Forum Upgrades

[The Last Nomad]

It seems to be a change from the old simpler forums to a more complex type like almost ever other forum board site. What with the customisation level of avatars. But the new look is unlike every other forum I've ever seen. Particularly the big fat ugly grey bar between posts.

All of this I will have to wait and see if I like it...

HOWEVER, the thing is all too white. Its hard to see the different greys without tilting my screen to a weird angle. If that was improved I'd have no complaints.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I like the new layout personally. Only thing I'd suggest is changing the grey bars above people's posts to blue as it fits with the site's theme and adds some contrast.

I'd also suggest moving the report button back under people's avatars so people don't accidentally report someone when trying to quote them. Other than that I like it

snip

snip

See personally I'd get rid of the low content rule altogether. Posts like 'LOL' or 'This' or just an image would be covered under the lack of discussion value rule anyway, but sometimes you can add to the discussion with just a few words. It also stops people putting in junk into their posts to avoid low content (which I think detracts from the discussion value). Just my opinion

Also Toastie, you shouldn't name drop. Singling people out isn't very nice.

. I take that back, I do kind of have something with daystar that bugs me. But now is not the time to speak about it. O would go edit mynpost, but I'm on this damn iPod an doing that would be a pain.

 

[Hazy992]

I take that back, I do kind of have something with daystar that bugs me. But now is not the time to speak about it. O would go edit mynpost, but I'm on this damn iPod an doing that would be a pain.

Fair enough. It's just people might take it personally even if you don't mean it to be taken that way.

EDIT: Think you could make people's titles slightly bigger? I think that'd look better

EDIT 2: What actually is it about Daystar that bugs you so much?

 

[lapan]

It will probably take a while to get used to. The grey bars could use some downsizing maybe.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

But, the low content rule shouldn't be a subjective thing, which it is now. For example, I got suspended for a post with about 8 words that was answering the thread question, I got suspended because my favourite video game line was shazbot from tribes. Whereas people posting posts with less words get off a lot of the time. I've seen daystar clarion (example) only post a picture and about two words yet he gets off the hook. That's why if we had an automated system there won't be any exceptions, if your post has less than 5 or so words you will get some sort of wrath. I think it would work better, because a rule about the number of words in a post should not be subjective.


But

Steam forums has a thing where you have to post 5 characters at the minimum.

People just dodged the system by typing "5char" at the end of ever post which brought mod wrath on them and just increased the mods work.

Further, content isn't easily limited to character count.

For example:
"Esse Quam Videre"
Three words that carry a great deal of meaning. To be, rather than to seem. It evokes notions of authenticity, person-hood, existence, and perspective.

But all of that is subjective. And and no oft has everbeen warned because they've written a hundred wot post that says nothing that hasn't been saiid. You r argument isn't good, because something that carries meaning to one person won't carry meaning to another. Word count is something you can see, and something that can't be debated. What if you ha no idea what that meant, then the post holds no meaning.

"I reeeeallly reeeally super duper like that so much! zomg!"
10 words that carry very little meaning.

Well that's why we have an appeals system. It gives people an opportunity to explain themselves.

I'm telling you, making it about post count only encourages people to write random things down such as "adding content to avoid moderation", which will actually encourage spam rather than discourage it.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I take that back, I do kind of have something with daystar that bugs me. But now is not the time to speak about it. O would go edit mynpost, but I'm on this damn iPod an doing that would be a pain.

Fair enough. It's just people might take it personally even if you don't mean it to be taken that way.

EDIT: Think you could make people's titles slightly bigger? I think that'd look better

EDIT 2: What actually is it about Daystar that bugs you so much?

I don't know really. I think it maybe the fact that people hold him in high acclaim, even when he let's his ego get the better of him. For example the brovengers thread had no discussion value whatsoever, but people were fine with it because it was a daystar thread. I just don't like celebrities and favouritism in any site, so of course daystar gets on my nerves but he is one funny lad, so I don't hate him that much.

 

[Hazy992]

I take that back, I do kind of have something with daystar that bugs me. But now is not the time to speak about it. O would go edit mynpost, but I'm on this damn iPod an doing that would be a pain.

Fair enough. It's just people might take it personally even if you don't mean it to be taken that way.

EDIT: Think you could make people's titles slightly bigger? I think that'd look better

EDIT 2: What actually is it about Daystar that bugs you so much?

I don't know really. I think it maybe the fact that people hold him in high acclaim, even when he let's his ego get the better of him. For example the brovengers thread had no discussion value whatsoever, but people were fine with it because it was a daystar thread. I just don't like celebrities and favouritism in any site, so of course daystar gets on my nerves but he is one funny lad, so I don't hate him that much.

His ego? Are we talking about the same Daystar Clarion here? Daystar's repeatedly said he doesn't want people holding him in such high regard and he doesn't like the idea of forum celebrities. He's one of the most modest people on this site. You're just hating him for being popular, it's not his fault people like him.

As for the Brovengers thread it did have discussion value as a forum game which is why it was moved there. If this favouritism you keep claiming exists actually does exist the mods wouldn't have moved it.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Well that's why we have an appeals system. It gives people an opportunity to explain themselves.

I'm telling you, making it about post count only encourages people to write random things down such as "adding content to avoid moderation", which will actually encourage spam rather than discourage it.

They do that anyway, I've seen that done quite a lot. The low content rule itself encourages it, not how it's moderated. Also, can I appeal my suspension. I got suspended for saying shazbot was my favourite line from a game in a thread asking that question, I feel that I shouldn't of got it because I answered the question an added to the discussion. Yet because my personal choice of favourite game line was a short one I got the mod wrath. Also, before you say it was because I didn't explain why; there had been loads of people before my post and after just saying what their favourite line was and nothing else. It's like giving someone mod wrath for saying jaws was their favourite film in a favourite film thread, and not giving mod wrath to someone who said star wars episode 4: a new hope.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

I take that back, I do kind of have something with daystar that bugs me. But now is not the time to speak about it. O would go edit mynpost, but I'm on this damn iPod an doing that would be a pain.

Fair enough. It's just people might take it personally even if you don't mean it to be taken that way.

EDIT: Think you could make people's titles slightly bigger? I think that'd look better

EDIT 2: What actually is it about Daystar that bugs you so much?

I don't know really. I think it maybe the fact that people hold him in high acclaim, even when he let's his ego get the better of him. For example the brovengers thread had no discussion value whatsoever, but people were fine with it because it was a daystar thread. I just don't like celebrities and favouritism in any site, so of course daystar gets on my nerves but he is one funny lad, so I don't hate him that much.

His ego? Are we talking about the same Daystar Clarion here? Daystar's repeatedly said he doesn't want people holding him in such high regard and he doesn't like the idea of forum celebrities. He's one of the most modest people on this site. You're just hating him for being popular, it's not his fault people like him.

As for the Brovengers thread it did have discussion value as a forum game which is why it was moved there. If this favouritism you keep claiming exists actually does exist the mods wouldn't have moved it.

Yep, I have to agree. Daystar is in no way egotistical, and thinking otherwise is ridiculous. He's popular because he's an awesome guy, he's witty and he makes people laugh. End of story.

Also, Hazy, I'm the most modest person on this site. That is why I am The Modest Brovenger. I'm so modest it hurts.

 

[Fappy]

Holy cow this thread got derailed. Can we stop publicly calling out users for mod wrath and start discussing the OP? The topic is relevant to pretty much everyone using the forums at then moment.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Holy cow this thread got derailed. Can we stop publicly calling out users for mod wrath and start discussing the OP? The topic is relevant to pretty much everyone using the forums at then moment.

I actually took what I said about daystar back, and I was trying to stop the conversation about him. Also, I used hounds an example of the low content rule failing because it had been the most recent one I saw, no other reason. I'm indifferent to you mate

 

[Hazy992]

He's one of the most modest people on this site.

I agreed with you up until that point.

I hope you weren't being serious

Spoiler: BFW

Well he pretends to be arrogant sometimes but he's modest really (although I may have caused his ego to inflate somewhat)

 

[Torrasque]

Holy crap this is going to take some getting used to.

I.... Don't know if I like this or not. After 6000 posts done in roughly the same design, it's a bit startling.

I think I'll force myself to use the new layout and see how I like it.
I agree though, it is really weird. I am used to "quote" being on the bottom, and everything else just looks... I don't know... off?
All the avatars look so tiny now. The orange staff names also look icky. I agree with Fappy:

May I suggest that the nameplate part of the bar above every post be blue? I like how the buttons on the right-hand side light up blue, but I feels too bland with so much grey.

EDIT: It is especially bad for staff posts. The orange on grey looks icky.

I suggest a bright yellow or maybe bright red?

 

[Fappy]

Holy cow this thread got derailed. Can we stop publicly calling out users for mod wrath and start discussing the OP? The topic is relevant to pretty much everyone using the forums at then moment.

I actually took what I said about daystar back, and I was trying to stop the conversation about him. Also, I used hounds an example of the low content rule failing because it had been the most recent one I saw, no other reason. I'm indifferent to you mate

As am I to you, I just want the OP discussed to death so my eyes stop bleeding every time I read a mod's name now. Seriously, trying to read gold letters on dark grey is hemorrhaging my brain! D:

It like... blurs when I look at it...

 

[The Escapist Staff]

derp

A benefit of Publisher's club has always been an early look at changes. They were given the same ability to toggle the forum layout as you, just a week earlier as they've been promised. While these changes didn't come with a heads up, they did come with the a toggle that's easily accessible.

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

You might want to change the color of nicknames of staff members. Dark yellow on a grey background is very weird, not very clearly visible "at a glance".

 

[lapan]

We've improved the functionality of the forums, fixing buttons that didn't work and whatnot. Otherwise, the only difference is color and your ability to have larger avatars and more badges. We made these changes because we considered them to be an improvement, of course.

Profile still shows 85x85 as the limit, and when i tried a 100x100 it seemed to still resize it to that size. Smaller avatars also look a bit off-center.

Also the toggle link needs a linebreak:

[http://img191.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=th_741969868_toggle_122_375lo.jpg]

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Have any of the Teamever thought about making a mobile version of the site? The one now just crashes my iPod touch loads and takes ages to load. Maybe that should be worked on next instead of another site overhaul?

 

[Fappy]

We've improved the functionality of the forums, fixing buttons that didn't work and whatnot. Otherwise, the only difference is color and your ability to have larger avatars and more badges. We made these changes because we considered them to be an improvement, of course.

Profile still shows 85x85 as the limit, and when i tried a 100x100 it seemed to still resize it to that size. Smaller avatars also look a bit off-center.

85x85 is the new nonmember avatar size limit. Pubclub members now have 115x115, up from 100x100.

 

[lapan]

We've improved the functionality of the forums, fixing buttons that didn't work and whatnot. Otherwise, the only difference is color and your ability to have larger avatars and more badges. We made these changes because we considered them to be an improvement, of course.

Profile still shows 85x85 as the limit, and when i tried a 100x100 it seemed to still resize it to that size. Smaller avatars also look a bit off-center.

85x85 is the new nonmember avatar size limit. Pubclub members now have 115x115, up from 100x100.

Makes sense. Seeing a few members with even larger avatars confused me then.