Is this place deader than ever? 11 11

[originalisbest]

On 2/15/2018 at 11:13 AM, Logan510 said:

Not even close. Fingh is a cool dude. Stu is a hate filled weasel.

Easily stated, without the slightest risk of hyperbole, nothing more true has ever been (or ever will be) uttered on an online message board anywhere, from the primeval start of the internet up to its inevitably mortifying conclusion:

"Stu is a hate filled weasel."

[RockMyAmadeus]

21 hours ago, Architecht said:

I think it's pretty common for me to react to requests for changes and make them. I generally look for consensus / broad support for change requests though, but it's not a one dimensional decision like "Hey, if it's popular, do it!". It depends on these factors:

1. How broadly supported is it?
2. Is there a strong segment of members opposing it or simply remaining silent (indicating it's not beneficial to them)?
3. Is it a self-evident win with no appreciable downside? What's the ratio?
4. How costly / time consuming is the change?
5. Where does its benefit/cost ratio fall in relation to other improvements being worked on? (remember, this area covers far more than changes to the boards)

There are usually some passionate members around with a few ideas that they are convinced are clear wins - but they don't always consider the broader picture of all of the above factors.  Or if they do, they weigh them differently than I do and/or than the CCG folks who actually set budget and priorities do. That can make the lack of reaction to a "sure fire win" (in one person's opinion) feel like complacency.

If a bunch of people request is, there's no notable downside, few people are in opposition, and it's cheap and easy to do (making it not very competitive with other planned improvements) - those are easy. But most requests aren't that clearly a win. 

I would say between you and me, for example, that you can sometimes get pretty enthusiastic about some ideas that are mostly championed by you, and maybe endorsed by a couple of other people. When you don't see that self-evident improvement acted on quickly, it feels pretty bad. From my point of view, I read them, put them through the above set of considerations - and often just wait to see if they gain momentum. It doesn't mean they aren't good ideas. I mean, someone has to think of it first - lack of popularity doesn't mean it's bad - but it does effect priority.

For example, on the likes system - many people at first didn't even want likes and wanted them removed. Should I have acted on that feedback? No. It wasn't universal. Over time, others came out and said they enjoyed the feature - and even more telling was the fact that many people were using them.

We put like limits in place because they were being actively abused by some - both fake accounts, and people trying to treat it like a competition that they could/should rig. A few people noted it was restrictive. Also, I after watching the system for a while, it seemed that despite the competition rigging, the most popular posts would probably rise to the top despite the shenanigans to exchange likes. So we raised them and took advantage of an easy tweak to provide even more to long time / highly active members because it was an easy way to raise limits without incurring abuses from fake accounts.

After that, many folks got quiet about it and seemed to not be hitting the limits much.

In this thread, as the usage and popularity of the like system continued to grow, it seems that more people were legitimately hitting the like limits again. So I raised it again.  It's just based on "watchful waiting" - which is a concept used in medicine because often it's better to see how the condition evolves than to do something more active and risk incurring more harm than good.

It's like that for most product development / product management. You can't make all of the people happy all of the time. But you can keep improving within the boundaries of budget / priority you're given.

 

Again: the point isn't how well reasoned a program may be. Every program, every bureaucratic decision, every "tweak" can be justified by someone, and always is, and usually makes sense on some level. Why not? Outlawing cars, for example, would prevent around 1.3 million deaths per year. Outlaw cars, and those lives are saved...at least from car crashes. Right...? Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to do that...? On a "lives saved" factor, it certainly would. And many people are making that argument even now. Obviously, I use hyperbole to illustrate my point.

Eloquent arguments can be...and have been, as is the case here...made to defend a perspective that makes sense internally, but like missing the forest for the trees, misses the larger point: is this even needed in the first place? And, of course, those eloquent arguments will use language that subtly (or not) conveys both the "rightness" of their own position, and concurrently, the dismissal of any opposing positions ("...they are convinced are clear wins", with the unspoken addendum being "...and as we all know, being convinced of something doesn't make it right or true"), while appealing to emotional, rather than rational, reasoning ("passionate", "it feels pretty bad", etc.) 

The like system is meaningless. It doesn't do anything for anyone except give a bit of a dopamine hit to see someone respond publicly and positively to something you said. You talk about "abuse" of that system, but what part of that "abuse" was due to people trying out a new system? You publicly chastised Jeffro and Blowie for "abusing" the like system because they merely used the like system, but you didn't think they were "doing it right" (that is, the way you thought it should be used.)

The point is the larger attitude behind it: that things can "get better" if we just have limits, rules, restrictions, on everyone, and not just any limits, rules, or restrictions, but the right ones. If we just have the right people saying the right things in the right way, Nirvana is achieved. More and more and more rules, because that's how bureaucrats believe we can make Utopia. And the end result of that is that the people the bureaucrats claim to want to help are more unhappy and more dissatisfied...and those people, since the vast majority of people don't complain, just leave.

While I appreciate the concept of "broad support", that doesn't mean an idea isn't the right one because it's not broadly supported. In fact, some of the best ideas humanity has ever seen have specifically NOT been "broadly supported" at the time, and some of the very worst ideas were VERY broadly supported. Ideas should be considered on their merits, not whether or not they are "broadly supported." Decisions should be made based on MERIT, not POPULARITY, even if popularity is considered (as it should be.)

This board is, indeed, one of the best on the internet related to comics, and has been for a very long time. Some of the best and the brightest have gravitated here. The reason isn't because of the board, or how it's managed, or how it functions, or what it features. The reason is because they connected with other people who shared their interests. I know that's hard for administrators to accept...everyone wants to think that it's "the program" that is the draw...but it's not, in any place where people interact socially. 

The same is true of clubs, bars, sewing circles, online message boards, and anywhere else people gather socially. 

The reason this board has been great is because of the people who make it so. The members are not, and never have been, the problem, even the worst among us (and there have been some real doozies, most especially the ones who pretend otherwise.) Any real problems have been the result of administrative attitudes and actions that have far-reaching consequences, because the administration is the only entity on this board with any real power to enact their opinions about how things should work.

No, the answer isn't more restrictions, more rules, more "tweaks", and never has been. The answer is letting people be free, within a LOOSE framework, to express themselves as they see fit, and not catering to any one person or group of people who doesn't like other persons or groups of people. Any problems that one member has with another is easily resolved by the exercise of self-control, and the best possible use of administrative power has always been to direct people to exercise that self-control. Otherwise, the more administration tries to control people, like trying to grip sand, the less positive results there are. 

Meanwhile, there are still, after nearly two years, functions of the board that don't work at all, but attention is focused on the meaningless like system. Whether one likes it or not, whether one uses it or not, the like system serves very little actual purpose to the day to day activities of the board, which makes it perfectly illustrative of the deeper issues involved, here. 

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

29 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Again: the point isn't how well reasoned a program may be. Every program, every bureaucratic decision, every "tweak" can be justified by someone, and always is, and usually makes sense on some level. Why not? Outlawing cars, for example, would prevent around 1.3 million deaths per year. Outlaw cars, and those lives are saved...at least from car crashes. Right...? Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to do that...? On a "lives saved" factor, it certainly would. And many people are making that argument even now. Obviously, I use hyperbole to illustrate my point.

Eloquent arguments can be...and have been, as is the case here...made to defend a perspective that makes sense internally, but like missing the forest for the trees, misses the larger point: is this even needed in the first place? And, of course, those eloquent arguments will use language that subtly (or not) conveys both the "rightness" of their own position, and concurrently, the dismissal of any opposing positions ("...they are convinced are clear wins", with the unspoken addendum being "...and as we all know, being convinced of something doesn't make it right or true"), while appealing to emotional, rather than rational, reasoning ("passionate", "it feels pretty bad", etc.) 

The like system is meaningless. It doesn't do anything for anyone except give a bit of a dopamine hit to see someone respond publicly and positively to something you said. You talk about "abuse" of that system, but what part of that "abuse" was due to people trying out a new system? You publicly chastised Jeffro and Blowie for "abusing" the like system because they merely used the like system, but you didn't think they were "doing it right" (that is, the way you thought it should be used.)

The point is the larger attitude behind it: that things can "get better" if we just have limits, rules, restrictions, on everyone, and not just any limits, rules, or restrictions, but the right ones. If we just have the right people saying the right things in the right way, Nirvana is achieved. More and more and more rules, because that's how bureaucrats believe we can make Utopia. And the end result of that is that the people the bureaucrats claim to want to help are more unhappy and more dissatisfied...and those people, since the vast majority of people don't complain, just leave.

While I appreciate the concept of "broad support", that doesn't mean an idea isn't the right one because it's not broadly supported. In fact, some of the best ideas humanity has ever seen have specifically NOT been "broadly supported" at the time, and some of the very worst ideas were VERY broadly supported. Ideas should be considered on their merits, not whether or not they are "broadly supported." Decisions should be made based on MERIT, not POPULARITY, even if popularity is considered (as it should be.)

This board is, indeed, one of the best on the internet related to comics, and has been for a very long time. Some of the best and the brightest have gravitated here. The reason isn't because of the board, or how it's managed, or how it functions, or what it features. The reason is because they connected with other people who shared their interests. I know that's hard for administrators to accept...everyone wants to think that it's "the program" that is the draw...but it's not, in any place where people interact socially. 

The same is true of clubs, bars, sewing circles, online message boards, and anywhere else people gather socially. 

The reason this board has been great is because of the people who make it so. The members are not, and never have been, the problem, even the worst among us (and there have been some real doozies, most especially the ones who pretend otherwise.) Any real problems have been the result of administrative attitudes and actions that have far-reaching consequences, because the administration is the only entity on this board with any real power to enact their opinions about how things should work.

No, the answer isn't more restrictions, more rules, more "tweaks", and never has been. The answer is letting people be free, within a LOOSE framework, to express themselves as they see fit, and not catering to any one person or group of people who doesn't like other persons or groups of people. Any problems that one member has with another is easily resolved by the exercise of self-control, and the best possible use of administrative power has always been to direct people to exercise that self-control. Otherwise, the more administration tries to control people, like trying to grip sand, the less positive results there are. 

Meanwhile, there are still, after nearly two years, functions of the board that don't work at all, but attention is focused on the meaningless like system. Whether one likes it or not, whether one uses it or not, the like system serves very little actual purpose to the day to day activities of the board, which makes it perfectly illustrative of the deeper issues involved, here. 

 

I wish you had mentioned make it a priority that members are no longer allowed to post things like "Chin chin" or "Cheerio old sport" or "here here" or stuff like that, or in the alternative, provide the ability to post a nifty symbol that clearly displays:  "Dislike With The Highest Possible Human Intensity"!

It is just a little tweak, and saves a lot of typing. 

[Get Marwood & I]

50 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Well, as a comics collector outsider, you had me until the "Chin chin" bit.

Fair point. I'll never say it again.

Where do you stand on toodle-pip? 

[TheFifthHorseman]

37 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The like system is meaningless. It doesn't do anything for anyone except give a bit of a dopamine hit to see someone respond publicly and positively to something you said

.................

This board is, indeed, one of the best on the internet related to comics

Agree with the bolded 100%

I could care less about the 'politics' behind the overwatch of the like system.

I use it sparingly, and I've never found myself wanting to use it more than a few times a day, if that. 

For me, the like system turns out to be more of an inside joke type thing- meaning I use it for posts that I find funny or interesting, or posted by a forum member I find funny and interesting.

[TheFifthHorseman]

1 hour ago, Mr Sneeze said:

You're quite right, our thoughts are our own and I appreciate all of you who do post or I would have nothing fun to read.

Even if it's just jibberish, at least people are having a dialogue

Not everything has to be productive. People shouldn't have to feel afraid to go a bit off topic in threads. Or revive 14 year old threads.

Let the cgc forums live on!

[Foley]

5 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Fair point. I'll never say it again.

Where do you stand on toodle-pip? 

I think you need to go throw another shrimp on the barbie Steve 

[Foley]

2 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

if you knew what I had to wear just to be able to see the screen, you may be a little more forgiving!

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, Foley said:

[Get Marwood & I]

10 minutes ago, takealeft said:

You have the same problem RMA does... you need to develop thicker skin and not be such a pusssy.

 

[Ken Aldred]

23 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Fair point. I'll never say it again.

Where do you stand on toodle-pip? 

You beat me to it.

I was going for the down-to-Earth, blue-collar, northern coal miners’ alternative of ‘Pip Pip, Old Bean !’

Edited February 19, 2018 by Ken Aldred

[Azkaban]

Is Marwood & I and RMA the same person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Azkaban

[F For Fake]

7 minutes ago, Azkaban said:

Is Marwood & I and RMA the same person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They share a certain...loquaciousness. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

32 minutes ago, takealeft said:

You have the same problem RMA does... you need to develop thicker skin and not be such a pusssy.

We have some breaking news, Jim...we're waiting for confirmation on the ground, but it appears as if the pot has just called the kettle "black." We're not sure if "safe spaces" will be invoked, but it appears that's where events might be unfolding. We'll bring you more as it occurs. Back to you in the studio.

[Get Marwood & I]

14 minutes ago, Azkaban said:

Is Marwood & I and RMA the same person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course not, don't be silly. One is a sad, miserable conspiracy theorising cretin who doesn't know when to use one word when fifteen will do, and the other is RMA.

 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

13 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

They share a certain...loquaciousness. 

[porcupine48]

11 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

We have some breaking news, Jim...we're waiting for confirmation on the ground, but it appears as if the pot has just called the kettle "black." We're not sure if "safe spaces" will be invoked, but it appears that's where events might be unfolding. We'll bring you more as it occurs. Back to you in the studio.

Jim?JIM??Don't get me involved here!  

[seanfingh]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[porcupine48]

Well,this place is REALLY wang chunging tonight!

 

[porcupine48]

2 minutes ago, seanfingh said:

via Imgflip Meme Generator

I think he is N/A