I agree with all of the above.

Visible on all would probably get a bit disruptive - so visible on first, hidered on others would probably be optimal, though all hidered would work, too.

If the zeroth post really needs to be in a hider, it's not hard to code everything inside a hider.

But a choice to have the zeroth post appear on all or just the first page would be tre cool.

Unless the 0th post comes without any userbit, putting in a hider as in regular posts would still leave almost half a page of scrolling past for smaller-screened devices.

@BrokenPromise

From a coding point of view, it isn't all that complex.

That's what I typed, yes.

@BrokenPromise

If the zeroth post really needs to be in a hider, it's not hard to code everything inside a hider.

But a choice to have the zeroth post appear on all or just the first page would be tre cool.

I am referring to the second paragraph. That is a separate idea that also happens to not be complex.

Oh okay. Cool.

Hopefully Mahz feels the same way.

Thought not a technical forum suggestion for improvement of the overall form and performance of the forum I am here by suggesting that a third party council be implemented on the forum for Ban/Staff Review. A collection of long good standing forum members that are not members of the staff and as unbiased as possible to review complaints of bans, member, and staff when needed.

After having read through several issues, old and new, here on the forum I feel it is impertinent that such a council be put into place so there is a proper set of checks and balances for all on the forum to help give the members better peace of mind and staff people they are held accountable to.

Lady A~

While I understand the concerns brought up from May that have gotten to the point of such concerns, I don’t think it an efficient idea to create a sub-sect of “new” staff to police the central staff. In fact this is the first time I have ever heard of such a suggestion and like you, ‘thea, I’ve been in internet communities for the larger part of twenty years. With that said, there should be another revision of the rules – Iwaku had/has a pretty efficient system (and even removed a staff member themselves for member abuse and other issues that remain private), so perhaps we should look to our contemporary in such rule revisions.

I’m not going to comment on the idea of giving members a peace of mind, because that’s a long drawn out conversation, but I imagine that this Summer will be recorded as one of the largest wastes of time for Mahz and those he appointed since he founded the site in 2007. But that is just a [largely negative] perspective of this entire situation and I am more than aware I sit on the side of the fence that most do not.

Also, for reference:
https://www.iwakuroleplay.com/help/terms

Thought not a technical forum suggestion for improvement of the overall form and performance of the forum I am here by suggesting that a third party council be implemented on the forum for Ban/Staff Review. A collection of long good standing forum members that are not members of the staff and as unbiased as possible to review complaints of bans, member, and staff when needed.

After having read through several issues, old and new, here on the forum I feel it is impertinent that such a council be put into place so there is a proper set of checks and balances for all on the forum to help give the members better peace of mind and staff people they are held accountable to.

Lady A~

This just doesn't sound viable to me.

Firstly, to whom does this special council answer? Where is the complete circle of checks and balances?

Who determines what people go onto the council? Is it popular vote that can be manipulated by personal opinion? Is it the staff invalidating the point? Would it be Mahz himself when you have people questioning him, and who'll simply discredit the team as being specially hand-picked?

How does it work? To me, it seems to add a level of bureaucracy that would be avoided by the alternative suggestion of s taff being more transparent in their procedures in the first place. Bureaucracy isn't good, not from my experience. It simply adds a level of complication, and if you can't trust the staff to be neutral, you can't trust a crew of players to somehow have better judgement - especially when current staff have a foothold in the ranks of established players.

Checks and balances are all well and good, but they need a very, very well established plan to be put in place to ensure they actually work. The United States didn't just wake up one day and go "congress is being a bitch, lets put in a supreme court" - the system has to be implemented early, and if it isn't, it's either going to fail - or it's going to need trust on all parties to implement. Based on the reasoning for suggesting such a measure, that trust wouldn't even exist for those who want it most.

Why not just have a community-wide vote?

Why not just have a community-wide vote?

Because people are easily manipulated and typically not invested enough to put in the work to make wise decisions.
^This isn't just me throwing shade—knowing that is part of my IRL job. A lot of organizations are hurt by that fact.

Why not just have a community-wide vote?

The logistics of that would need to be planned out well, and again require the aforementioned trust for the purpose not to be defeated. You may also run into the niche groups issue, where people will simply stick by their friends - and good friends aren't necessarily good moderators. People who are good at "things", possibly even GMing, may not necessarily be good at making an efficient group that doesn't hinder, but support the staff.

Such an idea would be viable if you made a clear explanation of how it would work.

<Snipped quote by BingTheWing>

Because people are easily manipulated and typically not invested enough to put in the work to make wise decisions.
^This isn't just me throwing shade—knowing that is part of my IRL job. A lot of organizations are hurt by that fact.

Also, this ^

@ArenaSnow I have seen this done before on other forums - It can both work and fail, as with all things. The best system I have witnessed before was when there were a set of nominees placed from both staff and members of the community. Yes, the final say would have to lay with Mahz since he is the Admin. (Sorry but Hank would not do for this since he while he is the co-admin, he is part of the moderation staff) - General vote after ~background check~ - The check would include checking through the previous posts of a member and any complaints made against them, as well as a time frame for people to post their concerns for each. All pro's and con's for each would need to be listed out before a final vote is taken.

Who they report to, it would be Mahz, but they wouldn't have power persay, only the standing of recommendation for or again said ban/staff member.

Now, I do understand that this is a another level bureaucracy and that is something I am normally against. Yet due to the current issues, it does not seem that a compromise would be found. I am more than open to better ideas, this is just a suggestion for something in the meantime.

Personally I don't think it would even be a suggestion if there was some sort of checks and balances for the staff members and bans put into place, or any complaint on the forum for that matter. Just does not seem to be right now. I also feel that the staff should have been put through a more rigorous check and monitored more carefully before being given a position of power on the forum. (Perhaps it would have avoided some of the issues.)

Some of the staff I have the upmost respect for, others I believe should be stripped of their title. I do not bother to report anymore because of several reasons. Yet that is neither here nor there but this has been an idea bouncing around in my head for about the last year. Due to present concerns I felt it was time to voice it.

Will it work? Lord only knows. It could, it could back fire completely. If anything, hopefully it will at least start a discussion of ways to better monitor not only the forum but the staff themselves. The forum could disintegrate into chaos without the mods, there would be no forum without its members. Both sides need a system of accountability; the members have that because of the staff. The staff does not and leaves the current environment far too lopsided.

Again, if anyone has a better suggestion or a way to make something work - I am all ears. This is just a simple suggestion to ring attention to the need.

@ArenaSnow I have seen this done before on other forums - It can both work and fail, as with all things. The best system I have witnessed before was when there were a set of nominees placed from both staff and members of the community. Yes, the final say would have to lay with Mahz since he is the Admin. (Sorry but Hank would not do for this since he while he is the co-admin, he is part of the moderation staff) - General vote after ~background check~ - The check would include checking through the previous posts of a member and any complaints made against them, as well as a time frame for people to post their concerns for each. All pro's and con's for each would need to be listed out before a final vote is taken.

Who they report to, it would be Mahz, but they wouldn't have power persay, only the standing of recommendation for or again said ban/staff member.

Now, I do understand that this is a another level bureaucracy and that is something I am normally against. Yet due to the current issues, it does not seem that a compromise would be found. I am more than open to better ideas, this is just a suggestion for something in the meantime.

Personally I don't think it would even be a suggestion if there was some sort of checks and balances for the staff members and bans put into place, or any complaint on the forum for that matter. Just does not seem to be right now. I also feel that the staff should have been put through a more rigorous check and monitored more carefully before being given a position of power on the forum. (Perhaps it would have avoided some of the issues.)

Some of the staff I have the upmost respect for, others I believe should be stripped of their title. I do not bother to report anymore because of several reasons. Yet that is neither here nor there but this has been an idea bouncing around in my head for about the last year. Due to present concerns I felt it was time to voice it.

Will it work? Lord only knows. It could, it could back fire completely. If anything, hopefully it will at least start a discussion of ways to better monitor not only the forum but the staff themselves. The forum could disintegrate into chaos without the mods, there would be no forum without its members. Both sides need a system of accountability; the members have that because of the staff. The staff does not and leaves the current environment far too lopsided.

Again, if anyone has a better suggestion or a way to make something work - I am all ears. This is just a simple suggestion to ring attention to the need.

I am firstly stepping out of the discussion thus far, mostly because Mahz is the critical factor that has not been presented in the issue. Mods and members have beaten the issue to death and presented what they wanted - Mahz must make his input known for the discussion to move forwards.

That said, it sounds like we'd be introducing risk, bureaucracy and the possibility of the factors I mentioned for an issue that may be best resolved simply by having staff be more transparent in the first place. I don't want councils to enforce councils and things to create either a) a line of red tape on a site with a simple goal and simple structure or b) a "committee" that works about as effectively as I find they usually do. That is to say, without a very strong backbone, they'd flop at first sight of struggle.

This is stuff that is best done in the beginning, not as a kneejerk a decade later.

The core of solving this issue is with Mahz. The ball is in his court; and so all we are doing is circlejerking over the same bloody issue that we have all seen cases presented for, by mods and members. But this suggestion, I feel, simply does not fit in tune with the way the site works.

@Lady Amalthea The bans people were vocally against were initiated by Mahz, as far as I am aware. So the prospect of these community arbiters/justices/etc would answer to Mahz which people are in opposition against at this moment. It seems like it would do nothing but create more division, bureaucracy, and make the site inefficient as a byproduct.

At the end of the day this is Mahz's sole-propeitorship and he does not have to listen less alone compromise. Of course just writing off the community would have its [negative] effects, but I think people are reading too much into how they would run the site and want to run it rather than the relative same system Mahz has run for over a decade that is janitorial at its core and simple in its design. Roleplayerguild is not a democracy. The only suggestion I can make is for the staff to refine their rules to make distinct lines of right and wrong so the forum can run efficiently with little error.

I think one other point to make is that in most cases, bans are not generally instigated by an island. There is likely a mod forum where they discuss several "problem" accounts. I'm sure in most cases where a well-known individual was banned, it was due to a history of bad behavior and not just a single incident. Most people only see the final incident and complain that it didn't meet their personal standards for banning.

In reality, the moderators generally ARE the group that checks the bans. There is no need for a third party arbitration council. This is a private forum run by an individual. I could be banned tomorrow for zero reason and there's nothing I can do about it. The fact that people are allowed to voice their disapproval continuously is a testament to the fact that the mods are being just in the vast majority of cases.

We've seen people use systems like the one desired above on other sites. It led to an over-bureaucratization of the forum in question. It wasn't worth the effort, and (other than for spambots) that forum had a far more lenient system for dealing with rule-violators. Numerous warnings before each temporary ban, then several such bans before a permanent one. Still people ended up banned. Many more than get banned here, and still they demanded more "for justice's sake".

The fact is, the only ones who tend to care about bans is the close friends of those banned and/or those who simply don't like any sorts of authorities.

The cost-benefit ratio is decidedly negative for this sort of concept. At least that is our opinion.

Speaking as a 'run-o-the-mill' member of the Guild who is obviously not "in" on whatever shenanigans Mahz and the moderating team have been dealing with over this summer (or this huge debate that has apparently been taking place); I've seen nothing so broken that it requires fixing by creating a whole new layer of RPGuild Staff. The site works very well as far as its intended purpose is concerned. If there have ever been problems in my experience, it has never been with staff - who have been altogether courteous and forthcoming whenever I have had need to contact them. I've certainly never been banned, and no one I know has been banned whether on the new guild or the old - which to me only says that there clearly isn't a group of madmods banning people at random.

I doubt most members I am in consistent contact with on the site are even aware of this "issue" or are all that bothered about it. If this goes ahead and some kind of vote or whatnot is implemented, I would obviously try to be a voting member just out of principle - but not out of any conviction that whatever this is is worth the fuss. Would probably not bother after a while. That's my fifty pence.

I feel liberated having participated in this debate of great importance. That's the only bit of civic participation yer gettin from me >.>