Jump to content
Mynewcar

Abandon the Contributors.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Laming said:

Can be mentioned a few names already added, but this is not the point right now.

 

I still with my mind and quit now.

100% agree with you, tottly  100%  promise 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Laming said:

I'm not sure this is needed. "Who will be next main owner of chat X?"

 

But what if the current main owner was doing a terrible job, and had received multiple complaints? Would it be fair to discuss that user's activity and behavior in public, in front of everyone? Definitely not. 

 

And topics like this are exactly why we need diversity, because volunteers might not visit these chats in question, but a few members of the contributor group (who are trusted to give impartial, fair opinions) might. 

 

We can definitely have more lighter discussions in public though, I'll admit!

 

21 minutes ago, Laming said:

"Hey guys we can vote someone because he/she is our friend, thats nice"

 

I think this is reflective of the individual, not the group itself.

 

I've never suggested any of my friends as contributor - and wouldn't do so unless they wholy deserved it!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Laming said:

I'm not sure this is needed. "Who will be next main owner of chat X?" "Hey guys we can vote someone because he/she is our friend, thats nice"

 Do not think the admin/volunteers reason so to add a person to the contributors, do I think there is a standard for going back to that role or wrong? If I mistake tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Crow said:

Would it be fair to discuss that user's activity and behavior in public, in front of everyone? Definitely not. 

I personally see this happening so I can affirm it myself.

 

A chat group was there, a person never visited it, then this same person got main owner after asking contributors and chat was reset, so... just all the friends of that person got rank then.

 

No one of the old staff(that helped since 2011, 2012) etc stay on it, all of them were removed for no reason, just because this new main owner wanted to make their friends as staff.

 

Note: this same person that got main owner never visited this chat, just got there to get his new place.

 

Not sure they can say about what is fair or unfair, not sure they can handle what would be done or whatever, Events, Eventstats are there for one reason. So them would be used. Fair enough, no?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crow said:

but a few members of the contributor group (who are trusted to give impartial, fair opinions) might. 

 

The fact you don't trust the 99% of the community that make up "non-contributors" is quite sad. 

 

A decision on who is leading a chat, or one that could re-shape xat should not be made by a select few but by the whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gizzy said:

 

A decision on who is leading a chat, -snip- should not be made by a select few but by the whole. 

 

Basically, what you're saying is we should treat every chat as Germany after the war, and the UN (all of xat) should consider how it's run?

Edit: spoiler'd the above because it was a bad reference (since the UN is still just a select few sorta), but I'll keep it there so people can read if they want :'( 

 

While I agree with your message about something that "re-shapes" xat shouldn't be just limited to a select few, it's easier to say "hear the many" than to actually take into account the voice of every single person.

For example, a way this is solved is by one person (contributor, volunteer, chat manager, simple dude whose respected, etc.) being the voice for a larger number of people or community that they represent. (could be split by language, official chat categories, official chats in general, etc, etc. idk)

 

 


Yes I know you're probably thinking "this just gives one man too much power" but we'LL GET TO THAT OK.

(ok we're getting to it now, but I'll talk about it later. More or less, this is where the monthly main system being brought back would be useful. You don't have the same person's opinion for all eternity)
 

 

 

I know my analogies are not be the best and I could just be plain wrong, but honestly while most may be against it, having a just a few people make decisions isn't that bad, and it's easier for the opinion of the majority of the few to be heard than trying to account for the opinions of the many.

Like if it wasn't just an "invite only" group, but if something could be figured out sort of like how U.S. Senators work? Like a "vote" thing (idk, still bad, since people can just mass vote their friends, but maybe having "terms" would be a little better instead of the same people being in there all the time)??? At least in my state (Minnesota) the senators actually listen to things that the people want (the people of the state they represent, not much outside) and then bring it up higher.

 

Contributors doesn't have to be abolished, just redone.

(easy to say but pointless if there's no plan of what to do afterward.

pls don't hate on my united states references but I'm not super familiar with how other countries work in their entirety.

also i'm not asserting that what I'm saying is a good idea, just something I thought of)

Any comments would be appreciated??? i guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, oj said:
  Reveal hidden contents

Basically, what you're saying is we should treat every chat as Germany after the war, and the UN (all of xat) should consider how it's run?

xat shouldn't be just limited to a select few, it's easier to say "hear the many" than to actually take into account the voice of every single person.

For example, a way this is solved is by one person (contributor, volunteer, chat manager, simple dude whose respected, etc.) being the voice for a larger number of people or community that they represent. (could be split by language, official chat categories, official chats in general, etc, etc. idk)

 

You're seeing this as if its a government electing officials to represent these people. They were picked -- not elected. Contributors do not represent what xat as a whole wants. 

 

How do we find out what Xat as a whole wants? How about we ask them and make it a democracy and let everyone decide. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Gizzy said:

The fact you don't trust the 99% of the community that make up "non-contributors" is quite sad. 

 

I'm stating the qualities that contributors possess; I'm not saying all non-contributors aren't trusted.

 

My point is that some discussions are not appropriate to be aired in public (e.g. with individual users concerned), but we still need users to discuss them - and the contributors provide a more diverse range of opinions than volunteers alone. Remove the contributors and we lose vital experience and knowledge within these discussions.

 

30 minutes ago, Gizzy said:

A decision on who is leading a chat, or one that could re-shape xat should not be made by a select few but by the whole. 

 

The contributors group is not a small, self-contained bubble.

 

Of course, in discussions with limited information, contributors will always take a proactive approach and talk to relevant members of the community. This doesn't mean the discussion should be made public, though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gizzy said:

 

You're seeing this as if its a government electing officials to represent these people. They were picked -- not elected. Contributors do not represent what xat as a whole wants. 

 

How do we find out what Xat as a whole wants? How about we ask them and make it a democracy and let everyone decide. 

Someone give this guy a medal!

 

I remember we used to have polls before for users satisfaction, those still around? (hmm) (99% sure they aren't)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gizzy said:

 

You're seeing this as if its a government electing officials to represent these people. They were picked -- not elected. Contributors do not represent what xat as a whole wants. 

 

How do we find out what Xat as a whole wants? How about we ask them and make it a democracy and let everyone decide. 

I don't disagree. I wasn't saying that was how things are, but offering an idea on how things could possibly be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the contributors group should be removed, but i think that they can add new people who have a real and daily contact with the community of xat and add people who really represent us(I don't want to say that they doesn't represent us, but i think that there are people who have a better interaction with the community).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

posting here is contributing 

 

everyone on forum who suggest or give idea which maybe used is a contributing 

  • Cool 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me answer a few of your concerns/suggestions.

 

You suggested the contributor group should be extended to more languages. We already tried doing so in the past, many of them went inactive (for different reasons) and nothing special was brought to the debate (opinions were already represented). Moreover, all of them weren't able to speak English properly which is quite annoying when you want to discuss touchy and precise subjects.

 

You suggested the group should be extended to people who have a better interaction with the community. How is this an objective criterion? I do totally agree with you, contributors must be close to the community but how aren't they? Sometimes, you think you're close to the community while you are just talking to your friends. This is exactly why contributors already come from different horizons. We're all human beings and keep chatting in our own bubble, the sum of all the bubbles does represent the whole community.

 

Last, but not least, it looks like you think we always agree in the group. It is totally false and I can't remember more than a few topics where we all agreed suddenly. Most of the time, we do not agree and a democratic vote is necessary.

 

What about voting to elect contributors? It seems a good idea, but is it really? Who would vote? Only the forum users? Everyone on xat? How can we make sure the voting system is not abused? Moreover, what if someone elected is not deemed reliable? Are we even sure this wasn't taken as a popularity contest? Honestly, that's impossible to handle properly and I doubt this would improve anything.

 

I hope you don't take it as a simple bash of your ideas. We do listen to users and we already tried different things to change the group yet it didn't work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on this discussion and the fact that half of its posts have been hidden, I'm not confident we're ready to abolish the group just yet.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way I agree with @Laming  and some vols know the behavior of contributors, since in some cases leaves much to be desired, I think that should give more opportunity to people with new ideas or who are constantly in xat.
In my case I can say that I saw first person very unprofessional behavior on the part of some contributors, that is something that admin should analyze in detail. Because it is not only belonging to the group, but to demonstrate good behavior within the community (this includes non-official chats, where there are sometimes issues of drugs, sex and more content not allowed by xat)
It is impressive at certain times how much a rank can influence when designing an official chat or when making decisions within the community.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gizzy said:

 

You're seeing this as if its a government electing officials to represent these people. They were picked -- not elected. Contributors do not represent what xat as a whole wants. 

 

How do we find out what Xat as a whole wants? How about we ask them and make it a democracy and let everyone decide. 

Democracy is a flawed concept in real life, what makes you think it will work any better here?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TrueRedDevil said:

Democracy is a flawed concept in real life, what makes you think it will work any better here?

 

And that's assuming admins would even want such a system.

 

They shouldn't be forced to restructure their website just because a few people call for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me say this,

 

If Xat does not listen to what the community wants, it will NOT prosper. It's that simple.

29 minutes ago, Crow said:

They shouldn't be forced to restructure their website just because a few people call for it. 

Nobody would be forcing anyone to do such thing. But input of users should be something that should be taken VERY MUCH into consideration, and what the users want should shape the future of xat. These ideas don't have to be brought up by users themselves, it would just be the opinion on certain actions xat is taking.

 

Example:

-Xat decides it needs to change up things a little bit(as it is doing now).

-Xat gets in place the 3 major things that need to be setup as priority. (Mobile,Html5,ticket system)

-Xat would then bring these three major things to the public, and see what the public would like to see being worked on first.

-The users opinion gets recorded, and most users think the Ticket system should be handled first, then html5, then mobile. 

-With the users opinion xat then gets in place the 3 major things that the users want to see get handled. This does not mean it would be done in this particular order, it should just be the highest recommendation that xat would take, then comes the recommendations of their private users, testers, helpers, whatever the case may be in whatever order they deem appropriate.

(REMEMBER THIS WAS AN EXAMPLE AND NOTHING IN THERE IS CURRENTLY VALID)

 

 

This in my opinion, would be the right way to "listen to users". To bring forward options and get feedback from the users on these actions to better xat. This allows it so that not ONE person or ONE group is making decisions for xat, but xat as a whole. Ultimately xat would decide the direction of xats development, but taking advice from the entirety of xat users instead of ONE group or team or person would be more effective in future development.

 

@Admin as always tagging admins .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Crow said:

They shouldn't be forced to restructure their website just because a few people call for it. 

These "people" are called customers, and almost of all them buy, or bought xat products.

 

So I'm a bit sure, it's fair sufficient them asking about anything new....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the contributor title often comes with a misconception. Obviously a contributor is someone who contributes something, and don't get me wrong that they do but in a sense,  many people contribute to xat in many different ways. Handing someone a forum rank for basically knowing the right people and being a forum user isn't always going to work for a large community that has plenty of areas to contribute to and many different perspectives. They are rather consultators or advisers to the admins that involve changes that affect the community.

 

Personally, I've never understood why such a thing can't be open to every xat user to have a chance. If people are using the service, they likely have some sort of passion for it. For me, I've always had a passion for xat and wanted to give back to it by helping others and contributing in certain aspects. Giving users a chance to have a voice directly with the creators of the site would be a privilege to some people who genuinely want to help better xat and the user experience. Obviously opening it up to every user might not be the best idea, but here are my thoughts:

 

1. Make it an application process which includes things like their regname/id, what chats they go to, why they want to be apart, a self-assessment along with a checklist of certain topics they have interest to (eg. wiki, xat mobile, ayuda, trade, user experience, chat features.. many more etc). Obviously there should be guidelines they must agree to about their behaviour in/out of the group and that they can be removed at any time etc. Applications could then be declined or approved by a volunteer. If declined, maybe implementing something where you are only allowed to apply every 3 months.

2. If approved, you are basically in a pool to be selected on certain topics the admins might want your advice/opinion on. Examples:

  • If admins want advice/opinions about the trade chat, only the users who selected "Trade" as a topic of interest would be invited to that certain topic/consultation.
  • If admins want feedback about certain mobile features, only the users who selected "xat mobile" as a topic of interest would be invited to that certain topic/consultation.

This way, it makes it more focused to those who may be more interested/knowledgeable on certain topics so they can provide more insight.

 

It does seem like a lot more work but this is just a thought. I don't even know if it's at all possible however it does open it up to a lot more people. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2017 at 7:12 PM, Laming said:

I personally see this happening so I can affirm it myself.

 

A chat group was there, a person never visited it, then this same person got main owner after asking contributors and chat was reset, so... just all the friends of that person got rank then.

 

No one of the old staff(that helped since 2011, 2012) etc stay on it, all of them were removed for no reason, just because this new main owner wanted to make their friends as staff.

 

Note: this same person that got main owner never visited this chat, just got there to get his new place.

 

Not sure they can say about what is fair or unfair, not sure they can handle what would be done or whatever, Events, Eventstats are there for one reason. So them would be used. Fair enough, no?

 

I would like to know what chat group this post is referring to. Perhaps I can enlighten you about what really happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Christina said:

Contributors were not made to discuss peoples behavior unless those said people were being considered for a position of "said power." Or being asked 

if someone like me should have emertei status, as example.  They were made to discuss things like mobile. Powers. New mains of officials. That sort of thing.

Contributors were made to help xat. To suggest ideas.  To be the voices of the people.  Not to pass judgment.  

 We NEED contributors. WHY?  To keep the balance!  So that an  Anarchy is not formed with the same users reaching for power....

The contributors are suppose to give us hope where the volunteers fail. Vise versa.

 

Fix the broken.  Do not abolish it.  

 

 

 

 

 

clapping_joey_chandler_friends.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arthur said:

I would like to know what chat group this post is referring to. Perhaps I can enlighten you about what really happened.

No, you can't. You just got there 1 or 2 times just when Contributors were voting for new main owner. I know already and I don't need to know what happened or what happens.

 

1 hour ago, Christina said:

Contributors were not made to discuss peoples behavior unless those said people were being considered for a position of "said power." Or being asked 

if someone like me should have emertei status, as example.  They were made to discuss things like mobile. Powers. New mains of officials. That sort of thing.

Contributors were made to help xat. To suggest ideas.  To be the voices of the people.  Not to pass judgment.  

 We NEED contributors. WHY?  To keep the balance!  So that an  Anarchy is not formed with the same users reaching for power....

The contributors are suppose to give us hope where the volunteers fail. Vise versa.

 

Fix the broken.  Do not abolish it.

Bingo.

 

And to be honest, I don't need to say any name, there's not listed many chats currently as "official".

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • 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.