to. Also makes it more safe for those people who use the same password on more then one site. And of course you can have my crawler...
*edit* Now that I think about it, since this community is more about dan-balls then about dan-ball, I kinda lost interest anyways. So don't value my opinion too much...
|
|
|