Ideas for constructive feedback

[Reeve]

One thing I've noticed here in the feedback forum is that certain threads have a tendency to explode into multi-page arguments where various people are arguing back and forth. As Arctyrael so eloquently put it in the thread Jamal started:

This topic has gone from a potentially viable complaint and degraded into a steaming pile of methane producing garbage. Lets collect all this hot gas and put the energy to better use elsewhere.

Yea, I locked it because this discussion was over about 3 pages ago.

And I quite agree with those sentiments. Discussions are turning into arguments and valid points are getting lost in the shuffle. So how do we change that around and make this process more productive? I am open to ideas.

My personal take on this is that the Feedback forum IS NOT the Flame Room.

Comments need to be constructive, not the start of a pissing match or a place to whine. If there is a legitimate concern, express it needs to be expressed in an adult like manner so we can have an open dialog (not argument about it).

Comments should also add to the topic of conversation either by clarifying a potential misunderstanding or adding an unexpressed viewpoint. Comments should not be a method by which previous statements are rehashed again and again and again.

This sounds like a reasonable goal and one thats easy to accomplish but how should we ensure its success? Thats where I could really use your insight.

We could ensure that new threads and posts are placed into moderation. On the plus side, you would definitely know that we read it and the delay in posts showing up may help curtail some of the arguments we've seen. On the negative side, it would create delays.

An another alternative would be to delete the offending posts but by the time this was done, we might have to lock the thread because its gone so far off topic.

So what are your suggestions about this?

 

[Tristam Green]

Degenerating into argument will invariably happen on a lot of topics in F&F. It just happens. Moderation would be a good step towards derailing of topics to the point that the real points are lost (read: removal of "in before..." posts in particular).

Perhaps establishing a set of guidelines for F&F is a step in the right direction, or perhaps establishing a general Code of Conduct for QCDN entirely (of course, the Flameboard, being what it is, would be effectively exempt from this Code).

I have more ideas but haven't formulated how I want to say them yet.

 

[jamal]

The reason for the explosions isn't any particular post, it's the arguments themselves. Yes, you can suggest that people do what they will, but it's impossible to hold an unbiased opinion as a moderator when someone is disagreeing with your actions.

This opens up a whole new can of worms. I personally think this section should be unadulterated. If you choose to make a decision without the public's knowledge, be ready for the people you upset to be just that, upset.

90% of the time you won't have a clue what's going on in discussions here, namely the endgame discussion forum which you quoted things from. The board's popularity was higher than usual for the fact that, drama causes interest. Your opinion's on something that I detailed for endgame discussion, when you haven't even played the game let alone seen what is going on, is pointless.

PS, I see someone's name was removed from the ban list. Be ready for the blowback I was talking about.

 

[Zyndara]

Feedback is just that, feedback. You'd think the whole point of suggestions/feedback would be for there to be discussion regarding the issue at hand so that you can look at the pros and cons of changes to be made. While I agree that conversations have gone off-track in the past, I think that is solely because there are a lot of clashing personalities around here and many strong opinions. There is going to be disagreement and there should be if you want a forum of quality. It's folly to think that everyone is going to agree or that if one idea or question is put on the table, that there won't be people who want to tweak it or disagree with it entirely.

That said, I think the emotion needs to be put in check and that needs to be enforced by the mods. I think If someone has an idea for the forum, it should be concise and to the point, without all the ego and posturing. There's nothing wrong with feeling passionate about something (God knows I do when I put forth my opinion), but like any other proposal, you need to make your point with clarity and objectivity first, then back it up with the why. There are some things that should simply be discussed in PMs to mod staff, and we all know it (and maybe those issues, for those who have a hard time knowing what is more appropriate to PM, should be clearly listed). If people have a suggestion for improvement on the forums then they should post their idea and people should be allowed to respond in an equally to-the-point, semi-thoughtful manner (as Tristam mentioned, this means no "ibtl" and "this is retarded" comments). Mods can weed out any non-constructive posts or off-topic tangents and hopefully some productive conversation will ensue.

I don't think these things should go direct to the moderation because changes that affect the whole board should be put to all of us to respond. Obviously the end decision isn't ours, but I would think learning how we perceive a given change to the boards should have some weight in determining whether or not it should be implemented.

 

[jamal]

Although I have quite a bit to say on this topic, I'm going to bow out as frustrations with other things may sway my emotion and I'd rather not get into another heated debate.

I trust you all understand my (and others who share my view) points already.

 

[beeznuts]

I have to agree with some of what Jamal said, a lot of the hostility around here is coming from the fact that these decisions are made in secret, and then suddenly sprung on the public with absolutely no input from them whatsoever. That's a bit frustrating right from the get-go.

The other thing that's quickly making problems is when people reply with things like:

Jamal, the truth is, we pick modetors randomly from a collection of names in a hat. A select few were smart enough to bribe us with candy and they of course recieved the preferential treatment they deserved.

and (abridged)

oh btw it's all up to Kelyon alone lol :3

Yes, I went there. I'm not sure what prompted this entire thread, but it's certainly an ironic one. It's really hard for a discussion to stay civil when you personally are throwing gasoline on the flames.

But overall, again, I'd have to say that any time I feel frustrated here, it's because decisions were made with no input from anyone, and then when anyone speaks up otherwise, the only thing they get is "lolno" and the administration flaming them.

 

[Nycon]

Stuff

Why do feel that you or anyone other then Admins or Mods need to be consulted about changes made to the site or Mod team? The site is privately owned.

 

[Excalibur]

Make me one of this forums mods. I'll keep things on the straight and narrow.

no but seriously...

We could ensure that new threads and posts are placed into moderation. On the plus side, you would definitely know that we read it and the delay in posts showing up may help curtail some of the arguments we've seen. On the negative side, it would create delays.

Please, no. I don't think anyone here wants this. I don't have a whole lot of ideas on this subject but I definately know I do not want this.

Why do feel that you or anyone other then Admins or Mods need to be consulted about changes made to the site or Mod team? The site is privately owned.

QCDN - Privately owned, publicly used. That's why.

 

[beeznuts]

Why do feel that you or anyone other then Admins or Mods need to be consulted about changes made to the site or Mod team? The site is privately owned.

QCDN - Privately owned, publicly used. That's why.

And I'm saying all of this, of course, because that's the question that was presented just now. "Why do threads on this forum explode with hostility, and what can be done to change this?" That, in my opinion (which was asked for along with everyone else's) is a main contributing factor.

 

[Nycon]

QCDN - Privately owned, publicly used. That's why.

QCDN isn't a publicly traded company though. They owe you nothing in regards to their decision making process when it comes to choosing the mods/admins.

I feel Miros has been very open with the things he's tried to bring to this site. Asking users for help when it comes to designing the sprites. He's added most of the forums that people were begging for like the Music/TV/Sports sections.

I'm sorry you(Garvin) and Jamal feel slighted that you and your lawyers weren't consulted when it comes to picking new mods, but in no way does Reeve, Miros, or Arc need to consult you with those kind of decisions.

When you(Garvin) or Jamal go and buy your own server and start up a forum, then you can make all the decisions you want. Until then, tough luck.

 

[Zyndara]

When you(Garvin) or Jamal go and buy your own server and start up a forum, then you can make all the decisions you want. Until then, tough luck.

This is exactly what Reeve is looking to avoid here. He's asking what can be done to prevent legitimate discussion from disintegrating into sarcasm and arguments. How exactly are you answering his question or contributing in any kind of positive way by singling people out and being snide? He is asking for our opinions, and Garvin and Jamal answered him honestly. This response really wasn't called for.

Is it possible to actually keep the conversation constructive for a change?

 

[beeznuts]

QCDN isn't a publicly traded company though. They owe you nothing in regards to their decision making process when it comes to choosing the mods/admins.

I feel Miros has been very open with the things he's tried to bring to this site. Asking users for help when it comes to designing the sprites. He's added most of the forums that people were begging for like the Music/TV/Sports sections.

I'm sorry you(Garvin) and Jamal feel slighted that you and your lawyers weren't consulted when it comes to picking new mods, but in no way does Reeve, Miros, or Arc need to consult you with those kind of decisions.

When you(Garvin) or Jamal go and buy your own server and start up a forum, then you can make all the decisions you want. Until then, tough luck.

I don't know how many times it needs to be acknowledged that yes, Reeve can do whatever the hell he wants with QCDN. This is completely true, and I don't think anyone is ever going to dispute it.

Doing whatever the hell you want, however, is sure to piss people off. It doesn't matter if you can, or want to, or are able to. If you do whatever you feel like, you will wind up irritating people more, and more easily.

Who is doing what job well isn't really relevant here, and the whole "lol start ur own forum n u can maek rules" is never, never a reasonable statement.

 

[Nycon]

Is it possible to actually keep the conversation constructive for a change?

It was constructive. Its saying that if you don't like it, leave the forums. Its not hard. In no way was that flamebait. Read Garvin's sig, lol. That's constructive?

 

[Zyndara]

It was constructive. Its saying that if you don't like it, leave the forums. Its not hard. In no way was that flamebait. Read Garvin's sig, lol. That's constructive?

No, it's not constructive when you're not answering the question Reeve asked at all and your post's only purpose was to snipe at Jamal & Garvin and invite them to leave. Someone's sig isn't the issue being discussed either. Constructive is keeping to the point and not going off on your personal tangents. In an effort not to feed your derail, that's the last I'll say of it.

 

[Reeve]

Lets stay focused here.

I have to agree with some of what Jamal said, a lot of the hostility around here is coming from the fact that these decisions are made in secret, and then suddenly sprung on the public with absolutely no input from them whatsoever.

Ok, there is obviously some frustration here, so how do we fix that?

I see three issues:
1. Communicating upcoming changes
2. Filtering feedback about those changes
3. The decision making process

We can try on our end to improve the communication and to that extent, Miros and the team have taken significant strides in this area and this thread essentially focuses on # 2, filtering the feedback about those changes.

Yet there is another aspect to that equation: some users will be for a change, others will be against it, and we can't please everyone. Furthermore, some changes are simply necessary whether the majority agrees or not.

Question 1: If we take the opportunity to poll the members about a specific change, yet we need to press ahead regardless, will the result be any different than if we simply went ahead with the change anyway?

Question 2: If the majority of members agree to a change what stops the vocal minority from whinning about it over the next six months?

Question 3: Realistically, site updates would slow to a crawl if it became a decision by committee process. Is that something the majority would accept?

Question 4: Since it would be impossible to filter the feedback from thousands of members, should any decisions be left to a steering group or committee?


Ultimately I see this as a no-win situation for myself and the staff and if we are going to face the possibility of a backlash anyway - what incentive is there for us to consult anyone outside of the team anyway?

 

[Nycon]

No, it's not constructive when you're not answering the question Reeve asked at all and your post's only purpose was to snipe at Jamal & Garvin and invite them to leave. Someone's sig isn't the issue being discussed either. Constructive is keeping to the point and not going off on your personal tangents. In an effort not to feed your derail, that's the last I'll say of it.

Its not "a personal tangent". Garvin and Jamal just happened to be the most vocal about saying they needed to be consulted with the changes the admin team is making. Had it been Tom, Dick, and Hairy being the most vocal I would have still posted the same thing.

 

[Alyada]

QCDN isn't a publicly traded company though. They owe you nothing in regards to their decision making process when it comes to choosing the mods/admins.

I feel Miros has been very open with the things he's tried to bring to this site. Asking users for help when it comes to designing the sprites. He's added most of the forums that people were begging for like the Music/TV/Sports sections.

I'm sorry you(Garvin) and Jamal feel slighted that you and your lawyers weren't consulted when it comes to picking new mods, but in no way does Reeve, Miros, or Arc need to consult you with those kind of decisions.

When you(Garvin) or Jamal go and buy your own server and start up a forum, then you can make all the decisions you want. Until then, tough luck.

I think what Garvin is saying (and by proxy I assume Jamal, though I don’t cater many of his thoughts) is that Reeve and the mods don’t usually consult the community in what they plan to do and are surprised at the backlash they receive.

I’ve been a QCDN member since I can remember and I have a certain amount of value invested in this site. I would like to believe that the people who complain the most have some sort of value invested in the site as well. Take, for example, the recent change to the boards theme:

BAM. NEW THEME OUT OF NOWHERE.
<Qcdn Users> omgwtf, this is horrible.
<Mods> lol deal.

It would have been nice to have gotten a little warning, and maybe even involving us in the decision making process. You throw things at people that you don’t know whether they’ll like or not and they’ll react badly. Now, you can justify that this is Reeves site and he can make the rules as he sees fit but he needs to share the website with us. We were here before him, we are set in our ways, and we, under no circumstances, were allowed a choice of whether or not to deal with him. In America we have a democracy and we’re used to voting for the assholes we put in office. Reeve was arbitrarily placed by Sculli who was tired of trying to make everyone believe what he wanted.

You’re right though. Miros has done a lot of good for the website. I’m loving the WoW section (even if it isn’t too busy) and all the sub-videogame categories. QCDN has grown in the past couple of months and for the better, it’s still a FFXI-based community but it has expanded into a social networking site for friends that met over FFXI. Hell, I haven’t touched my character in months but I still come here.

So, while your argument is valid most of us believe that we have a little bit of QCDN that’s ours. Wildly doing what you want without consulting the community is pretty shitty, and downright bad business.

 

[Alyada]

Lets stay focused here.

Ok, there is obviously some frustration here, so how do we fix that?

I see three issues:
1. Communicating upcoming changes
2. Filtering feedback about those changes
3. The decision making process

We can try on our end to improve the communication and to that extent, Miros and the team have taken significant strides in this area and this thread essentially focuses on # 2, filtering the feedback about those changes.

Yet there is another aspect to that equation: some users will be for a change, others will be against it, and we can't please everyone. Furthermore, some changes are simply necessary whether the majority agrees or not.

Question 1: If we take the opportunity to poll the members about a specific change, yet we need to press ahead regardless, will the result be any different than if we simply went ahead with the change anyway?

Question 2: If the majority of members agree to a change what stops the vocal minority from whinning about it over the next six months?

Question 3: Realistically, site updates would slow to a crawl if it became a decision by committee process. Is that something the majority would accept?

Question 4: Since it would be impossible to filter the feedback from thousands of members, should any decisions be left to a steering group or committee?


Ultimately I see this as a no-win situation for myself and the staff and if we are going to face the possibility of a backlash anyway - what incentive is there for us to consult anyone outside of the team anyway?

Read my above post but I think you're taking it too literally.

If you need to update the site for the phpbulliten or whatever, do it. You need to. But things like: changing the theme of the website, putting in a new reputation system, different rules for signature - these decisions should have a little bit of community pull. If you can come up with valid arguments and back up those arguments then people will follow. If you can make them fun, interesting, and promise if the system doesn't work then it won't stay, you'll have the community behind you.

Someone will always bitch, but the majority of us will enjoy the ability to at least have some say in what way our forum is heading.

 

[beeznuts]

Question 1: If we take the opportunity to poll the members about a specific change, yet we need to press ahead regardless, will the result be any different than if we simply went ahead with the change anyway?

Even in a situation like this (Take for example the most recent style issue) there are still multiple paths that can be taken. There are a wide number of styles out there, with a large number of looks. There might be something that fits the criteria required for QCDN that a board member would come across or know of that wouldn't even be considered otherwise.

Also, it leaves room for the possibility of someone stepping up and supporting Nightshift as-is. If something has to happen, the least that can happen is an announcement before it starts going down. That way, even if nobody knows of an alternative, it gives a little breathing time to get used to things, and puts the whole process out in the open for the community.

Question 2: If the majority of members agree to a change what stops the vocal minority from whinning about it over the next six months?

If the majority of members agree to something, that's basically that. It doesn't leave a lot of room for complaining about things unless it's an actual problem. If someone is being a major problem, it should be dealt with like any other person being a problem.

Question 3: Realistically, site updates would slow to a crawl if it became a decision by committee process. Is that something the majority would accept?

This is sort of vague, and depends of course on what the "updates" are. In most cases, adding options that are parallel to existing ones, or able to be enabled/disabled at will is never going to be a problem. This is sort of vague. If it's changes, the time before a change should probably scale with the size of the change.

In any event, if someone actually gives feedback on things like this, ignoring it (or even taunting the poster) will quickly turn feedback into backlash.

Question 4: Since it would be impossible to filter the feedback from thousands of members, should any decisions be left to a steering group or committee?

It really depends. In most cases a poll SHOULD suffice. If it's something where input would be helpful, and there isn't enough manpower currently, someone to keep track of things like this and digest it all could be an idea.

Anyway, what it comes down to is the fact that it's all in the presentation. Despite what some people insist, this is still a community, and (no offense this time) not "Reeve's site". My opinion isn't more important than any other one person's, just because I'm willing to speak it. I only want it to count, regardless of the final outcome.

Yeah, in the end, you'll have some people complaining about any decision no matter what, but there's a lot less room for legitimate complaints when everyone gets a fair say.

 

[Zyndara]

Question 1: If we take the opportunity to poll the members about a specific change, yet we need to press ahead regardless, will the result be any different than if we simply went ahead with the change anyway?

I think the key here is making sure you're clear about what's going on. It's not often that something has to be changed on a moment's notice I would assume... If you're talking about a vb upgrade and we're forced to take a new board style since the old design will no longer be supported, then you put it out there as "hey this absolutely has to change by x date, here are x theme options we are wiling to use to replace it (insert hyperlink here)." I think we are all aware that change needs to happen from time to time. Having some input towards those changes, considering the time some of us spend here, would be nice rather than having something randomly and unannounced sprung on us. Polling us would at least give us a notice to be prepared for the changes coming.

Question 2: If the majority of members agree to a change what stops the vocal minority from whinning about it over the next six months?

Who cares if they whine? If you're pollling us, the time for them to stand up and be counted is then. If they can't be bothered to vote, that's too bad. And if they are in the minority when the votes are counted, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. They'll get over it.

Question 3: Realistically, site updates would slow to a crawl if it became a decision by committee process. Is that something the majority would accept?

I don't think every decision made requires an audience. I think the things that affect your audience, our community, directly are the things that we should be brought up for discussion: graphic themes we have to look at every time we visit the site, changes to forum organization or policy, add-ons like reputation, and major changes to where we'd be able to find things on the site. No one's saying debate these things for months. Just bring it up for discussion to close at a certain date then go with it.

Question 4: Since it would be impossible to filter the feedback from thousands of members, should any decisions be left to a steering group or committee?

If you're polling the community here, then you're going to have a poll to show you the numbers. If you're talking about discussion threads with no poll, then you've made mods for every forum... I wouldn't think there would be any problem in creating a mod or two to monitor and post results for the concensus of the responses.

As far as backlash, you're going to get backlash no matter what you do because people have their own minds, and like you said, you can't please everyone. The whole point is to try to go with what's best for the site and the people who support it. And in general, that would say to me that you try your best to please as many as you can to keep them coming back, and let the rest of the chips fall where they may.