Several suggestion changes

[Sir Chuckles]

Alright, as much as we all love the free rep, this need to stop:
http://backpack.tf/vote/id/51731a554bd7b8a64b000002
http://backpack.tf/vote/id/51731341ba25366a0f000001
http://backpack.tf/vote/id/5173174eba2536bd1d000003
http://backpack.tf/vote/id/517315e6ba2536e30f000006
 

Look at how silly this is. Four in a row.
I've stated in comments before that we need to put up a way to stop this. There's been ideas of requiring proof, but there's little way of ensuring this.
I say probably the best way to significantly minimize this is adding a minimum character limit to suggestions. A link to the outpost has about 40 characters. What needs to be done is making TWO text boxes for suggestions, on for personal comments, and one for proof. The personal comments could be left blank. THe proof section should have something around a 100 character limit. That's around three links. It's enough to keep out no proof, a single link to the outpost search function, and "this my trade" suggestions, while letting low-proof (due to five people selling anywhere) still exist.

 

Secondly, we need of reducing "It's about keys, downvote" or "I own this, downvote the price being lowered!". This is often due to people not even clicking on the suggestion, just the voting option. It seems that it would be a good idea to remove the voting option, other than an indication on whether or not you've voted on the suggestion, from the front page. Instead, place it alongside the proof and evidence section. It won't stop people from ignoring proof, but it will stop people from never looking.

Third. Let me just start by stating that this next one is NOT a personal attack against the admins, it is NOT a call on specific trades, and it is does NOT belong in a different section.
It is about the way admins accept or deny suggestions.

I realize that there have been small improvements, but there is still no public guidelines on the way they work. There needs to be. Obviously, caustic items like keys, bills, and other bulk items do require the personal hand of an expert. However, assigning such an item to a single admin's final say is no better than the infamous spreadsheet. On such items, multiple admins should have input and delegation between each other before deciding the suggestion's fate. In addition, votes need to have more power, lest the admins be a totalitarianism group hiding behind the illusion of voting. Non-caustic items (uncraftable items, normal hats, etc.) should not have suggestions accepted when they have a 12% positive vote. Likewise, when two suggestions are running against each other, the admins should not be biased based on their own trades. I did once give an example to cleverpun, who wrote it off stating me to deal with the trades on direct basis, but we shouldn't be having to fix the mistakes of the admins, who deny that there is a problem. Admins need to unbiased with suggestions to avoid the issue of admins picking and choosing their own results.

There's that's my three cents. I am prepared to completely ignore both compliments and criticism. Hopefully you'll take this ideas into consideration and maybe, just maybe, it'll be put into effect and quell the calls for change among the masses.

[Santa Heavy]

Alright, as much as we all love the free rep, this need to stop:

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/51731a554bd7b8a64b000002

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/51731341ba25366a0f000001

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/5173174eba2536bd1d000003

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/517315e6ba2536e30f000006

 

Look at how silly this is. Four in a row.

I've stated in comments before that we need to put up a way to stop this. There's been ideas of requiring proof, but there's little way of ensuring this.

I say probably the best way to significantly minimize this is adding a minimum character limit to suggestions. A link to the outpost has about 40 characters. What needs to be done is making TWO text boxes for suggestions, on for personal comments, and one for proof. The personal comments could be left blank. THe proof section should have something around a 100 character limit. That's around three links. It's enough to keep out no proof, a single link to the outpost search function, and "this my trade" suggestions, while letting low-proof (due to five people selling anywhere) still exist.

 

Secondly, we need of reducing "It's about keys, downvote" or "I own this, downvote the price being lowered!". This is often due to people not even clicking on the suggestion, just the voting option. It seems that it would be a good idea to remove the voting option, other than an indication on whether or not you've voted on the suggestion, from the front page. Instead, place it alongside the proof and evidence section. It won't stop people from ignoring proof, but it will stop people from never looking.

 

Third. Let me just start by stating that this next one is NOT a personal attack against the admins, it is NOT a call on specific trades, and it is does NOT belong in a different section.

It is about the way admins accept or deny suggestions.

 

I realize that there have been small improvements, but there is still no public guidelines on the way they work. There needs to be. Obviously, caustic items like keys, bills, and other bulk items do require the personal hand of an expert. However, assigning such an item to a single admin's final say is no better than the infamous spreadsheet. On such items, multiple admins should have input and delegation between each other before deciding the suggestion's fate. In addition, votes need to have more power, lest the admins be a totalitarianism group hiding behind the illusion of voting. Non-caustic items (uncraftable items, normal hats, etc.) should not have suggestions accepted when they have a 12% positive vote. Likewise, when two suggestions are running against each other, the admins should not be biased based on their own trades. I did once give an example to cleverpun, who wrote it off stating me to deal with the trades on direct basis, but we shouldn't be having to fix the mistakes of the admins, who deny that there is a problem. Admins need to unbiased with suggestions to avoid the issue of admins picking and choosing their own results.

 

There's that's my three cents. I am prepared to completely ignore both compliments and criticism. Hopefully you'll take this ideas into consideration and maybe, just maybe, it'll be put into effect and quell the calls for change among the masses.

Don't ignore me.

[cleverpun]

The multiple comment sections has been discussed before. It has some merit but is a little bit fiddly for my taste, and I don't see it working very well in practice ("I'll put my personal comment in the proof section, then people will have to pay attention to it!")

 

The moderator team is currently working on a list of site-wide guidelines/rules and we plan to implement a check-in screen for them (similar to TF2R or scrap.tf).

[Sir Chuckles]

The multiple comment sections has been discussed before. It has some merit but is a little bit fiddly for my taste, and I don't see it working very well in practice ("I'll put my personal comment in the proof section, then people will have to pay attention to it!")

 

The moderator team is currently working on a list of site-wide guidelines/rules and we plan to implement a check-in screen for them (similar to TF2R or scrap.tf).

 

Hence the character limit.

The average no-proof opinion only suggestion is "I think that this is a good price, so please upvote." That's not enough for the limit. Also, the way I wrote it is very expanded. Even that plus a link is not enough.

That whole explanation is 242 characters long. Certainly it is small, but it would keep out a lot of the bad suggestions. Perhaps adding in a script to detect whether or not it actually contains links.

 

Good, but I was speaking of an admin-specific one. I've seen games and forums where the admins proclaimed themselves exempt from many of the guidelines because they're in charge.

[cleverpun]

 

Hence the character limit.

The average no-proof opinion only suggestion is "I think that this is a good price, so please upvote." That's not enough for the limit. Also, the way I wrote it is very expanded. Even that plus a link is not enough.

That whole explanation is 242 characters long. Certainly it is small, but it would keep out a lot of the bad suggestions. Perhaps adding in a script to detect whether or not it actually contains links.

 

Good, but I was speaking of an admin-specific one. I've seen games and forums where the admins proclaimed themselves exempt from many of the guidelines because they're in charge.

 

What's to stop them from typing 100 spaces? Or periods? Or adding links to a google search? A character limit is too easy to circumvent to have any meaning.

 

The bulk of the guidelines I mentioned are devoted to how suggestions work. While proof is the main component of a suggestion, anyone saying votes have no meaning is not examining the system very closely.

 

Votes are part of the checks and balances we have set up, but it's greater than that; the community itself scrutinizes our behavior, and in that way act as a balance on our power. Votes are merely one expression of it; things like this very forum and topics like these also help check the moderators, and when a suggestion is going well the commenters will step up and examine the proof, provide counterproof, and make constructive criticism.

 

I do not remember the specific discussion you had with me, so unless you can be more specific I'm going to stand by what I've said before--just because votes don't have veto power doesn't mean they are useless.

[Sir Chuckles]

What's to stop them from typing 100 spaces? Or periods? Or adding links to a google search? A character limit is too easy to circumvent to have any meaning.

 

The bulk of the guidelines I mentioned are devoted to how suggestions work. While proof is the main component of a suggestion, anyone saying votes have no meaning is not examining the system very closely.

 

Votes are part of the checks and balances we have set up, but it's greater than that; the community itself scrutinizes our behavior, and in that way act as a balance on our power. Votes are merely one expression of it; things like this very forum and topics like these also help check the moderators, and when a suggestion is going well the commenters will step up and examine the proof, provide counterproof, and make constructive criticism.

 

I do not remember the specific discussion you had with me, so unless you can be more specific I'm going to stand by what I've said before--just because votes don't have veto power doesn't mean they are useless.

 

Nothing, but that does not mean it's entirely ineffective. Not finding a perfect solution is not an excuse to not doing anything at all.

 

The problem is that votes don't have passing power, either. It was not a discussion on the forums, but in the comments section of a key suggestion. You stated the same "votes are a guide to us" explanation. Very few people liked that. Many people agreed with me.

 

Ultimately, when the admins are under scrutiny, they do exactly what you're doing here, defending themselves and refuting the idea that there is something inherently wrong. There's nothing wrong with the fact that there are checks in place, but the problem is that they are no longer effective. You say that there is a balance of power, but the community doesn't have as much power as you think, as admins, even when under scrutiny, have the final say. No matter how big the wave of acceptance or rejection the community has, all it takes is one admin to say "Well I found this, so I'm right". Rather than providing a way to fix mistakes (or, more correctly, point them out), there needs to be something in place to PREVENT mistakes.

[cleverpun]

See there's your problem right there. You said yourself that key suggestions aren't indicative of the norm; using them to prove a point about average vote use and comments and such isn't going to get us anywhere.

 

I do that often because I believe the system works. It's hardly perfect, but the community doesn't have as little power as you think. It only seems otherwise because they ignore or misuse their place in the system of checks and balances.

 

Since apparently I'm just repeating myself I'll let another mod chime in on this.

[MC22]

This is obviously a post that has been auggested over again. I guess I read just to see the other people's view of the stuff.

[Sir Chuckles]

See there's your problem right there. You said yourself that key suggestions aren't indicative of the norm; using them to prove a point about average vote use and comments and such isn't going to get us anywhere.

 

I do that often because I believe the system works. It's hardly perfect, but the community doesn't have as little power as you think. It only seems otherwise because they ignore or misuse their place in the system of checks and balances.

 

Since apparently I'm just repeating myself I'll let another mod chime in on this.

 

I never used key suggestions to prove a point about average vote use, I simply said that the conversation took place in one.

 

Yes, it is hardly perfect. Which is why it needs to be improved.