Jump to content

Flake

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Flake

  1. Flake

    WIN GOLD

    postage stamp
  2. Flake

    WIN NAMEGRAD

    FLake (160987981)
  3. Thanks for the contest and good luck to all participants! Here's my entry: Inner: Outer: Recommended Button Colour: #272727 Preview: PREVIEW HERE Credits: Background pattern (inner) - https://pixabay.com/vectors/green-diagonal-square-pattern-2661271/ Ruby pawn & black pawn (inner) - isanty (https://forum.xat.com/topic/6009-all-the-xat-pawns-imgs-resource/) Xavi smiley & typing pawn (inner) - mundo smilies (https://mundosmilies.com/) Reg/ID: Flake (160987981)
  4. ya that's what a good amount of people including me have been saying but they still implemented it like this anyway because ??? logic is not a thing apparently vols, smiley makers and influencers should also not have the exact same pawn, just makes no sense to not give them separate things because it makes things more complex for no reason. i get that it's probably hard to find multiple pawn colors that would be suitable but like, it could just not be a pawn? it could just be a badge and/or do what martin said with it saying "Volunteer"/"Smiley Maker"/"Influencer"/"Reseller" when you hover over someones name/pawn, or something else
  5. It's a nonsense argument to say that deficiencies in the workings of the site should be unanimously accepted just because people don't have to help; the workings of the site affects all users, not just the people who actively help with the workings of the site Negative criticism isn't equivalent to blind negativity/hate; the former has substantiation, while the latter doesn't. Negative criticism is often a very necessary form of criticism, and really isn't the bad thing some people here are making it out to be Also, a good amount of the criticism here hasn't even been negative criticism; I'd say that most of it has been people offering alternatives to improve upon the ideas presented by the admins, which would fall into the category of positive criticism
  6. Great, and just because the staff sign up for no pay shouldn't mean that everyone else on this site should mindlessly adhere to mediocrity, nor does it mean that the staff should mindlessly adhere to mediocrity with respect to anything outside of the subject of what they're paid. I agree it's obviously hypocritical to sign up as staff knowing you won't get paid and then complain about not being paid, but what about everyone else who isn't currently staff? Additionally, you're acting like the subject of what the staff is paid is the only thing I'm referring to in what I'm saying, when this very clearly isn't the case It's incredibly toxic to shut down any and all criticism by branding it as hate/negativity purely because 'we should be grateful for what we're given'. At that point, this wouldn't be a community driven site, but an echo chamber in which discussion amounts to nothing because apparently everyone should just readily accept anything and everything the higher-ups put forth Also, I find it amusing how you state one of the main issues with staff not being paid (they can leave unpredictably since they don't have any dependence on the devs), and then in the same breath you can't think of any reasons for why it might be logical for the devs to pay staff
  7. it feels like a good amount of this thread is people conflating criticism with hate/negativity fwiw, toxic positivity is a very real thing and is one of the main reasons for why this site has been stagnating imo. a good amount of this community will often readily accept things that are bare minimum / subpar / inefficient, purely because of the view that we should be grateful for what we get; wanting more or wanting a better alternative is seen as 'hateful', 'negative', 'childish'
  8. thank u for the contest and grats to all the winners!
  9. dark 2 theme gang

  10. oooo dark 2 looks good ty
  11. there's a difference between criticism and negativity a pawn being implemented at all doesn't mean that it's a good implementation. people are allowed to criticise what they think is a bad implementation of a pawn and simultaneously want a pawn in the context of what they see as a better implementation you're reaching for a hypocrisy when there isn't one
  12. even if it is the main point, few people (if any) actually care about the idea of a pawn for 'influencers'; it's essentially an extension of what already exists (cyan pawn) which has already been proven as something which has no real use to the overwhelming majority of the site. the idea of a pawn for staff (thus the idea of verification for staff) brings a far more interesting discussion since it could have good practical use, and discussion surrounding that is hardly off-topic given it was literally mentioned in the main post
  13. because there is clearly a difference between part of the community helping the devs, and the devs listening to the community. you seem to be conflating the two things, when they clearly don't go hand in hand: part of the community helping the site doesn't require that their ideas are also listened to by the devs. there can quite easily be a system in which staff simply follow what the devs want and help them based upon that, without the ideas from the staff being listened to even if we do assume that part of the community helping the site must require that they are also being listened to by the devs, what about the rest of the community? additionally, the two things you mentioned aren't mutually exclusive; xat could quite easily adopt a system whereby it is simultaneously employee based and the higher ups listen to what the community has to say
  14. i agree for the most part. a unique verification system for all staff areas seems useful in quite a few aspects, but with the nature of how people become staff meaning a large amount of anonymity, i can see how it could backfire to an extent. i'm personally not aware of many instances, if any, where staff on this site abuse their power in a way that's similar to what you mentioned, so my previous posts may have been biased in that regard on the other hand, there's also the point that the staff in their current state can still quite easily abuse their power in a similar way; a verification system would only be an extra element of credibility on top of their already existing credibility really, the staff system as it is needs to be revamped in a way that creates less room for doubt with regards to the trustworthiness of the staff, verification system or not. this seems to be the factor that is making a verification system an even remotely difficult decision
  15. https://prnt.sc/14sq44k prize received, thank u for the prize & contest
  16. i mean, feels like what i just said went through one ear and out the other, but ok, agree to disagree
  17. you're completely neglecting the positives that a verification system would be providing for staff purely on the premise that it isn't necessary, when you can be using the exact same reasoning to argue that the cyan pawn isn't necessary for celebrities sure, it isn't absolutely necessary addition, but that isn't an argument for it not being a good addition. i've noticed on this site a lot of people including the devs have the mindset of 'if it's not necessary (or doesn't have clear cut monetary value in the case of devs), it shouldn't be an addition' with regards to the functionality and features of this site, which is probably why this site is currently incredibly stagnant and not nearly as popular as it used to be. before, it very much felt like a lot of things weren't being done out of necessity or clear cut monetary gain, but were done because it would be cool or have a positive impact in some way. just a thought also, i would make an educated guess that a good majority of the users on xat don't use the forum and don't look at the xat wiki as much as you think they do. I've been an involved active user for 10+ years and even i dont know who the staff are a lot of the time, so i think you're heavily overestimating the userbase's knowledge in this regard, especially with respect to the people who would be affected by the issues that a verification system would be attempting to mitigate (victims of scams, power abuse, and other malicious things that can come about via staff impersonation) what i do agree with though is that sky pawn being given to both influencers and xat staff would conflate the two things and unnecessarily make things more confusing than it needs to be; famous/influential people and xat staff should have their own separate forms of verification. and i also agree that there's no reason to not extend cyan pawn to "influencers", especially given how cyan pawn in it's current state is essentially redundant because the requirements for it are too stringent (there's only like 1 person who even somewhat uses the site who currently has it)
  18. i mean, that sounds less like an issue with the verification system itself, and more like the verification system is amplifying an already existing problem: the methodology for adding and removing staff is ineffective if members of certain staff groups have a history of shady activity, why are they staff in the first place. if they can't be trusted to leave their position on good terms, why are they staff in the first place i both agree and disagree while i agree that this verification system likely won't help too many of the users who are currently 'falling for tricks' as you put it, i do think being precautionary is better than not being precautionary, especially with regards to this issue. if the verification system will mitigate the issue to any extent, then that's better than not mitigating the issue at all. this isn't really a reason to not include it when not including it would be the worse outcome w/ respect to reducing scams and other similar issues unless you're suggesting that we try to come up with a better verification system or try to come up with other ideas to prevent the issue at hand, then that's fair
  19. True, both badges and the suggestion martin and i mentioned would be good Don't agree, for multiple reasons For one, only certain groups getting a badge / pawn / whatever method of verification gives precedence to the idea that some groups are more important or require more effort than others, and while that may to an extent be true, and may even be obvious for some comparisons between certain staffing areas, it is often quite subjective and therefore potentially demotivating for groups who feel they deserve something for their efforts but get nothing, when other groups do get something. i.e. you're neglecting the reward aspect and only focusing on the utility aspect of verification Secondly, it's very possible that, since the suggested methods of verification would provide some reward, it would motivate users more to work to try and get that reward, therefore being an overall benefit for xat in terms of work put in (this is especially true for certain groups where you are suggesting they do not need verification, such as contributors, wiki editors and smiley makers) Conversely, there isn't much reason to not give all staff roles their own unique verification (i.e. only giving it to certain groups), other than implicitly saying 'these staff groups are more important than the other staff groups', which provides no overall benefit and arguably is demotivating for the groups on the short end of the stick, like I previously mentioned. You mention that giving all staff groups a method of verification would 'put all of the staff groups in the same box', but I would say that's only true for generalised verification (e.g. giving all staff groups the same pawn). For unique verification between staff groups, there will be separate rewards (be that different badges, different text that appears when you hover over the name, etc), therefore not putting you in the same box; users can have their own subjective ideas of which staff groups are more important for the site, and unique verification will inherently feed into that
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.