. . .
6 years ago


◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: Features The SiteModerators
Obviously adding moderators will be a good idea. But also obviously, I never seem to get around to it due to my trust issues.

Now is really the best time to find some though, since most of the 'good members' from the old site are here, and a bunch of 'nobodies' can't crawl out of the woodwork and volunteer themselves, despite me never having seen them before. (I really don't understand how people like that expect to be chosen, but they always appear anyway.)

Moderators would, I assume, mainly be responsible for adding Infractions.

I may have two types of moderators, marked M and C. The C ones would be able to give temporary chat bans, which would block a user from posting in the chatroom for a day.
M moderators would also be able to do that, and to give infractions.

I need to find people suitable for the job. People who will genuinely help, and who won't just volunteer themselves for the thrill of power, or the idea of seeming special.

So what I'd like you to do is suggest other people. Don't volunteer yourselves. Then we can see who the community might trust to be in such a position.
6 years ago

Opening the Doors

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: The SitePlans
I intended to release this version of the site to the public soon after changing the rating system... Since I've now changed that, I'm wondering what else it would be wise to do before the release.

From your time here, what do you think I should add, change, improve, remove, etc, before allowing the unwashed masses swarm throughout the place like a bunch of sticky-handed attention-deficient toddlers?

I know that some content pages like the tempaments, music and art ones are empty, but they're not really crucial to add before the release; I'll add them over time.
6 years ago

The new FLIGS system

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: Features FLIGSThe Site
I've changed the rating system from UFELTA to 'FLIGS'.

Rather than explaining it here, I'll just link to the explanation on the About page, here: ∞ Fig Hunter ∞

If any aspects of it don't make sense, I can try to update that page to make it clearer.

Hopefully it'll be an improvement over the last system, since it was designed as such.

Oh, but I really want to stress that while the other system was sort of objective in the sense that you assessed and graded the 'quality' of posts, this one is a completely subjective system. You'd only give ratings to posts that did something for you.
So you wouldn't be giving 'useful' ratings to posts you'd barely read because 'they contributed' or 'were designed to help' and 'might help people', no... Instead, you'd perhaps Appreciate something if you found it useful, if it was helpful to you.

So this system is all about you and how the post affected you. You are not 'grading essays'.

I can't stress that enough, since I know it's a big change.

The system is also about 'making statements', about telling the poster something without having to write any words. Think of the ratings as like writing mini-posts in response; things like 'thanks!' or 'hey, don't do that' or 'lol'.

Let's see how it goes for a while... If it isn't working, I'll have to rethink it some more.

Oh, and everyone's ratings have been cleared completely, so everyone has a blank slate, hopefully for obvious reasons. This is the sort of thing you should expect when using a beta version of something...
I can't guarantee that any ratings you give using this system will stay forever, but do try to at least test it out.
Please don't delve into the distant past to rate old posts, but if you want, you can rate posts in threads that are at least current enough to be shown on the Community page.

The calculations for personal orbs aren't working properly at the moment; I'll work on them tomorrow.

For now, I'm just too stressed to do anything else...