Feedback on the new forum

[alms]

EDIT: So, I did a google search on the subject… and it appears the authors don’t believe in the feature, even though it’s commonly available in other board software. Great.

Sorry to hear that; OTOH, ignore is overrated: in any discussion that has even basic exchanges, the ignored user is bound to surface again through either quotes or replies.

Of course one could opine that a software like Discourse understands quotes and replies, when such features are used appropriately, and hence could hide quotes and replies too, but ultimately what breaks ignore for me, here or elsewhere, is that the only way for it to work is if everyone is ignoring the same user(s).

Otherwise, the interaction with the ignored user contributes to shape and define the flow of the conversation, and this is especially true when the ignored user is making contentious statements or otherwise eliciting strong reactions.

The end result is that, by not seeing the ignored user’s posts, your understanding of the conversation becomes forcibly limited.

With all that said, my suggestion would be to rather click the flag icon (press on the “…” icon first) and pick the option that seems most appropriate.

[Grizzly]

Sorry to hear that; OTOH, ignore is overrated: in any discussion that has even basic exchanges, the ignored user is bound to surface again through either quotes or replies.

Xenforo is mean and removes the quotes as well, and that actually works quite well: I often can’t tell (whereas Vbulletin’s and Discord’s are counter-intuitive). However, I’ve only used XenForo in really big communities like Paradox and Racedepartment, and it might not work for smaller forum communities like RPS.

[alms]

I feel a reply to your critique had already been provided in the paragraphs that followed the quote.

BTW Graham already mentioned that they had taken into consideration XenForo and ultimately decided against it.

(With that said - I really wish they fixed the preview and other broken stuff)

[Gus_Smedstad]

With all that said, my suggestion would be to rather click the flag icon (press on the “…” icon first) and pick the option that seems most appropriate.

Quite often there’s a huge divide between behavior that’s worthy of an “ignore” and behavior that will bring moderation action. Someone who, for example, consistently advocates MRA positions, champions Trump, or puts a weird nationalist spin on everything may be really annoying to read, but not actually violate forum policies for rudeness. The thing I like about an Ignore function is that it dampens my temptation to respond to crud like that.

As Grizzly points out, some board software will edit out quotes as well. I’ve found that improves the experience.

I’m generally not all that interested in “understanding” a conversation where one side of the conversation is essentially a brick wall. Generally speaking, these are sidebars to more general threads, i.e. the US Politics thread. If the forum were more prone to splitting out specific topics into their own threads, rather than lumping a lot of unrelated material together into mega threads, then I’d just skip reading that particular thread.

[alms]

Quite often there’s a huge divide between behavior that’s worthy of an “ignore” and behavior that will bring moderation action.

The flag button is not just the straight equivalent of the old Report button. Even the function of the Report button was often equivocated, there was some sort expectation that pressing it was tantamount to calling down a Low-Orbit Ion Cannon strike, whereas there were plenty of reports that didn’t result in any action, for a variety of reasons.

Generally, Discourse tends to encourage a self-moderating community, rather than relying solely on a moderator-centric approach, so users are both given an incentive and capability to resolve matters entirely on their own.

Someone who, for example, consistently advocates MRA positions, champions Trump, or puts a weird nationalist spin on everything may be really annoying to read, but not actually violate forum policies for rudeness.

That also raises an interesting point, as I often noticed there were posts other users thought weren’t against the rules, where in fact, they were. Subsequently no report was generated, and otherwise unnoticed, these cases could easily slip under the radar. Over time this compounded, reinforcing the initial, erroneous belief that certain behaviors were allowed.

Finally, while it’s important to remember there is no outright censorship on opinions, certain opinions are more often than others expressed in ways that may be subject to moderation. There is being patently rude, and more subtly rude or inappropriate.

Most tend to focus more on the obvious, and have less clear-cut opinions on the latter cases. In doubt, it’s always good to ask.

I’m generally not all that interested in “understanding” a conversation where one side of the conversation is essentially a brick wall. Generally speaking, these are sidebars to more general threads, i.e. the US Politics thread. If the forum were more prone to splitting out specific topics into their own threads, rather than lumping a lot of unrelated material together into mega threads, then I’d just skip reading that particular thread.

My point is that ignore only works when there are definite sub-discussions which run parallel to each other with little or none overlapping or intertwining, which IMO is rarely the case in the threads where an ignore function is desired (and also the reason why splitting threads after the fact is often hard.)

When the software removes replies, too, is like putting on blinders that prevent the user from reading stuff they may find interesting, throwing away chances for a good sort of engagement.

BTW I have been working on reducing the scope of mega-threads, however, it’s not a switch you can flip overnight, but something that takes time for everybody to adjust to.

Finally, Discourse allows posting a reply as a linked topic: the function is documented in the Discourse Tips and Tricks pin, and it’s been used already, though I suppose you were away at the time.

[Shadoko]

Those game-like “awards” tend to become really, really annoying.
Such as the last one I got : “Reader” that basically says “reading is important”. On a forum. Seriously.

Ok this one’s pretty funny but still, game-ification doesn’t always work.

[alms]

Ok this one’s pretty funny but still, game-ification doesn’t always work.

Wait til you find out the VIP lounge is a lie. Still gutted.

[Gus_Smedstad]

Wait til you find out the VIP lounge is a lie.

I just assumed that anyone who went in there was incinerated by GLaDOS.

[The_Velour_Fog]

Vastly Inferior Posters?

[L_No]

Vastly Inferior Posters?

Is there any other kind?

[Sarfrin]

Is there a way to use some internet trickery to replace the transparent logo with this cobbled together version on the light theme? It’s really annoying me now.

ETA To the point where I would actually spend some time removing the ugly white border around ROCK if it is possible.

[alms]

I could hack something together, I think, though not right now, but since I’m an unpaid volunteer, I would rather have you address the complaint to someone who isn’t.

[Sarfrin]

Happy to, if it’s not already on a list of to dos. email Graham?

[BillButNotBen]

I was looking a few days ago, and it seems pretty easy to use css to have different logos on different themes.
I also managed to hack together an inverted logo that looked fine on white - but that was on another PC.

If I get a few minutes tomorrow between typhoons and work, I might be able to put something together.
But is there any interest,or is someone already working on it, and who has rights to modify theme css, etc…?

I’d also submit that for the small logo, having RPS instead of the full name would work better.

[alms]

I don’t think the logo needs to be inverted, just to be saved without a transparent background. Of course it will then show as a black square, but that’s the way it is on the Dark theme as well.

If done with CSS it may be possible to add a black background behind the logo and save oneself the hassle of replacing the image itself.

who has rights to modify theme css, etc…?

Admins. Two shields.

When I said “hack something” I meant a Stylish stylesheet, so it’s only client-side.

[BillButNotBen]

If you use css similar to this, you can set a different logo for the dark theme and the light theme, which would be the best looking solution. Here is an inverted version you could use for the white theme.

Allow users to select dark / light theme

An alternative solution is to put a white border/shadow around the black text and use the same logo on both. That way the while border is invisible on the white theme, but shows up on the dark theme. You only need one image, but without knowing the size limitations for logos it’s a bit hard to do a decent white shadow. Plus the dotted “paper” doesn’t handle it quite as well. Eg:

An idea for the small logo. Not sure it’s a big improvement. Again, not knowing the size requirements makes it tricky.

[Sarfrin]

I like that inverted version.

[alms]

Minimalistic Stylish hack:

.d-header .title {
	background-color: #000000;
	padding: 2px;
}

[BillButNotBen]

Or how about setting the entire header to black on both versions? I was thinking that was another solution.
If they do that, they should definitely up the contrast for the search and menu buttons though.

[Insignus]

Sounds like some morally grounded and well rounded developers right there.