Reducing Clutter - Rank Removal

[Jamie]

I'm not sure this poll was abused to the same extent as the HK poll. In fact, I don't believe this poll was abused at all. However, this poll isn't set in stone. The thread is not closed, and is therefore still open for discussion.

 

[Fig]

But their votes are decided by the popular opinion of a state, so there's pretty strong direct election, just with some weak bureaucracy smashed in.

Who's to say the electors have to do what their voters tell them to do? Sure it's direct but an elector is not bound to promise what his voters wanted him to do. In hindsight I should have added part two of the first video early. Also this will be the last post I will respond/focus on the Electoral College simply for the sake of not trying to devalue the thread with something it sorta loosely relates to though it doesn't mean I didn't enjoy this side discussion that took place.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

So what do we do, leave the poll open for two years so maybe 30% of the active members vote in it? There's another category you're not thinking about: the small subset of active members who actually care about things like this.

No... wait, I'm confused are we talking about the HK poll or the poll for this thread at this point?

Who's to say the electors have to do what their voters tell them to do? Sure it's direct but an elector is not bound to promise what his voters wanted him to do. In hindsight I should have added part two of the first video early. Also this will be the last post I will respond/focus on the Electoral College simply for the sake of not trying to devalue the thread with something it sorta loosely relates to though it doesn't mean I didn't enjoy this side discussion that took place.

Why are you guys talking about the presidental election? We are all just all over the place and getting off topic.

 

[Justac00lguy]

There's no way to get the majority of the community's vision in mind when going with qualitative data. Quantitative is the way these kind of decisions are handled. We can't decide who's view is the best because that creates more friction. Who is going to decide which view or consensus is best? Is this person biased to one side? There's no possible way to make the right decision that way. It will create more backlash and hostility.

The fair way to do so, is a poll. It's completely fair and each individual view, whether people think their view is misinformed, matter. And about numbers, we get a around 120-150 members who go online a day. A good chunk aren't even aware what's going on. You talk about misinformed, a lot of these people will be. The votes that matter are the people that actually vote.

 

[Terminus]

@SMS

1. Locke was referring to the initial HK poll, explaining that we'd never get a 100% response.

2. Fig tried to use the idea of an Electoral College to discredit the idea of a poll.

 

[Emma]

I'm not sure this poll was abused to the same extent as the HK poll. In fact, I don't believe this poll was abused at all. However, this poll isn't set in stone. The thread is not closed, and is therefore still open for discussion.

No, I doubt it was. This particular poll's problems were: the incredibly short time it was open, the very low participation, and the limiting of options. Notably the compact badge system we're playing with, which completely upturns the original idea here because this system we're toying with makes more rank distinctions possible. Even if it's just tooltip changes. We have no logical reason to limit it if we rely on the tooltips to specify it exactly anyway. It's worth reopening the discussion that part alone.

 

[Fig]

@SMS

1. Locke was referring to the initial HK poll, explaining that we'd never get a 100% response.

2. Fig tried to use the idea of an Electoral College to discredit the idea of a poll.

I didn't have any intentions to do so, what really happened is I saw Rep's posts and I thought I could maybe chime in and just state that the president is voted by the Electoral College rather than by the votes of the entire public. To say I was trying to discredit the idea of a poll is uncanny and in a way an ad hominem since I'm all for democracy and to say that I'm against democracy is very deconstructive towards my view on democracy. I'm just going to say this, but I will always prefer democracy over anarchy (with the sole of exception of Twitch Plays Pokémon because it was through the chaos I got emotionally attached to it). I was only trying to tell Rep what really happens when it comes to voting in the United States. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Djinn]

To a degree I can sort of see Oni's standpoint, he has been there for years and now there are new members appearing that are demanding that he justify his spot. And not so much the staff who invented or awarded the spot, just other people that came along later on years after he contributed. Just a common what have you done for me lately?

Which brings up another thought of it does seem a bit arrogant when there has been a thing on the forum X-whatever, And years down the line some newer members join up but then see X and think "Ehh...X does not fit with my own personal sensibilities, I want them to get rid of it because I am here now.." When one has to ask why are we changing things that have been longstanding for years until this new person appeared and now they do not like it and want it gone. Even when it largely has nothing to do with them. It just looks a little presumptuous to join a forum and then decide that something they have held for years before one got there to be removed because it does not agree with one's own personal views. It begs the question why does everyone else that is already there need to change to accommodate the one showing up? Why do their feelings and opinions matter more than those who were there before.

We really do not have any such live and let live mindset around here at all. One cannot simply see something and let it go or simply not care that someone is or is not X thing this week.

I don't know, I have made comments on the whole HN thing in the past as well. I had trouble understanding how it was ever supposed to expand when they are not so active or if it was meant to expand. But I have gone out of my way to add in other usergroups on the forum that one can work towards and join. I am always a fan of keeping things alive and having groups meant to help that which is why I thought things like event staff, competition leaders and the wiki usergroup were a good idea before. But now it seems like a lot of that is sort of collapsing.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

@SMS

1. Locke was referring to the initial HK poll, explaining that we'd never get a 100% response.

2. Fig tried to use the idea of an Electoral College to discredit the idea of a poll.

Ok, thanks Term.

My response, a poll is the best way to go, just make stricter activity limts in order to vote if the issue of inactive, or newer members voting is a problem. Give a complete reasoning listing the problems of the matter at hand, and explain what HK does, maybe even explain it from a HK's point of view.

 

[Jamie]

Alright, I'm going to give my two cents on the HK and HN rank. I happen to have access to both subforums and have been watching them closely for some time. Here is what I've gathered:

1. The HK rank cannot, in my eyes, reasonably exist in its current form. What is the point of the rank? To recognize good posters? Then why do they need a whole subforum for this? I believe the subforum could be put to much much better use. There is literally no discussion outside of nominations. None. Zero. Zilch. That needs to change. If you guys want a private subforum, use it for things other than nominations. Discuss ways that you can improve the forums or how you could set better examples for users. Otherwise, that subforum is completely pointless. The more I think about it, the more I like Matt's clan idea. The HK rank turning into a support group would be a fantastic thing for this forum. A lot of people, including myself would benefit greatly from this. It sounds really great to me, a lot better than the current rank.

2. The HNs really do nothing. Whether they should stay or go, to be honest I don't really care, but to disqualify Terms opinion because he doesn't have access to the HN board is silly to me. There is a thread in there currently that was posted over 2 months ago and there hasn't been a response yet. In fact, only 6 people viewed the thread. One of them being the thread creator and two of them being Kitsu and myself. Every thread in that board is just nominations. That's it. You cannot argue that the HN group serves any purpose aside from a Hall of Fame. Again, I have no opinion on its existence, but it's entirely true that the group does absolutely nothing.

 

[Emma]

Ok, thanks Term.

My response, a poll is the best way to go, just make stricter activity limts in order to vote if the issue of inactive, or newer members voting is a problem. Give a complete reasoning listing the problems of the matter at hand, and explain what HK does, maybe even explain it from a HK's point of view.

Uhm.... yeah... that's EXACTLY what I said, more or less. An actual poll can't do that. But a consensus discussion does. Though inactive people could still talk if they wanted.

1. The HK rank cannot, in my eyes, reasonably exist in its current form. What is the point of the rank? To recognize good posters? Then why do they need a whole subforum for this? I believe the subforum could be put to much much better use. There is literally no discussion outside of nominations. None. Zero. Zilch. That needs to change. If you guys want a private subforum, use it for things other than nominations. Discuss ways that you can improve the forums or how you could set better examples for users. Otherwise, that subforum is completely pointless. The more I think about it, the more I like Matt's clan idea. The HK rank turning into a support group would be a fantastic thing for this forum. A lot of people, including myself would benefit greatly from this. It sounds really great to me, a lot better than the current rank.

I want to state for the record that I agree in princple with this. However I have to point out that the HK's ability to function has been crippled by the people manning the witch hunt against them. It's scared away all its activity, its scared away potential knights, and caused several to resign. It's completely undermined its ability to function at all. To the point that it would difficult to recover it. But... the clan idea I think will work very well. And I still think it's a good thing for more than just this. Even the nobles can be a clan if they want. Would it really be a big deal if it was if they want that? Among several clans it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Wolf Sage]

You guys are going to need SOMETHING to set your site apart from every other forum site on the web, because let's be honest here, Zelda and even Pokemon for that matter is no longer cutting it anymore. I like ZD, don't get me wrong, I really, really do--despite all the drama or whatever--but there are many, many Zelda/Pokemon forums out there, and dare I say, better ones. What does ZD have or plans to have that sets it apart from these other sites, if not for all the stuff that folks like Djinn and Oni have worked towards (i.e., ranks, competitions, etc.?). Strip away all the ranks and all the **** that they have built up and worked towards, and what do you have? Just another Zelda/Pokemon forum on the internet.

 

[Djinn]

It's depressing to note that for #1 the section had that exact function until relatively recently. Typically things were posted there for feedback or forum based discussion because those guys were supposed to be the most active members of the forum for the most part so their opinions were taken in regard to newer things, plans etc. Other than that it was a more rule free section for them to use as that reward for being a good active member. Again something lost when older members stopped being as active and newer members never really got any feel for the purpose in mind.

#2 it has been brought up and discussed many times in the past going back several years. The consensus was that they don't serve a purpose and are not held to one either. They just are and there is little sense in arguing it since the site creator wanted it made and wants it to stick around. So complaining about HN is more or less complaining about the weather.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Alright, I'm going to give my two cents on the HK and HN rank. I happen to have access to both subforums and have been watching them closely for some time. Here is what I've gathered:

1. The HK rank cannot, in my eyes, reasonably exist in its current form. What is the point of the rank? To recognize good posters? Then why do they need a whole subforum for this? I believe the subforum could be put to much much better use. There is literally no discussion outside of nominations. None. Zero. Zilch. That needs to change. If you guys want a private subforum, use it for things other than nominations. Discuss ways that you can improve the forums or how you could set better examples for users. Otherwise, that subforum is completely pointless. The more I think about it, the more I like Matt's clan idea. The HK rank turning into a support group would be a fantastic thing for this forum. A lot of people, including myself would benefit greatly from this. It sounds really great to me, a lot better than the current rank.

2. The HNs really do nothing. Whether they should stay or go, to be honest I don't really care, but to disqualify Terms opinion because he doesn't have access to the HN board is silly to me. There is a thread in there currently that was posted over 2 months ago and there hasn't been a response yet. In fact, only 6 people viewed the thread. One of them being the thread creator and two of them being Kitsu and myself. Every thread in that board is just nominations. That's it. You cannot argue that the HN group serves any purpose aside from a Hall of Fame. Again, I have no opinion on its existence, but it's entirely true that the group does absolutely nothing.

So I was looking at the HN rank description, basically it seems like an honorary rank, one which has deep meaning for older members; which is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. If anything it wasn't created to be a rank which does much to begin with. Maybe we should just try reworking the requirements for the rank and keep it? Then again Mases wants it to stay as is... so like Djinn said above my post, what's the point of complaining anymore?

With that I must drop out of the conversation for now, I'm sort of late for work...

 

[Locke]

@SMS

1. Locke was referring to the initial HK poll, explaining that we'd never get a 100% response.

2. Fig tried to use the idea of an Electoral College to discredit the idea of a poll.

1. I was actually referring to this one.

2. Can we stop talking about HKs and the Electoral College? They have absolutely nothing to do with these ranks.