The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Whereas I want to participate in All The Discussion about (Movies, TV, etc) and would rather not see it continue to be IMO pointlessly split between two separate places. I think the potential gains to be made from cross-pollination exceed the potential risks.
the existence of my favorite social space on the internet is not pointless. sorry, but, I don't think it should be dissolved because you find duplicate threads inconvenient.
I also understand that a lot of people believe that the structure needs to change, or the forums will die. I remain unconvinced. However, I am willing to try and experiment some. And, I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
I'm not in favor of anything that sounds like a social space is getting dissolved. If that is your impression than its either a problem with the messaging or the plan itself regarding a merge.
What social space does it sound like people are trying to dissolve?
Social Entropy++ is a place where you can discuss anything and everything. From the most random foolishness to the most serious issues of our lives. We do mutual aid (secret saints), something that can have a huge material impact on our survival and mental health (I'd like to see this expanded). It's a place where people have been hanging out shooting the shit for 20+ years. And, we've made incredible improvements over that time. I am not proud of some of the shit I, and others, said towards the beginning. But, I am damn proud of how we've changed. People have made deep connections there, they've found their best friends. People get married and have kids because of the community we've built there. Whole-ass people exist because our community is a place where romance can sprout and bloom. I think all that is pretty cool.
Whereas I want to participate in All The Discussion about (Movies, TV, etc) and would rather not see it continue to be IMO pointlessly split between two separate places. I think the potential gains to be made from cross-pollination exceed the potential risks.
the existence of my favorite social space on the internet is not pointless. sorry, but, I don't think it should be dissolved because you find duplicate threads inconvenient.
I also understand that a lot of people believe that the structure needs to change, or the forums will die. I remain unconvinced. However, I am willing to try and experiment some. And, I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
I'm not in favor of anything that sounds like a social space is getting dissolved. If that is your impression than its either a problem with the messaging or the plan itself regarding a merge.
What social space does it sound like people are trying to dissolve?
Social Entropy++ is a place where you can discuss anything and everything. From the most random foolishness to the most serious issues of our lives. We do mutual aid (secret saints), something that can have a huge material impact on our survival and mental health (I'd like to see this expanded). It's a place where people have been hanging out shooting the shit for 20+ years. And, we've made incredible improvements over that time. I am not proud of some of the shit I, and others, said towards the beginning. But, I am damn proud of how we've changed. People have made deep connections there, they've found their best friends. People get married and have kids because of the community we've built there. Whole-ass people exist because our community is a place where romance can sprout and bloom. I think all that is pretty cool.
I think that's pretty cool too! And regardless of how the structure pans out, if the whole forum doesn't reflect that mindset and resemble what you just described, I will consider us to have failed at the project. But so far I have every reason to think we will succeed at achieving that across the breadth of the website.
Also, putting aside for a moment that the claim people were advocating for breaking up [chat] in the State of the Forums threads from a while back is objectively incorrect:
I'll restate what I said in the Forum Structure discussion that claiming a forum merge is intended as a backdoor tactic to somehow force out other community members not only flies in the face of the expectation of good faith the Transition Team asked for in these discussions, it's a claim that borders on conspiratorial thinking.
I guess my perspective on the topic of the D&D [Chat] thread is that it feels like a barrier and excuse to stop one community from stepping outside of their neighborhood and into another.
And as a SE++ regular, listen, we do the exact same with our video game megathread(s).
With respect, may I suggest that a fast-moving Chat thread is best suited for something like a Discord, rather than a forum?
Note that these are from November, and I recognize people's positions have changed, so I am not holding this against anyone. But RME, you're wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you're lying. For example, on this post from just a week ago, you agreed that some people should be forced out of the forum.
This is, at best, a stretch. At worst, it's outright disingenuous and an attempt to slander and actively stir shit.
Let's end the line of conversation before I figure out which it is.
With all due respect, but I am not trying to be disingenuous nor am I trying to actively stir shit. What I am reacting to is a feeling of being gaslit and watching history be revised. RME said:
I'll restate what I said in the Forum Structure discussion that claiming a forum merge is intended as a backdoor tactic to somehow force out other community members not only flies in the face of the expectation of good faith the Transition Team asked for in these discussions, it's a claim that borders on conspiratorial thinking.
While supporting statements like:
To the second camp, I legitimately suggest they put their heads together and spin up their own alternative forum transition project...
It's funny that I can see that this is a reaction to RME's report against me, as he used disingenuous against Shryke in the previous thread.
Also, putting aside for a moment that the claim people were advocating for breaking up [chat] in the State of the Forums threads from a while back is objectively incorrect:
I'll restate what I said in the Forum Structure discussion that claiming a forum merge is intended as a backdoor tactic to somehow force out other community members not only flies in the face of the expectation of good faith the Transition Team asked for in these discussions, it's a claim that borders on conspiratorial thinking.
I guess my perspective on the topic of the D&D [Chat] thread is that it feels like a barrier and excuse to stop one community from stepping outside of their neighborhood and into another.
And as a SE++ regular, listen, we do the exact same with our video game megathread(s).
With respect, may I suggest that a fast-moving Chat thread is best suited for something like a Discord, rather than a forum?
Note that these are from November, and I recognize people's positions have changed, so I am not holding this against anyone. But RME, you're wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you're lying. For example, on this post from just a week ago, you agreed that some people should be forced out of the forum.
That's a blatant misrepresentation of what Primus' post was saying.
"People who don't want to give a new forum structure a fair chance should consider making their own proposal" is a drastically different statement from "People who don't want to give a new forum structure a chance should leave."
Also, NGL, it's really disingenuous for you to claim I'm lying when not only are you posting quotes from people who - by your own admission - changed their minds later in the discussion, you can't even address the original point I made, which is that claiming anyone advocating for a soft merge of the forums is looking for a backdoor to force people out is absurd on its face, not to mention a sentiment that is inherently an expression of bad faith.
Hey, there's that disingenuous claim again. And not only are we doubling down on the original gaslight, but we're introducing another by calling me a liar for quoting people (to contradict his earlier claim about the chat thread discussion) and acknowledging that their positions have changed. I was not and am not trying to misrepresent anyone, and was providing supporting evidence of the history of events.
Don’t turn this thread into the same mess the non-poll version of this topic became. Don’t bring up forum beef crap as a way to take shots at each other, not to mention don’t start digging into old posts from months and months ago to try and win arguments; that is very clearly against the spirit of the interim rules.
Discuss the nature of the proposals and the content of responses in this thread, don’t start taking shots at other users or groups of them by, as an example, accusing them of lying.
Also while we are at it please try and avoid overly curt and abrasive responses to folks who are trying to respond in good faith, that just inflames stuff too.
I apologize, but this is not occuring because of some forum beef, this is occurring because I feel I am being gaslighted. I didn't quote Commander Zoom or Zonugal as attacks against either of them. And the quotes I did pull are from this sub forum.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
It makes the threads feel more empty and stymies conversation in the forum. It is the exact same reason we don't allow duplicate threads in the same subforum currently.
I mean, it sounds like the proposal is to replace it with duplicate threads right next to each other?
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
It makes the threads feel more empty and stymies conversation in the forum. It is the exact same reason we don't allow duplicate threads in the same subforum currently.
I mean, it sounds like the proposal is to replace it with duplicate threads right next to each other?
Also, putting aside for a moment that the claim people were advocating for breaking up [chat] in the State of the Forums threads from a while back is objectively incorrect:
I'll restate what I said in the Forum Structure discussion that claiming a forum merge is intended as a backdoor tactic to somehow force out other community members not only flies in the face of the expectation of good faith the Transition Team asked for in these discussions, it's a claim that borders on conspiratorial thinking.
I guess my perspective on the topic of the D&D [Chat] thread is that it feels like a barrier and excuse to stop one community from stepping outside of their neighborhood and into another.
And as a SE++ regular, listen, we do the exact same with our video game megathread(s).
With respect, may I suggest that a fast-moving Chat thread is best suited for something like a Discord, rather than a forum?
Note that these are from November, and I recognize people's positions have changed, so I am not holding this against anyone. But RME, you're wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you're lying. For example, on this post from just a week ago, you agreed that some people should be forced out of the forum.
This is, at best, a stretch. At worst, it's outright disingenuous and an attempt to slander and actively stir shit.
Let's end the line of conversation before I figure out which it is.
With all due respect, but I am not trying to be disingenuous nor am I trying to actively stir shit. What I am reacting to is a feeling of being gaslit and watching history be revised. RME said:
I'll restate what I said in the Forum Structure discussion that claiming a forum merge is intended as a backdoor tactic to somehow force out other community members not only flies in the face of the expectation of good faith the Transition Team asked for in these discussions, it's a claim that borders on conspiratorial thinking.
While supporting statements like:
To the second camp, I legitimately suggest they put their heads together and spin up their own alternative forum transition project...
It's funny that I can see that this is a reaction to RME's report against me, as he used disingenuous against Shryke in the previous thread.
Also, putting aside for a moment that the claim people were advocating for breaking up [chat] in the State of the Forums threads from a while back is objectively incorrect:
I'll restate what I said in the Forum Structure discussion that claiming a forum merge is intended as a backdoor tactic to somehow force out other community members not only flies in the face of the expectation of good faith the Transition Team asked for in these discussions, it's a claim that borders on conspiratorial thinking.
I guess my perspective on the topic of the D&D [Chat] thread is that it feels like a barrier and excuse to stop one community from stepping outside of their neighborhood and into another.
And as a SE++ regular, listen, we do the exact same with our video game megathread(s).
With respect, may I suggest that a fast-moving Chat thread is best suited for something like a Discord, rather than a forum?
Note that these are from November, and I recognize people's positions have changed, so I am not holding this against anyone. But RME, you're wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you're lying. For example, on this post from just a week ago, you agreed that some people should be forced out of the forum.
That's a blatant misrepresentation of what Primus' post was saying.
"People who don't want to give a new forum structure a fair chance should consider making their own proposal" is a drastically different statement from "People who don't want to give a new forum structure a chance should leave."
Also, NGL, it's really disingenuous for you to claim I'm lying when not only are you posting quotes from people who - by your own admission - changed their minds later in the discussion, you can't even address the original point I made, which is that claiming anyone advocating for a soft merge of the forums is looking for a backdoor to force people out is absurd on its face, not to mention a sentiment that is inherently an expression of bad faith.
Hey, there's that disingenuous claim again. And not only are we doubling down on the original gaslight, but we're introducing another by calling me a liar for quoting people (to contradict his earlier claim about the chat thread discussion) and acknowledging that their positions have changed. I was not and am not trying to misrepresent anyone, and was providing supporting evidence of the history of events.
Don’t turn this thread into the same mess the non-poll version of this topic became. Don’t bring up forum beef crap as a way to take shots at each other, not to mention don’t start digging into old posts from months and months ago to try and win arguments; that is very clearly against the spirit of the interim rules.
Discuss the nature of the proposals and the content of responses in this thread, don’t start taking shots at other users or groups of them by, as an example, accusing them of lying.
Also while we are at it please try and avoid overly curt and abrasive responses to folks who are trying to respond in good faith, that just inflames stuff too.
I apologize, but this is not occuring because of some forum beef, this is occurring because I feel I am being gaslighted. I didn't quote Commander Zoom or Zonugal as attacks against either of them. And the quotes I did pull are from this sub forum.
I'm taking this to PMs because I really don't want to have this sort of thing mucking up the Poll thread. But this is exactly what we want folks to NOT do in this thread.
There is no conspiracy or grand effort or even a fleeting thought to force people out of this community, not with a restructure or anything else. If people want a restructure (EDIT: Or keeping things the same, even!), it will be borne out by the poll voting, and we'll work from there. I want to continue to emphasize that this is JUST for the initial structure of setting up Coin Return, and that we can change things later if it's not working.
The only hiccup being it hides threads created by the person so could create some confusion there. Still manageable I think. I am still of the belief that a lot less would change than people fear under a full restructure. I think this is especially true once we iron out the rules (when it comes time for that). We can create a very inclusive space for the people here.
This is a pretty big hiccup.
To attempt to tread this minefield carefully, there are some… vocal and strong personalities who also happen to be prolific posters and thread creators.
I appreciate the ignore functionality here because, even if I can’t fully ignore a person, it does act as something of a filter, especially if they’re prone to posting multi-page screeds (which I’m sure I’m on a few ignore lists for myself), but given that said prolific posters are also likely to be regularly quoted, its kind of a half measure anyways.
Actual threads being hidden, however, means either choosing between getting to use that filter for them in the threads that stand, or having access to all of the threads, even if they’re created by people I find to be annoying enough to try to keep at a distance, however minor.
I haven’t done a recent count, but there were times in the past where one ignored user would have locked out a good half dozen+ conversations I participate in, let alone if this applied to all 3 or 4 I’ve current got on my list.
This is mainly an oversight on my part, I'll look into it. I think this is an area where vanilla gets it right and xenforo gets it wrong. I'm sure it's fixable.
Edit: added to the task list
Yeah, the xenoforums behavior where it completely hides ignored users posts (except for when other people quote them), with just a line at the bottom of the page that ignored posts exist on the page is one of the things I don't like about them. Sometimes I just ignore users because they have a habit of triple posting or quoting a half dozen times in the same post or posting whole freaking articles, and I just don't want to devote the mental bandwidth to do multiple mobile pages of scrolling all the time, but will still engage with them otherwise.
If there was a plug in to change the behavior to be closer to vbulletin/vallina's minimizing it to just the name, where you click to expand it, that'd be way better IMO.
(I do acknowledge that other people do prefer the ability to completely obliterate an ignored person from their version of the forum too).
Also, I'm not a super huge fan of xenoforum's inability to block moderators
Ideally there's space for both. Vanilla's more "mute" style functionality would be a nice addition to XFs current tools, but if I had to choose only one, I'd rather it be XFs "actually ignore" feature.
Both is good though
e: also in this world "Mute" could get wishlisted for when someone has a good idea in an easy way to write the feature.
Today, for example, I have seen many nearly or completely identical posts about the passing of Bob Uecker and David Lynch. The posts themselves are fine, IMO, but why have them in two places rather than just one?
What happens if you really don't like someone in the movie thread but want to discuss movies? That's one.
Can you not just put them on ignore? I'm not trying to be a dick, but why isn't that an acceptable option?
Sometimes yes! But sometimes they're the ones shaping the entire conversation, so that doesn't really help much.
Does the current system help alleviate this?
Like, there are plenty of times that conversations in threads that I follow are about a topic I don't care about, or being led by a poster that I don't particularly like. That's a part of existing on a forum as far as I'm concerned. You just step away from the thread for a bit, or maybe you post about something different in the thread and see if you can steer the conversation towards what you want to talk about.
the beauty of a forum is you can post whatever you want and nobody can stop you
every dumbass thought can be shouted at the world and you can choose to interact or not
+11
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Something very seriously worth noting is - none of this is set in stone.
Once we migrate we'll also be able to look at how the numbers play out and whoever is reviewing that data can propose changes to the community.
And those changes won't have a ticking clock in the background so we'll be able to approach it without the inherent stress of trying to stand all this up at the same time
this was why my opinion was that we should only try to do the things that need to be done prior to the transition. changing the forum structure makes sense now, but with a time limit it makes it less of a logical thing to look at and it can be changed later.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
It makes the threads feel more empty and stymies conversation in the forum. It is the exact same reason we don't allow duplicate threads in the same subforum currently.
I mean, it sounds like the proposal is to replace it with duplicate threads right next to each other?
In theory I suppose it could. In practice I don't think it will. There are very few threads that have a tangible difference between the various subforums. Even if it does at least it will be much easier to find the various threads you are looking for rather than scattered across the forums.
Something very seriously worth noting is - none of this is set in stone.
Once we migrate we'll also be able to look at how the numbers play out and whoever is reviewing that data can propose changes to the community.
And those changes won't have a ticking clock in the background so we'll be able to approach it without the inherent stress of trying to stand all this up at the same time
this was why my opinion was that we should only try to do the things that need to be done prior to the transition. changing the forum structure makes sense now, but with a time limit it makes it less of a logical thing to look at and it can be changed later.
Absolutely, and in the end the only difference is we're solving for adjacent variables which is leading us to slightly different conclusions.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
It makes the threads feel more empty and stymies conversation in the forum. It is the exact same reason we don't allow duplicate threads in the same subforum currently.
I mean, it sounds like the proposal is to replace it with duplicate threads right next to each other?
In theory I suppose it could. In practice I don't think it will. There are very few threads that have a tangible difference between the various subforums. Even if it does at least it will be much easier to find the various threads you are looking for rather than scattered across the forums.
Are there really that many threads that are duplicated across the forums? And how many of those regularly languish off the front page for lack of updates whilst a mirror one on another subforum is a permanent fixture?
And if there were some good examples of this, why are the people wanting to chat in the slow thread not just going to the faster thread in another forum where that might be more on topic to post there (e.g. the SA Warhammer Thread vs the various CF ones)?
I don't think people aren't posting across subforums because they can't find the most popular versions of threads. I think they only go looking for a few specialist things and will stop to read what else is there.
More subforums is only going to dilute this more as far fewer people intentionally go looking for surprises compare to those that might be interested when one turns up.
I wouldn't call any of the proposals "more subforums", they trim more than they add. If you're concerned about the usability of having to travel between a few subforums for the topics you're interested in, XenForo has good features to group them all together in one place with custom filters. And we've got development resources to improve further with whatever people find helpful.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
It makes the threads feel more empty and stymies conversation in the forum. It is the exact same reason we don't allow duplicate threads in the same subforum currently.
I mean, it sounds like the proposal is to replace it with duplicate threads right next to each other?
In theory I suppose it could. In practice I don't think it will. There are very few threads that have a tangible difference between the various subforums. Even if it does at least it will be much easier to find the various threads you are looking for rather than scattered across the forums.
Are there really that many threads that are duplicated across the forums? And how many of those regularly languish off the front page for lack of updates whilst a mirror one on another subforum is a permanent fixture?
And if there were some good examples of this, why are the people wanting to chat in the slow thread not just going to the faster thread in another forum where that might be more on topic to post there (e.g. the SA Warhammer Thread vs the various CF ones)?
I don't think people aren't posting across subforums because they can't find the most popular versions of threads. I think they only go looking for a few specialist things and will stop to read what else is there.
More subforums is only going to dilute this more as far fewer people intentionally go looking for surprises compare to those that might be interested when one turns up.
Basically any sports thread is duplicated. The NHL thread is contained to D&D while the college football one is mostly active in SE++. Movies thread, TV/Streaming thread, Lego thread, MCU thread, Gaza thread, housing thread, Steam thread, anime thread, Dropout thread, Parenting thread, and this is just off the top of my head. There is a lot of my head. I am certain I could get even more examples with remarkable ease. This isn't even counting the politics threads where we might end up with some duplicates. We have a lot of duplicates. Relatively few are exclusive to one area or the next, but a lot of conversations end up happening in parallel around the same topic.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
It makes the threads feel more empty and stymies conversation in the forum. It is the exact same reason we don't allow duplicate threads in the same subforum currently.
I mean, it sounds like the proposal is to replace it with duplicate threads right next to each other?
In theory I suppose it could. In practice I don't think it will. There are very few threads that have a tangible difference between the various subforums. Even if it does at least it will be much easier to find the various threads you are looking for rather than scattered across the forums.
Are there really that many threads that are duplicated across the forums? And how many of those regularly languish off the front page for lack of updates whilst a mirror one on another subforum is a permanent fixture?
And if there were some good examples of this, why are the people wanting to chat in the slow thread not just going to the faster thread in another forum where that might be more on topic to post there (e.g. the SA Warhammer Thread vs the various CF ones)?
I don't think people aren't posting across subforums because they can't find the most popular versions of threads. I think they only go looking for a few specialist things and will stop to read what else is there.
More subforums is only going to dilute this more as far fewer people intentionally go looking for surprises compare to those that might be interested when one turns up.
Basically any sports thread is duplicated. The NHL thread is contained to D&D while the college football one is mostly active in SE++. Movies thread, TV/Streaming thread, Lego thread, MCU thread, Gaza thread, housing thread, Steam thread, anime thread, Dropout thread, Parenting thread, and this is just off the top of my head. There is a lot of my head. I am certain I could get even more examples with remarkable ease. This isn't even counting the politics threads where we might end up with some duplicates. We have a lot of duplicates. Relatively few are exclusive to one area or the next, but a lot of conversations end up happening in parallel around the same topic.
I'll admit I've not really noticed the sports ones and they do have the seasonal issue with periods of not much happening, but with most of those I do feel that those are all regular first page fixtures?
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
It makes the threads feel more empty and stymies conversation in the forum. It is the exact same reason we don't allow duplicate threads in the same subforum currently.
I mean, it sounds like the proposal is to replace it with duplicate threads right next to each other?
In theory I suppose it could. In practice I don't think it will. There are very few threads that have a tangible difference between the various subforums. Even if it does at least it will be much easier to find the various threads you are looking for rather than scattered across the forums.
Are there really that many threads that are duplicated across the forums? And how many of those regularly languish off the front page for lack of updates whilst a mirror one on another subforum is a permanent fixture?
And if there were some good examples of this, why are the people wanting to chat in the slow thread not just going to the faster thread in another forum where that might be more on topic to post there (e.g. the SA Warhammer Thread vs the various CF ones)?
I don't think people aren't posting across subforums because they can't find the most popular versions of threads. I think they only go looking for a few specialist things and will stop to read what else is there.
More subforums is only going to dilute this more as far fewer people intentionally go looking for surprises compare to those that might be interested when one turns up.
Basically any sports thread is duplicated. The NHL thread is contained to D&D while the college football one is mostly active in SE++. Movies thread, TV/Streaming thread, Lego thread, MCU thread, Gaza thread, housing thread, Steam thread, anime thread, Dropout thread, Parenting thread, and this is just off the top of my head. There is a lot of my head. I am certain I could get even more examples with remarkable ease. This isn't even counting the politics threads where we might end up with some duplicates. We have a lot of duplicates. Relatively few are exclusive to one area or the next, but a lot of conversations end up happening in parallel around the same topic.
I'll admit I've not really noticed the sports ones and they do have the seasonal issue with periods of not much happening, but with most of those I do feel that those are all regular first page fixtures?
Probably? I don't pay a lot of attention to that. I was answering the first question of do we have that many duplicated threads. Splitting the conversation is problematic for many members. More than are worried what happens if they are combined? Well we will find out on the 21st I suppose. It is a problem for some members though.
I wouldn't call any of the proposals "more subforums", they trim more than they add. If you're concerned about the usability of having to travel between a few subforums for the topics you're interested in, XenForo has good features to group them all together in one place with custom filters. And we've got development resources to improve further with whatever people find helpful.
being able to change things instead of being burdened with technical cruft because we're a disaster of a tech demo that's been forgotten for a decade is probably going to be extremely jarring to some folks
+6
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited January 17
It also seems hard to break through that once a change is done, they can influence it being undone or redone as required.
Too used to tyranny.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Whereas I want to participate in All The Discussion about (Movies, TV, etc) and would rather not see it continue to be IMO pointlessly split between two separate places. I think the potential gains to be made from cross-pollination exceed the potential risks.
the existence of my favorite social space on the internet is not pointless. sorry, but, I don't think it should be dissolved because you find duplicate threads inconvenient.
I also understand that a lot of people believe that the structure needs to change, or the forums will die. I remain unconvinced. However, I am willing to try and experiment some. And, I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
I'm not in favor of anything that sounds like a social space is getting dissolved. If that is your impression than its either a problem with the messaging or the plan itself regarding a merge.
What social space does it sound like people are trying to dissolve?
Social Entropy++ is a place where you can discuss anything and everything. From the most random foolishness to the most serious issues of our lives. We do mutual aid (secret saints), something that can have a huge material impact on our survival and mental health (I'd like to see this expanded). It's a place where people have been hanging out shooting the shit for 20+ years. And, we've made incredible improvements over that time. I am not proud of some of the shit I, and others, said towards the beginning. But, I am damn proud of how we've changed. People have made deep connections there, they've found their best friends. People get married and have kids because of the community we've built there. Whole-ass people exist because our community is a place where romance can sprout and bloom. I think all that is pretty cool.
Look, I was an extremely active SE++ poster for almost 20 years. I am one of those people who made those whole-ass people who only exist because of SE++. There is no other way I would have met my partner. All those things you say about SE++ are true to me, too, and are why I love the place so much. I have written several long posts since my return espousing exactly that, citing that I only left in 2022 because real life started getting in the way. I'm back because I heard this was all happening and wanted to follow along.
And of course, it would not be me (under a new username/title/av) if I didn't prove myself utterly incapable of passive observation, opting to participate instead. And then meandering my way towards effort posting.
For my part, I feel that a restructure is the best move. I have been slamming Agrees left, right and centre in catching up with the pre-poll version of this thread and this thread itself, cuz gosh a lot happens when you're on holiday! Just about all of my reasons for feeling this way have already been articulated by others (see posts by @Cello@Gnizmo@RatherDashing@archivistkitsune@Akilae ) ... except maybe one.
Bear with me. This is an effort post of the highest order, because I'm on KBAM and not my phone. I will have absolutely no concept re: post length until I'm done typing.
I think the one thing that hasn't really been mentioned in much detail in this thread is that if we operate under the presumption that the cultures of SE++ and D&D are fundamentally so entrenched and immovable that we should just aim to preserve what we have (ie., instead of try something different so that we can still all share the same space despite those cultural differences) like the wings of the house example @ahava mentioned in the pre-poll thread, we must also ask the following question:
Why then would a restructure threaten those cultures?
If I believe in the strength of SE++'s internal culture - the one that made me a wife and parent - then it stands to reason that I also believe in its spirit's ability to survive the move to a different-looking, newly built facility.
By proxy, I would presume that the strength of other forum subcultures would similarly allow the formative parts of those cultures to survive a renovation to the house or in this case, a move into an entirely new neighbourhood.
The mistake is trying to find a new house that looks exactly the same as the old one. We are not the same folks who started posting in PA. We started posting as teenagers and 20-somethings with an excess of time and (probably) a shortage of social energy. We are not those people anymore. We are now adults - grown ass people, with fully developed brains and who can rent cars! some of us are retired!
And yeah, maybe we turned this old place into something that worked for us over the course of the decades we spent here. This place is informed by decades of history and lore - everything a good culture has over any period of time. We renovated the shit out of this place, with very limited resources... but now the place is showing structural faults, probably because of those shoddy, patchwork renovations. (And I don't even mean that from a tech perspective... we also patched it based on our behaviour, by never venturing beyond certain spaces so we don’t smack our heads into a ceiling that's lower than we expected it to, or by lowering ceilings in parts of the house because it made it more or less unwelcoming to certain kinds of people.)
Given that we are now several hundred grown-ass adults needing a new home, why should we opt for the old, shitty house that was "good enough" 20+ years ago but no longer fit for purpose?
After all, it’s not a controversial thing to say that we have simply outgrown the house we grew up in, and now someone is demolishing it anyway so we gotta go. (And I mean, we could strap a million balloons to it and airlift the whole thing to South America, but that infringes on copyright protections.)
Why wouldn't we start with a mostly shared, open-plan new space and then start building doors and walls when we need to?
Because here's the thing. If the cultural divides ARE as deep and as important as some folks say they are (and I'm not being dismissive here - I understand that they really are, for people on all sides, for good reasons!), then surely those divides will re-form as they need to in the new space, except when the partitions go up, maybe there are fewer people bumping their heads, fewer shoddy patch jobs that compromise the overall structure of the new space?
And if the cultural divides ARE NOT as deep and as important, then whatever partitions exist in the new space will suit the new culture and subcultures that form in the new space.
In either case, a new space makes more sense to me. I know and understand that people are fearful of change and don't want to lose the good stuff they have. I genuinely have a heap of empathy for that. But I also think that copy and pasting an old structure that was already bleeding users is not a good way to set up a new community.
Because that's what we're going to do. We are all going to set up a new community, using the old one as the foundation. If we can't agree that the goal is to build something new, then I think the issue is about perception. It is going to be new, even if we keep the old structure. Efforts are being made to try to make the new thing as sustainable as possible - as worth all this work as possible - and in my opinion, starting with something *totally* new is the best way to do that.
We can all take some ownership over building the new place together, rather than grabbing onto our tiny piece of it and hiding in our room. That's how a community - a group of people who are agreeing to hang out because we all have something in common (see: Values & CoC) - works. And this statement goes for people in all sides here, btw. That is not a dig at any specific subgroup on this forum.
And yes: communities, even new ones in new spaces, do evolve and change over time. I'd just want to see what new subgroups and subcultures emerge in the new space, informed by the foundations that made spaces like SE++ and D&D so valuable to others, guided by the Values we all agree to share while we're there.
That might all seem very idealistic, but I do say all this as someone who handles change by embracing it (and even driving it) instead of fighting it or ignoring it until it happens. That might not be your relationship with change, and that's okay.
I'll still be around regardless of what the new space looks like, more because I find change and new opportunities exciting rather than scary. I recognise that I am privileged in this way, however, so that is not meant as snark towards those who don't feel that way... only a comment to further contextualise my perspective.
Vixx on
+21
minor incidentyou can't swim whenyou've been dead a hundred yearsRegistered User, Transition Teamregular
It's amazing how much that just looks like a mid-90s Sci-Fi channel show.
the tune you'll be humming forever, all the words are replaced and wrong
I am getting pretty frustrated at all the metaphors about dilapidated houses, walled gardens, east/west germany... it's just framing the existence of multiple communities as per se bad. I don't think that "the cultures of SE++ and D&D are fundamentally so entrenched and immovable that we should just aim to preserve what we have." clearly, I think a unified structure is possible. and, once again:
I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
and new forum software, I forgot to mention.
+1
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
So, I''m almost exclusively an SE++ poster, I guess. Few forays out here and there over the past few decades, but that's definitely my 'home' within the forums.
Even then, I'm not as active as I used to be. I've stopped following a bunch of things I used to. The only things I regularly kept up on last year were the movies threads and the games threads, but I would catch up on other topics from time to time.
But hey, things change. Or might change. When the forum hosting change and possible restructure was raised, I didn't know much about the current state of DnD.
I follow a couple specific threads in DnD, but neither of them the movies thread.
So I did what seemed the most sensible thing: I started following the DnD movies thread as well as the SE++ one. After all, if someone wanted to know how I'd feel if we were going to slam there together, then I felt like the least I could do was actually spend some time as a lurker, following along so I could actually see how the other side worked and therefore actually get an informed opinion.
It took me a while to get a feel for it.
I'm a kiwi, but I was originally from Australia. From the outside, a lot of people smash the two cultures together and can't tell the difference. But from inside, there's dozens of cultural differences, tics, quirks, that mean we really aren't the same. Similar, but not the same. And that's sort of how it felt.
But it also took me a while to spot the difference, which says a lot.
It really reminded me a lot of the boardgame cultural fandom divides between Eurojank and Ameritrash fans. Everyone loves the common interest (boardgames/movies), but what aspects they love and how they engage with it is a bit different; however there's so much in common and so much crossover that there's a lot to bind it together.
So having identified how the cultural difference felt to me, how did that make me feel about a possible merge?
I know some people also feel there is a cultural divide, and some even prefer it that way. But I looked upon it as an opportunity. Here were a bunch of other people talking about the thing I loved! People I didn't regularly talk to! Sure, there were a few differences, but to me, that's just a new angle of diversity of opinion that would make the conversation, and my participation in it, richer. I would love to hear more opinions about things from these people, and would like to share my opinion with them!
But I also don't want to post the same thing twice, or cut and paste my effort posts. That just feels like spamming my opinion out there, like neither thread is worth an original authentic opinion from me, instead just getting some cheap syndicated copy. Or I put original content and opinion in one thread, and the other thread is secondary, earning reactions and reply comments, but never getting anything new from me. Congratulations, you're the second-class thread, which I can only think of as a shame.
So I have looked at it, and for me personally, I think it would be a tremendous missed opportunity not to create this richer, more diverse, and greater version of the movie thread. I've had a couple months of tracking both threads in order to form my own opinion about it, and that was where it ended up; yes, there are cultural differences, but they are far from insurmountable and I think that the final outcome of a merge could create something even greater than the sum of its parts stemming from its wider breadth of experience and opinion.
I know there are some who have expressed a counter opinion to that. They don't feel that their experience would be improved if a merge occurs, for whatever reason. That's equally valid. This is purely a personal subjective opinion. I took a single use case and put in the research to form an individual case study that may not hold true for anyone other than myself, and may not even apply outside the thread I chose to follow. I'm submitting my opinion and the particular methodology I used to show how I got there, and this was the conclusion I came to.
I'm only online a bare few places; barely on social media, don't follow much. This is my preferred space and community. I would like Coin Return to be the best version of itself it could be for my experience. I would like that to be the biggest, richest, most inclusive space possible. There are people who I have only encountered for first time in these transition forums who have impressed me with their posts and I would like to interact with them more, and hear more from them about what they think. And that means that turning down this opportunity to make Coin Return something potentially ever greater than what we've currently got feels like the lesser option to me.
I am getting pretty frustrated at all the metaphors about dilapidated houses, walled gardens, east/west germany... it's just framing the existence of multiple communities as per se bad. I don't think that "the cultures of SE++ and D&D are fundamentally so entrenched and immovable that we should just aim to preserve what we have." clearly, I think a unified structure is possible. and, once again:
I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
and new forum software, I forgot to mention.
Sorry. I realise that I should’ve split my post in two. My direct reply to you should’ve ended in that a change was still a good idea despite (or maybe because) of the good things about SE++. The rest was addressing the thread more broadly.
I don’t think different subcultures is a bad thing. I just disagree with the assumption that subcultural divides will continue to fall along the same lines in a new space, and I disagree with the suggestion that the best chance at the community’s survival is to port over existing divides. I just think it’s better to start within a new structure and let the community evolve into whatever it becomes over time. Even if it ends up the same thing - if the existing subcultural divides are as important to the survival of this community as is claimed (and I’m not saying they’re NOT), then they will simply re-emerge organically in the new space, and nothing, including an opportunity to do something new, is lost.
The logic of your position is sound. I acknowledged this in a previous thread. I see the merit and will happily agree that it makes sense as a potential solution - it absolutely is easier to test what works by changing as little as possible. On this basis, it’s a good solution. It’s just not what I would individually prefer, based on my own biases and ideals and beliefs, because I myself don’t prioritize the need to clearly see what works as highly as others do. That’s all.
Vixx on
0
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Social Entropy++ is a place where you can discuss anything and everything. From the most random foolishness to the most serious issues of our lives. We do mutual aid (secret saints), something that can have a huge material impact on our survival and mental health (I'd like to see this expanded). It's a place where people have been hanging out shooting the shit for 20+ years. And, we've made incredible improvements over that time. I am not proud of some of the shit I, and others, said towards the beginning. But, I am damn proud of how we've changed. People have made deep connections there, they've found their best friends. People get married and have kids because of the community we've built there. Whole-ass people exist because our community is a place where romance can sprout and bloom. I think all that is pretty cool.
Literally everything you're saying in this paragraph is also 100% true for D&D so I don't get what your point is here. (Genuinely asking/confused, I agree with all of the good stuff you said about SE++)
amateurhour on
are YOU on the beer list?
0
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
Social Entropy++ is a place where you can discuss anything and everything. From the most random foolishness to the most serious issues of our lives. We do mutual aid (secret saints), something that can have a huge material impact on our survival and mental health (I'd like to see this expanded). It's a place where people have been hanging out shooting the shit for 20+ years. And, we've made incredible improvements over that time. I am not proud of some of the shit I, and others, said towards the beginning. But, I am damn proud of how we've changed. People have made deep connections there, they've found their best friends. People get married and have kids because of the community we've built there. Whole-ass people exist because our community is a place where romance can sprout and bloom. I think all that is pretty cool.
Literally everything you're saying in this paragraph is also 100% true for D&D so I don't get what your point is here. (Genuinely asking/confused, I agree with all of the good stuff you said about SE++)
The conversation thread was "i don't want threads to be pointlessly split"
"But i don't want my social space to be dissolved, my social space isn't pointless"
"I don't want to dissolve anybody's social space, or anything like it, why does a merge mean dissolving it"
"This is what's good about se++"
Given the context i think the cheat perceives a merge plan as eliminating se++
I am getting pretty frustrated at all the metaphors about dilapidated houses, walled gardens, east/west germany... it's just framing the existence of multiple communities as per se bad. I don't think that "the cultures of SE++ and D&D are fundamentally so entrenched and immovable that we should just aim to preserve what we have." clearly, I think a unified structure is possible. and, once again:
I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
and new forum software, I forgot to mention.
Sorry. I realise that I should’ve split my post in two. My direct reply to you should’ve ended in that a change was still a good idea despite (or maybe because) of the good things about SE++. The rest was addressing the thread more broadly.
I don’t think different subcultures is a bad thing. I just disagree with the assumption that subcultural divides will continue to fall along the same lines in a new space, and I disagree with the suggestion that the best chance at the community’s survival is to port over existing divides. I just think it’s better to start within a new structure and let the community evolve into whatever it becomes over time. Even if it ends up the same thing - if the existing subcultural divides are as important to the survival of this community as is claimed (and I’m not saying they’re NOT), then they will simply re-emerge organically in the new space, and nothing, including an opportunity to do something new, is lost.
The logic of your position is sound. I acknowledged this in a previous thread. I see the merit and will happily agree that it makes sense as a potential solution - it absolutely is easier to test what works by changing as little as possible. On this basis, it’s a good solution. It’s just not what I would individually prefer, based on my own biases and ideals and beliefs, because I myself don’t prioritize the need to clearly see what works as highly as others do. That’s all.
I agree with a lot of the general thrust of your posts, and I appreciate the effort you put into them.
Here's the crux of my support for the hybrid version versus just a full restructure:
What if you're wrong? Your thesis (if I'm reading it correctly) is that once we slam the two sides together, everyone will come together into the shared space and, after some potential growing pains, learn to get along and the experience will be mutually enriching. But what if one culture subsumes the other? Or what if the inability to retreat to a place you're more comfortable with amps up the tension and aggression? And what if not everyone notices the bad parts, or even thinks they're bad? I assume good faith on the part of everyone participating, and I don't think an appreciable number of people want to drive off anyone, so this isn't me suggesting that will happen. But it may be the case that half the forums don't even think anything is especially different, and the other half just decide to trickle out of here rather than make waves.
You might argue that the sort of people who really value this community would stick around and fight for it, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. We've already lost a number of high-profile folks - many here for decades, and with a great love of this community - who don't see a way out of our current troubles, and a number of the people sticking around are likely just doing it to see what CoRe is like; if they don't care for it right out of the gate, they might just bail then. And those people are probably gone forever.
I genuinely believe that, if we went with a complete restructure, and all or most of our folks hated it, we would change it. There'd be no reason not to. My fear is that 75% of our people think it's great and 25% hate it and those 25% are overruled. Or 25% hate it but can tell everyone else loves it, and so just decide to disappear into the west.
Meanwhile, a hybrid merge allows everyone to have a taste of restructure without forcing it upon them, which I think gives us the chance to play around with things without potentially alienating folks in a maybe-permanent fashion. And if everyone really does love the merged sections, nothing is stopping us from becoming more united down the road.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I am getting pretty frustrated at all the metaphors about dilapidated houses, walled gardens, east/west germany... it's just framing the existence of multiple communities as per se bad. I don't think that "the cultures of SE++ and D&D are fundamentally so entrenched and immovable that we should just aim to preserve what we have." clearly, I think a unified structure is possible. and, once again:
I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
and new forum software, I forgot to mention.
Sorry. I realise that I should’ve split my post in two. My direct reply to you should’ve ended in that a change was still a good idea despite (or maybe because) of the good things about SE++. The rest was addressing the thread more broadly.
I don’t think different subcultures is a bad thing. I just disagree with the assumption that subcultural divides will continue to fall along the same lines in a new space, and I disagree with the suggestion that the best chance at the community’s survival is to port over existing divides. I just think it’s better to start within a new structure and let the community evolve into whatever it becomes over time. Even if it ends up the same thing - if the existing subcultural divides are as important to the survival of this community as is claimed (and I’m not saying they’re NOT), then they will simply re-emerge organically in the new space, and nothing, including an opportunity to do something new, is lost.
The logic of your position is sound. I acknowledged this in a previous thread. I see the merit and will happily agree that it makes sense as a potential solution - it absolutely is easier to test what works by changing as little as possible. On this basis, it’s a good solution. It’s just not what I would individually prefer, based on my own biases and ideals and beliefs, because I myself don’t prioritize the need to clearly see what works as highly as others do. That’s all.
I agree with a lot of the general thrust of your posts, and I appreciate the effort you put into them.
Here's the crux of my support for the hybrid version versus just a full restructure:
What if you're wrong? Your thesis (if I'm reading it correctly) is that once we slam the two sides together, everyone will come together into the shared space and, after some potential growing pains, learn to get along and the experience will be mutually enriching. But what if one culture subsumes the other? Or what if the inability to retreat to a place you're more comfortable with amps up the tension and aggression? And what if not everyone notices the bad parts, or even thinks they're bad? I assume good faith on the part of everyone participating, and I don't think an appreciable number of people want to drive off anyone, so this isn't me suggesting that will happen. But it may be the case that half the forums don't even think anything is especially different, and the other half just decide to trickle out of here rather than make waves.
You might argue that the sort of people who really value this community would stick around and fight for it, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. We've already lost a number of high-profile folks - many here for decades, and with a great love of this community - who don't see a way out of our current troubles, and a number of the people sticking around are likely just doing it to see what CoRe is like; if they don't care for it right out of the gate, they might just bail then. And those people are probably gone forever.
I genuinely believe that, if we went with a complete restructure, and all or most of our folks hated it, we would change it. There'd be no reason not to. My fear is that 75% of our people think it's great and 25% hate it and those 25% are overruled. Or 25% hate it but can tell everyone else loves it, and so just decide to disappear into the west.
Meanwhile, a hybrid merge allows everyone to have a taste of restructure without forcing it upon them, which I think gives us the chance to play around with things without potentially alienating folks in a maybe-permanent fashion. And if everyone really does love the merged sections, nothing is stopping us from becoming more united down the road.
One needs to be cognizant of content generators too. If you push off 25% of your contributors, do the other 75% pick up the slack? Does it slowly kill discussion? There's a problem with scaring off 1/4 of your active users without considering they might be more prolific than the other 75% combined too.
That isn't to say that is or will be the case, but it's a possibility it might be true.
Don't find yourself in a situation where you spin up your own social media and the thing that had you using the social media no longer really exists on the new platform.
For part of the "why is two threads in two places a bad thing", there is the facet that we are trying to preserve what we can, but we are shedding people. From folks managing to get themselves banned, or quitting in frustration, or finding new things to do with their time, we've been hemorrhaging folks for years now, based on the breakdowns I've seen shared at least.
There is a very reasonable expectation we will also lose people in the move. That we could pick Option 4: The Perfect Choice For Everyone, and we'd still probably shed more folks.
Seeing little reason for the rate of loss to decrease (let alone reverse and become a substantial gain in users that aren't trolls, alts, or bots), if Thread A in one location sees a half dozen posts per week, and Thread 1 on the same topic in another location sees half a dozen posts per week, with some minor overlap perhaps, the notion is that maybe, hopefully, Thread 1A in a singular place might not only see that much combined activity, but even more, as those disparate folks have discussions and thoughts worth sharing that might not have ever been brought up if they were left in their own spaces.
"But what if folks from A and 1 find each other grating and it lessens conversation instead?"
Well, yes, that is a possibility, and as my crystal ball is at the dry cleaners (it's a long story), I have no way to state that won't happen definitively.
But if the consensus is that 'the schism' is really only a couple dozen people on each side, and the vast majority of users either don't give a shit or are ignorant it even exists, then surely it'd make sense to have Lego discussed in one place, with A + 1 users/posts combined to create a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.
To be clear, I haven't voted yet. I'm still assessing where I actually feel best serves the community and what I appreciate in both getting out of it and contributing to it, long winded screeds as they may be.
But I can see the argument being made, because it's not just about how things are now. If we're really down to maybe 1-1.5k users, projecting out another year, or two, or five, and if that population continues to dwindle down a few percentage points per year, eventually we end up at another point where the question becomes whether or not the backup plan is worth saving. And even if that's the likely outcome anyways, I'm open to ideas that are offered at least with the intent to stave that off.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I am getting pretty frustrated at all the metaphors about dilapidated houses, walled gardens, east/west germany... it's just framing the existence of multiple communities as per se bad. I don't think that "the cultures of SE++ and D&D are fundamentally so entrenched and immovable that we should just aim to preserve what we have." clearly, I think a unified structure is possible. and, once again:
I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
and new forum software, I forgot to mention.
Sorry. I realise that I should’ve split my post in two. My direct reply to you should’ve ended in that a change was still a good idea despite (or maybe because) of the good things about SE++. The rest was addressing the thread more broadly.
I don’t think different subcultures is a bad thing. I just disagree with the assumption that subcultural divides will continue to fall along the same lines in a new space, and I disagree with the suggestion that the best chance at the community’s survival is to port over existing divides. I just think it’s better to start within a new structure and let the community evolve into whatever it becomes over time. Even if it ends up the same thing - if the existing subcultural divides are as important to the survival of this community as is claimed (and I’m not saying they’re NOT), then they will simply re-emerge organically in the new space, and nothing, including an opportunity to do something new, is lost.
The logic of your position is sound. I acknowledged this in a previous thread. I see the merit and will happily agree that it makes sense as a potential solution - it absolutely is easier to test what works by changing as little as possible. On this basis, it’s a good solution. It’s just not what I would individually prefer, based on my own biases and ideals and beliefs, because I myself don’t prioritize the need to clearly see what works as highly as others do. That’s all.
They might re-emerge, but you know what's easier than doing that? Not doing that. As you said we're all adults now, we are busier and have less time and energy, and we can hit da bricks pretty easily instead
We have threads for "lifeboat discord"s too! Clear, visual evidence of people being afraid of the future and making "lifeboat" plans to abandon ship if it all goes south. I understand why! When times are uncertain it's not unreasonable to plan for the worst.
It definitely needs to be considered as variable, as it's plain to see that there are people afraid and laying the groundwork to leave.
I always understood the lifeboats to be a way to keep in touch and communicate if the forums vanished suddenly, or nobody took up the task of building a new one, or if the TT couldn't complete the task on time. They started appearing immediately after the news that the forums were getting the axe, well before anyone was even thinking about structure.
I always understood the lifeboats to be a way to keep in touch and communicate if the forums vanished suddenly, or nobody took up the task of building a new one, or if the TT couldn't complete the task on time. They started appearing immediately after the news that the forums were getting the axe, well before anyone was even thinking about structure.
That's one intent, and it's clearly stated on the front page. But if you read the thread, that's not the only purpose it's serving. Here's a good example of one of those posts. A lurker who is afraid of what the future of SE++ will look like, with key phrases like:
"I intend to see how the new forums go, but it seems like a significant portion of SE is moving in a different direction, including a lot of voices I respect and took inspiration from."
I hope it's okay to use that post as an example, as it seems good natured and representative of the concerns I've seen from all corners.
I think the problem we have hit here is we are in the circular part of the argument. I could be wrong, but it feels like we have all made our case and either understand it or don't. I think it is time to see what the voting brings. It is going to be super tense next week for all of us I think. I am hoping we can all respect we want this to be the best place it can be even if we don't always agree on the path.
Not trying to shut anything down. If we want to chase each other in circles well there are worse ways to spend the time. I have spent more than my fair share of time in circular arguments looking for an offramp. Nothing wrong with that. I am just hoping by saying this we can all see the way the wind is blowing before people start getting tense.
Social Entropy++ is a place where you can discuss anything and everything. From the most random foolishness to the most serious issues of our lives. We do mutual aid (secret saints), something that can have a huge material impact on our survival and mental health (I'd like to see this expanded). It's a place where people have been hanging out shooting the shit for 20+ years. And, we've made incredible improvements over that time. I am not proud of some of the shit I, and others, said towards the beginning. But, I am damn proud of how we've changed. People have made deep connections there, they've found their best friends. People get married and have kids because of the community we've built there. Whole-ass people exist because our community is a place where romance can sprout and bloom. I think all that is pretty cool.
Literally everything you're saying in this paragraph is also 100% true for D&D so I don't get what your point is here. (Genuinely asking/confused, I agree with all of the good stuff you said about SE++)
The conversation thread was "i don't want threads to be pointlessly split"
"But i don't want my social space to be dissolved, my social space isn't pointless"
"I don't want to dissolve anybody's social space, or anything like it, why does a merge mean dissolving it"
"This is what's good about se++"
Given the context i think the cheat perceives a merge plan as eliminating se++
exactly, I'm not arguing to keep SE++ and fuck everyone else. I can tell DnD and the chat thread is just as important to people. I am just not familiar enough to make the argument for them.
Posts
Social Entropy++ is a place where you can discuss anything and everything. From the most random foolishness to the most serious issues of our lives. We do mutual aid (secret saints), something that can have a huge material impact on our survival and mental health (I'd like to see this expanded). It's a place where people have been hanging out shooting the shit for 20+ years. And, we've made incredible improvements over that time. I am not proud of some of the shit I, and others, said towards the beginning. But, I am damn proud of how we've changed. People have made deep connections there, they've found their best friends. People get married and have kids because of the community we've built there. Whole-ass people exist because our community is a place where romance can sprout and bloom. I think all that is pretty cool.
I think that's pretty cool too! And regardless of how the structure pans out, if the whole forum doesn't reflect that mindset and resemble what you just described, I will consider us to have failed at the project. But so far I have every reason to think we will succeed at achieving that across the breadth of the website.
With all due respect, but I am not trying to be disingenuous nor am I trying to actively stir shit. What I am reacting to is a feeling of being gaslit and watching history be revised. RME said:
While supporting statements like:
It's funny that I can see that this is a reaction to RME's report against me, as he used disingenuous against Shryke in the previous thread.
And RME's response says:
Hey, there's that disingenuous claim again. And not only are we doubling down on the original gaslight, but we're introducing another by calling me a liar for quoting people (to contradict his earlier claim about the chat thread discussion) and acknowledging that their positions have changed. I was not and am not trying to misrepresent anyone, and was providing supporting evidence of the history of events.
I apologize, but this is not occuring because of some forum beef, this is occurring because I feel I am being gaslighted. I didn't quote Commander Zoom or Zonugal as attacks against either of them. And the quotes I did pull are from this sub forum.
I mean, it sounds like the proposal is to replace it with duplicate threads right next to each other?
Not really.
There is no conspiracy or grand effort or even a fleeting thought to force people out of this community, not with a restructure or anything else. If people want a restructure (EDIT: Or keeping things the same, even!), it will be borne out by the poll voting, and we'll work from there. I want to continue to emphasize that this is JUST for the initial structure of setting up Coin Return, and that we can change things later if it's not working.
Yeah, the xenoforums behavior where it completely hides ignored users posts (except for when other people quote them), with just a line at the bottom of the page that ignored posts exist on the page is one of the things I don't like about them. Sometimes I just ignore users because they have a habit of triple posting or quoting a half dozen times in the same post or posting whole freaking articles, and I just don't want to devote the mental bandwidth to do multiple mobile pages of scrolling all the time, but will still engage with them otherwise.
If there was a plug in to change the behavior to be closer to vbulletin/vallina's minimizing it to just the name, where you click to expand it, that'd be way better IMO.
(I do acknowledge that other people do prefer the ability to completely obliterate an ignored person from their version of the forum too).
Also, I'm not a super huge fan of xenoforum's inability to block moderators
Both is good though
e: also in this world "Mute" could get wishlisted for when someone has a good idea in an easy way to write the feature.
the beauty of a forum is you can post whatever you want and nobody can stop you
every dumbass thought can be shouted at the world and you can choose to interact or not
this was why my opinion was that we should only try to do the things that need to be done prior to the transition. changing the forum structure makes sense now, but with a time limit it makes it less of a logical thing to look at and it can be changed later.
In theory I suppose it could. In practice I don't think it will. There are very few threads that have a tangible difference between the various subforums. Even if it does at least it will be much easier to find the various threads you are looking for rather than scattered across the forums.
Absolutely, and in the end the only difference is we're solving for adjacent variables which is leading us to slightly different conclusions.
Are there really that many threads that are duplicated across the forums? And how many of those regularly languish off the front page for lack of updates whilst a mirror one on another subforum is a permanent fixture?
And if there were some good examples of this, why are the people wanting to chat in the slow thread not just going to the faster thread in another forum where that might be more on topic to post there (e.g. the SA Warhammer Thread vs the various CF ones)?
I don't think people aren't posting across subforums because they can't find the most popular versions of threads. I think they only go looking for a few specialist things and will stop to read what else is there.
More subforums is only going to dilute this more as far fewer people intentionally go looking for surprises compare to those that might be interested when one turns up.
Basically any sports thread is duplicated. The NHL thread is contained to D&D while the college football one is mostly active in SE++. Movies thread, TV/Streaming thread, Lego thread, MCU thread, Gaza thread, housing thread, Steam thread, anime thread, Dropout thread, Parenting thread, and this is just off the top of my head. There is a lot of my head. I am certain I could get even more examples with remarkable ease. This isn't even counting the politics threads where we might end up with some duplicates. We have a lot of duplicates. Relatively few are exclusive to one area or the next, but a lot of conversations end up happening in parallel around the same topic.
I'll admit I've not really noticed the sports ones and they do have the seasonal issue with periods of not much happening, but with most of those I do feel that those are all regular first page fixtures?
Probably? I don't pay a lot of attention to that. I was answering the first question of do we have that many duplicated threads. Splitting the conversation is problematic for many members. More than are worried what happens if they are combined? Well we will find out on the 21st I suppose. It is a problem for some members though.
being able to change things instead of being burdened with technical cruft because we're a disaster of a tech demo that's been forgotten for a decade is probably going to be extremely jarring to some folks
Too used to tyranny.
back to your holding cell, citizen
Look, I was an extremely active SE++ poster for almost 20 years. I am one of those people who made those whole-ass people who only exist because of SE++. There is no other way I would have met my partner. All those things you say about SE++ are true to me, too, and are why I love the place so much. I have written several long posts since my return espousing exactly that, citing that I only left in 2022 because real life started getting in the way. I'm back because I heard this was all happening and wanted to follow along.
And of course, it would not be me (under a new username/title/av) if I didn't prove myself utterly incapable of passive observation, opting to participate instead. And then meandering my way towards effort posting.
For my part, I feel that a restructure is the best move. I have been slamming Agrees left, right and centre in catching up with the pre-poll version of this thread and this thread itself, cuz gosh a lot happens when you're on holiday! Just about all of my reasons for feeling this way have already been articulated by others (see posts by @Cello @Gnizmo @RatherDashing @archivistkitsune @Akilae ) ... except maybe one.
Bear with me. This is an effort post of the highest order, because I'm on KBAM and not my phone. I will have absolutely no concept re: post length until I'm done typing.
I think the one thing that hasn't really been mentioned in much detail in this thread is that if we operate under the presumption that the cultures of SE++ and D&D are fundamentally so entrenched and immovable that we should just aim to preserve what we have (ie., instead of try something different so that we can still all share the same space despite those cultural differences) like the wings of the house example @ahava mentioned in the pre-poll thread, we must also ask the following question:
Why then would a restructure threaten those cultures?
If I believe in the strength of SE++'s internal culture - the one that made me a wife and parent - then it stands to reason that I also believe in its spirit's ability to survive the move to a different-looking, newly built facility.
By proxy, I would presume that the strength of other forum subcultures would similarly allow the formative parts of those cultures to survive a renovation to the house or in this case, a move into an entirely new neighbourhood.
The mistake is trying to find a new house that looks exactly the same as the old one. We are not the same folks who started posting in PA. We started posting as teenagers and 20-somethings with an excess of time and (probably) a shortage of social energy. We are not those people anymore. We are now adults - grown ass people, with fully developed brains and who can rent cars! some of us are retired!
And yeah, maybe we turned this old place into something that worked for us over the course of the decades we spent here. This place is informed by decades of history and lore - everything a good culture has over any period of time. We renovated the shit out of this place, with very limited resources... but now the place is showing structural faults, probably because of those shoddy, patchwork renovations. (And I don't even mean that from a tech perspective... we also patched it based on our behaviour, by never venturing beyond certain spaces so we don’t smack our heads into a ceiling that's lower than we expected it to, or by lowering ceilings in parts of the house because it made it more or less unwelcoming to certain kinds of people.)
Given that we are now several hundred grown-ass adults needing a new home, why should we opt for the old, shitty house that was "good enough" 20+ years ago but no longer fit for purpose?
After all, it’s not a controversial thing to say that we have simply outgrown the house we grew up in, and now someone is demolishing it anyway so we gotta go. (And I mean, we could strap a million balloons to it and airlift the whole thing to South America, but that infringes on copyright protections.)
Why wouldn't we start with a mostly shared, open-plan new space and then start building doors and walls when we need to?
Because here's the thing. If the cultural divides ARE as deep and as important as some folks say they are (and I'm not being dismissive here - I understand that they really are, for people on all sides, for good reasons!), then surely those divides will re-form as they need to in the new space, except when the partitions go up, maybe there are fewer people bumping their heads, fewer shoddy patch jobs that compromise the overall structure of the new space?
And if the cultural divides ARE NOT as deep and as important, then whatever partitions exist in the new space will suit the new culture and subcultures that form in the new space.
In either case, a new space makes more sense to me. I know and understand that people are fearful of change and don't want to lose the good stuff they have. I genuinely have a heap of empathy for that. But I also think that copy and pasting an old structure that was already bleeding users is not a good way to set up a new community.
Because that's what we're going to do. We are all going to set up a new community, using the old one as the foundation. If we can't agree that the goal is to build something new, then I think the issue is about perception. It is going to be new, even if we keep the old structure. Efforts are being made to try to make the new thing as sustainable as possible - as worth all this work as possible - and in my opinion, starting with something *totally* new is the best way to do that.
We can all take some ownership over building the new place together, rather than grabbing onto our tiny piece of it and hiding in our room. That's how a community - a group of people who are agreeing to hang out because we all have something in common (see: Values & CoC) - works. And this statement goes for people in all sides here, btw. That is not a dig at any specific subgroup on this forum.
And yes: communities, even new ones in new spaces, do evolve and change over time. I'd just want to see what new subgroups and subcultures emerge in the new space, informed by the foundations that made spaces like SE++ and D&D so valuable to others, guided by the Values we all agree to share while we're there.
That might all seem very idealistic, but I do say all this as someone who handles change by embracing it (and even driving it) instead of fighting it or ignoring it until it happens. That might not be your relationship with change, and that's okay.
I'll still be around regardless of what the new space looks like, more because I find change and new opportunities exciting rather than scary. I recognise that I am privileged in this way, however, so that is not meant as snark towards those who don't feel that way... only a comment to further contextualise my perspective.
and new forum software, I forgot to mention.
Even then, I'm not as active as I used to be. I've stopped following a bunch of things I used to. The only things I regularly kept up on last year were the movies threads and the games threads, but I would catch up on other topics from time to time.
But hey, things change. Or might change. When the forum hosting change and possible restructure was raised, I didn't know much about the current state of DnD.
I follow a couple specific threads in DnD, but neither of them the movies thread.
So I did what seemed the most sensible thing: I started following the DnD movies thread as well as the SE++ one. After all, if someone wanted to know how I'd feel if we were going to slam there together, then I felt like the least I could do was actually spend some time as a lurker, following along so I could actually see how the other side worked and therefore actually get an informed opinion.
It took me a while to get a feel for it.
I'm a kiwi, but I was originally from Australia. From the outside, a lot of people smash the two cultures together and can't tell the difference. But from inside, there's dozens of cultural differences, tics, quirks, that mean we really aren't the same. Similar, but not the same. And that's sort of how it felt.
But it also took me a while to spot the difference, which says a lot.
It really reminded me a lot of the boardgame cultural fandom divides between Eurojank and Ameritrash fans. Everyone loves the common interest (boardgames/movies), but what aspects they love and how they engage with it is a bit different; however there's so much in common and so much crossover that there's a lot to bind it together.
So having identified how the cultural difference felt to me, how did that make me feel about a possible merge?
I know some people also feel there is a cultural divide, and some even prefer it that way. But I looked upon it as an opportunity. Here were a bunch of other people talking about the thing I loved! People I didn't regularly talk to! Sure, there were a few differences, but to me, that's just a new angle of diversity of opinion that would make the conversation, and my participation in it, richer. I would love to hear more opinions about things from these people, and would like to share my opinion with them!
But I also don't want to post the same thing twice, or cut and paste my effort posts. That just feels like spamming my opinion out there, like neither thread is worth an original authentic opinion from me, instead just getting some cheap syndicated copy. Or I put original content and opinion in one thread, and the other thread is secondary, earning reactions and reply comments, but never getting anything new from me. Congratulations, you're the second-class thread, which I can only think of as a shame.
So I have looked at it, and for me personally, I think it would be a tremendous missed opportunity not to create this richer, more diverse, and greater version of the movie thread. I've had a couple months of tracking both threads in order to form my own opinion about it, and that was where it ended up; yes, there are cultural differences, but they are far from insurmountable and I think that the final outcome of a merge could create something even greater than the sum of its parts stemming from its wider breadth of experience and opinion.
I know there are some who have expressed a counter opinion to that. They don't feel that their experience would be improved if a merge occurs, for whatever reason. That's equally valid. This is purely a personal subjective opinion. I took a single use case and put in the research to form an individual case study that may not hold true for anyone other than myself, and may not even apply outside the thread I chose to follow. I'm submitting my opinion and the particular methodology I used to show how I got there, and this was the conclusion I came to.
I'm only online a bare few places; barely on social media, don't follow much. This is my preferred space and community. I would like Coin Return to be the best version of itself it could be for my experience. I would like that to be the biggest, richest, most inclusive space possible. There are people who I have only encountered for first time in these transition forums who have impressed me with their posts and I would like to interact with them more, and hear more from them about what they think. And that means that turning down this opportunity to make Coin Return something potentially ever greater than what we've currently got feels like the lesser option to me.
Sorry. I realise that I should’ve split my post in two. My direct reply to you should’ve ended in that a change was still a good idea despite (or maybe because) of the good things about SE++. The rest was addressing the thread more broadly.
I don’t think different subcultures is a bad thing. I just disagree with the assumption that subcultural divides will continue to fall along the same lines in a new space, and I disagree with the suggestion that the best chance at the community’s survival is to port over existing divides. I just think it’s better to start within a new structure and let the community evolve into whatever it becomes over time. Even if it ends up the same thing - if the existing subcultural divides are as important to the survival of this community as is claimed (and I’m not saying they’re NOT), then they will simply re-emerge organically in the new space, and nothing, including an opportunity to do something new, is lost.
The logic of your position is sound. I acknowledged this in a previous thread. I see the merit and will happily agree that it makes sense as a potential solution - it absolutely is easier to test what works by changing as little as possible. On this basis, it’s a good solution. It’s just not what I would individually prefer, based on my own biases and ideals and beliefs, because I myself don’t prioritize the need to clearly see what works as highly as others do. That’s all.
Literally everything you're saying in this paragraph is also 100% true for D&D so I don't get what your point is here. (Genuinely asking/confused, I agree with all of the good stuff you said about SE++)
The conversation thread was "i don't want threads to be pointlessly split"
"But i don't want my social space to be dissolved, my social space isn't pointless"
"I don't want to dissolve anybody's social space, or anything like it, why does a merge mean dissolving it"
"This is what's good about se++"
Given the context i think the cheat perceives a merge plan as eliminating se++
I agree with a lot of the general thrust of your posts, and I appreciate the effort you put into them.
Here's the crux of my support for the hybrid version versus just a full restructure:
What if you're wrong? Your thesis (if I'm reading it correctly) is that once we slam the two sides together, everyone will come together into the shared space and, after some potential growing pains, learn to get along and the experience will be mutually enriching. But what if one culture subsumes the other? Or what if the inability to retreat to a place you're more comfortable with amps up the tension and aggression? And what if not everyone notices the bad parts, or even thinks they're bad? I assume good faith on the part of everyone participating, and I don't think an appreciable number of people want to drive off anyone, so this isn't me suggesting that will happen. But it may be the case that half the forums don't even think anything is especially different, and the other half just decide to trickle out of here rather than make waves.
You might argue that the sort of people who really value this community would stick around and fight for it, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. We've already lost a number of high-profile folks - many here for decades, and with a great love of this community - who don't see a way out of our current troubles, and a number of the people sticking around are likely just doing it to see what CoRe is like; if they don't care for it right out of the gate, they might just bail then. And those people are probably gone forever.
I genuinely believe that, if we went with a complete restructure, and all or most of our folks hated it, we would change it. There'd be no reason not to. My fear is that 75% of our people think it's great and 25% hate it and those 25% are overruled. Or 25% hate it but can tell everyone else loves it, and so just decide to disappear into the west.
Meanwhile, a hybrid merge allows everyone to have a taste of restructure without forcing it upon them, which I think gives us the chance to play around with things without potentially alienating folks in a maybe-permanent fashion. And if everyone really does love the merged sections, nothing is stopping us from becoming more united down the road.
One needs to be cognizant of content generators too. If you push off 25% of your contributors, do the other 75% pick up the slack? Does it slowly kill discussion? There's a problem with scaring off 1/4 of your active users without considering they might be more prolific than the other 75% combined too.
That isn't to say that is or will be the case, but it's a possibility it might be true.
Don't find yourself in a situation where you spin up your own social media and the thing that had you using the social media no longer really exists on the new platform.
There is a very reasonable expectation we will also lose people in the move. That we could pick Option 4: The Perfect Choice For Everyone, and we'd still probably shed more folks.
Seeing little reason for the rate of loss to decrease (let alone reverse and become a substantial gain in users that aren't trolls, alts, or bots), if Thread A in one location sees a half dozen posts per week, and Thread 1 on the same topic in another location sees half a dozen posts per week, with some minor overlap perhaps, the notion is that maybe, hopefully, Thread 1A in a singular place might not only see that much combined activity, but even more, as those disparate folks have discussions and thoughts worth sharing that might not have ever been brought up if they were left in their own spaces.
"But what if folks from A and 1 find each other grating and it lessens conversation instead?"
Well, yes, that is a possibility, and as my crystal ball is at the dry cleaners (it's a long story), I have no way to state that won't happen definitively.
But if the consensus is that 'the schism' is really only a couple dozen people on each side, and the vast majority of users either don't give a shit or are ignorant it even exists, then surely it'd make sense to have Lego discussed in one place, with A + 1 users/posts combined to create a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.
To be clear, I haven't voted yet. I'm still assessing where I actually feel best serves the community and what I appreciate in both getting out of it and contributing to it, long winded screeds as they may be.
But I can see the argument being made, because it's not just about how things are now. If we're really down to maybe 1-1.5k users, projecting out another year, or two, or five, and if that population continues to dwindle down a few percentage points per year, eventually we end up at another point where the question becomes whether or not the backup plan is worth saving. And even if that's the likely outcome anyways, I'm open to ideas that are offered at least with the intent to stave that off.
They might re-emerge, but you know what's easier than doing that? Not doing that. As you said we're all adults now, we are busier and have less time and energy, and we can hit da bricks pretty easily instead
It definitely needs to be considered as variable, as it's plain to see that there are people afraid and laying the groundwork to leave.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
That's one intent, and it's clearly stated on the front page. But if you read the thread, that's not the only purpose it's serving. Here's a good example of one of those posts. A lurker who is afraid of what the future of SE++ will look like, with key phrases like:
"I intend to see how the new forums go, but it seems like a significant portion of SE is moving in a different direction, including a lot of voices I respect and took inspiration from."
I hope it's okay to use that post as an example, as it seems good natured and representative of the concerns I've seen from all corners.
Not trying to shut anything down. If we want to chase each other in circles well there are worse ways to spend the time. I have spent more than my fair share of time in circular arguments looking for an offramp. Nothing wrong with that. I am just hoping by saying this we can all see the way the wind is blowing before people start getting tense.
exactly, I'm not arguing to keep SE++ and fuck everyone else. I can tell DnD and the chat thread is just as important to people. I am just not familiar enough to make the argument for them.