. . .
6 years ago

'Your Contributions' page

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: Features The Site
I've added a new 'Contributions' page, which you can currently access it from a drop-down thing if you roll over your username on the top bar.

This page shows your comments from the last three days, and the FLIGS values that they got, in a table for easy comparison.
It also lists all the blurbs you've ever written, so then you can see if there are any you've changed your mind about.

Since I designed it on a 1900ish-pixel-wide monitor, those of you with titchy monitors may find that it looks appalling, Oh, how I wish technology was more standard.
I might try to do something about it eventually if the squashedness is too obnoxious, but for now it's not an immediate concern for me.

Anyway, enjoy.
6 years ago

Proper use of FLIGS

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: Features FLIGSModeratorsThe Site
The FLIGS 'reaction' system is meant to be subjective, and as such harder to 'abuse' since how you feel isn't 'right or wrong' as such.

However, it's become apparent that at least some members have already been misusing it in various ways...

One of these ways is to give pity reactions, or to 'balance' out negatives, resulting is a pile of positives that don't really seem fitting at all (like marking a poor post as +G, +I, +S, and +F, when dozens of other people have all reacted to it negatively, and things like support don't even apply to it).

Another was is to pile on the positives - or negatives - to show a singe view. For example, you may like ponies, and a post somewhere mentions the word 'ponies' without talking about them in any detail, so you give it a positive reaction in basically every category.
This is wrong, of course, because you're giving the reactions based on a single idea - 'I like ponies' - but actually saying 'I appreciate this, it made me happy, it is interesting, I agree with it, and it has been said very well'. Which is ridiculous, but I've seen it done.

The system has probably been used well for the most part, but I can see much more misuse of it when the unwashed masses come swarming in, with their inability to think or read and itchy trigger fingers. Yes.

We have moderators now.
If you are a moderator, you should try to do something about obvious misuse of the system.
Talk to the person directly, asking them nicely to explain the reactions that caught your attention.
If they cannot, or their explanation is insufficient, then ask them nicely to remove their reactions.
If they don't, or if they reply snottily, you should remind them that if they don't, they'll get an infraction. Maybe that'll make them act.
If they are still resistant, then you should give them an infraction for ratings abuse.

The things you should look for are pity reactions, 'balancing out' reactions, and piled-on reactions, using many letters to make a single point.

To you non-moderators, uh... use the system properly! Yes!
6 years ago

Orb Calculations

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: Features FLIGSThe Site
Currently, the orb by your name is determined by the average colour of the orbs on your posts from the last month.
That means that you can post one green-rated comment per month and keep a green orb, but can't stay green by posting only once ever. Also, the more you post, the lower your average is likely to be.

This 'formula' or whatever was always meant to be temporary; a placeholder until I came up with something better.

I suppose that now is the time to be seriously considering what to add on a permanent basis.

Do you have any suggestions for how these orbs could be worked out?