The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

[Kionon]

Now that I have time to write, I don't have a reliable connection, so I'm going to try to address what's being said.

I am not necessarily opposed to many of the ideas that have been brought up. I am, however, opposed to being forced to participate in some of those features. I am asking for a personal off switch, that's all. I don't think it's me being anti-social, it's just me having certain ideas of what I wish to use the org for, and not liking an all or nothing mentality being applied. That attitude will just run off people like me who use the main site as a database and nothing else because that's what we genuinely want.

A joke was made last night on #amv about the Org becoming OrgBook, and indeed, that is definitely an issue that concerns me. I won't begrudge those features to others, but I think it's not unreasonable to ask for a feature that disables other features. Having to wade through a front page of status updates, quick comments, star ratings, wall posts, and journal entries just to get to the super search function is really, really annoying for anyone who doesn't want to participate in those features.

I can do all of those things by using the forums and the IRC channels.

Likewise, the only commentary I wish to receive are opinions, which are private, and announcement thread responses which are public. I am against both anonymous commentary, public and private, and against public commentary which is not specifically requested. As Pwolf says, sometimes, I just want to post a video there for others to watch, but for whatever reason, may be totally uninterested in commentary, especially commentary that is limited to 140 or 250 characters, is anonymous, and is published publicly without my permission. Which is why, you can see, that quick comments and star ratings are issues. Again, others should have the right to use these features, regardless of how much I believe they hurt discourse and promote disposable content consumerism, but I shouldn't be forced to use them.

I don't have any issue with an off topic forum, and I never did. Do I think it's going to work out? I'm skeptical, but that's not opposition. Same with an introduction forum. If you want it, sure, go ahead. I may even use it.

I actually think Zarxrax's updated New Vid on the Block is nifty, and depending on the final implementation, may enthusiastically support it.

Don't box me into some ultra-conservative, reactionary view. It's unfair, and it's inaccurate.

[8bit_samurai]

Hey guys, this is great and all, but what about the users who don't even visit the forums and stuff? Is someone gonna notify them about this? I'd imagine they wouldn't care as long as they can adapt to it easily and the sort. Perhaps there are even some who just might have something to say or even might be able to help with the coding and the such. I myself doubt it, but you may never know.

I myself is one of those who doesn't really care as long as I can adapt to it easily. It seems the only thing I've grown accustomed to is the Super Search with the donator perks, so as long as this feature (or something similar/better) is kept, well, good for the Org.

[Arigatomina]

Case in point: you're not allowed to introduce yourself to the community. The Off Topic forum was shut down because people were making friends

That's why the OT was shut down. Applying that reason to the removal of the intro section makes you wonder how you can have a community if you don't want new members making friends with existing members. ^^;

I agree with everything you said. The intro and OT sections invited members from the main site to come into the forum - especially viewers who don't make their own vids. At the time, Phade said the OT section: "...has become too much of a clique/social gathering of people who are not really contributing to world of anime music videos." Who are these people who don't contribute? I didn't know who those useless members were at the time, but a few years later it's blatantly obvious. The non-editing viewers. They're not creating, so they don't contribute amvs to the collection. They don't know how to make vids, so they have nothing useful to post in the editor-specific threads. There's a wall between those who post in the forum and the masses on main site, and without an intro section to invite them in, few of the non-contributing members (aka: the viewers) climb over it. The wall has kept most of them out of the forum for almost seven years now. Intentionally. Does the org really want to invite those useless members back into the forum?

I'd like to see an Intro section here. I'd be able to convice some of my viewer-only friends to join the org for their amv needs if I could point to an intro section and show them that the org forum is not just for editors, and that they *can* come here just to talk about their enjoyment of amvs with fellow fans. It would be so much more convenient than chatting in a single "amv" thread in a big forum that has nothing to do with amvs as a whole. They'd get a kick out of filling out their favorite vid lists and using the star ratings to have vids recommended to them, and all the little viewer-specific activies the org has to offer. But I don't think a section for them in this forum would work. I think the intro/ot sections would just end up being closed again for the same reasons they were closed in the first place - too much work for the mods and since those members don't make vids they're not contributing to the creation of new amvs. They can browse the library as much as they want, and the org could make it nice and comfortable for them out there, but since they're not restocking the shelves they don't belong in the back rooms.

Maybe a separate forum (small, simple, but permanent and thus better than chatrooms where you don't remember who you talked to from one day to the next) for non-editors, one linked out there on the main page where they can talk about vids as much as they want, with a single sticky inviting them over if they want more information about making vids themselves. Of course editors who want to talk to their fans can post over there as well, but those who prefer to distance themselves from their viewers can just pretend that forum doesn't exist. You could even have a link to this mini-forum sent out in the emails when a new member joins, that way they know where to go so their fellow viewers can show them around. I'd bet a lot of people join just to stream a local video, and then forget the site exists and never come back. If they were directed to a viewer-friendly forum the moment they join they might make some friends and decide to stick around long enough to become editors themselves.

[Zarxrax]

I agree, we could use an introduction forum. That would be a nice first step towards improving things, and it wouldn't even really require more than a few minutes of work to actually implement it.
Is anyone in the current administration against this idea?

[godix]

everyone, don't even think about what's possible or what isn't possible or how difficult it would be to make. This time is for sharing ideas. When it comes time to put it all together i'm sure we can figure it out.

In that case I want a blowjob from a unicorn.

Won't the unicorn be stabbing you in the belly while it's bobbing on your knob?

[Pwolf]

Hey guys, this is great and all, but what about the users who don't even visit the forums and stuff? Is someone gonna notify them about this? I'd imagine they wouldn't care as long as they can adapt to it easily and the sort. Perhaps there are even some who just might have something to say or even might be able to help with the coding and the such. I myself doubt it, but you may never know.

I myself is one of those who doesn't really care as long as I can adapt to it easily. It seems the only thing I've grown accustomed to is the Super Search with the donator perks, so as long as this feature (or something similar/better) is kept, well, good for the Org.

I talked to the staff and they were against the idea of setting up a subforum or announcing anything until "the code was worked out" which is counter productive in my opinion so I started these threads on my own to get the ball rolling. I didn't want to wait for hours and hours of work to be completed just to go back and redo parts of it or scrap others. Also I felt that if this was going to be a community effort, as stated by several of the staff, then the community should have a more active and present role. The community isn't going to have a say if all the decisions are being made by a handful of people. Maybe one of the admins will make these threads more public in the future.

[Nya-chan Production]

Now that I have time to write, I don't have a reliable connection, so I'm going to try to address what's being said.

I am not necessarily opposed to many of the ideas that have been brought up. I am, however, opposed to being forced to participate in some of those features. I am asking for a personal off switch, that's all. I don't think it's me being anti-social, it's just me having certain ideas of what I wish to use the org for, and not liking an all or nothing mentality being applied. That attitude will just run off people like me who use the main site as a database and nothing else because that's what we genuinely want.

A joke was made last night on #amv about the Org becoming OrgBook, and indeed, that is definitely an issue that concerns me. I won't begrudge those features to others, but I think it's not unreasonable to ask for a feature that disables other features. Having to wade through a front page of status updates, quick comments, star ratings, wall posts, and journal entries just to get to the super search function is really, really annoying for anyone who doesn't want to participate in those features.

I can do all of those things by using the forums and the IRC channels.

Likewise, the only commentary I wish to receive are opinions, which are private, and announcement thread responses which are public. I am against both anonymous commentary, public and private, and against public commentary which is not specifically requested. As Pwolf says, sometimes, I just want to post a video there for others to watch, but for whatever reason, may be totally uninterested in commentary, especially commentary that is limited to 140 or 250 characters, is anonymous, and is published publicly without my permission. Which is why, you can see, that quick comments and star ratings are issues. Again, others should have the right to use these features, regardless of how much I believe they hurt discourse and promote disposable content consumerism, but I shouldn't be forced to use them.

I don't have any issue with an off topic forum, and I never did. Do I think it's going to work out? I'm skeptical, but that's not opposition. Same with an introduction forum. If you want it, sure, go ahead. I may even use it.

I actually think Zarxrax's updated New Vid on the Block is nifty, and depending on the final implementation, may enthusiastically support it.

Don't box me into some ultra-conservative, reactionary view. It's unfair, and it's inaccurate.

Stated like this, it's certainly better and the admins can think about this ;x Thanks for something constructive written at last.

[Kionon]

Nya, the name of this thread is "what's wrong with the org" not "what are you willing to compromise on even though you have strong feelings on the matter." I felt, in this thread, as in the others, I was being asked for my ideal views, not necessarily what I would accept as absolutely required, nor what features I would accept but end up disliking.

I do feel that quick comments, star ratings, and the abuse of local are serious issues, and are, in my opinion "what's wrong with the org." Therefore, I followed the thread's intent as I understood it. Just because you don't like that I have strong views (regardless of whether I will realistically compromise or not) doesn't mean I should be belittled or ignored for having them.

Your "constructive at last" line is more of the same. Backhanded compliment at the least.

I'm idealogical and partisan, no doubt about it, but I am also capable of compromise and recognise that if this is really a group effort, then I must abide by majority rules. I much prefer a democratic majority opinion I disagree with than an oligarchical minority opinion I disagree with, which is what decisions made solely by the admin/staff would be.

[Nya-chan Production]

Okay, Kio, I went over your previous statement and I apologize - they don't seem so bad now (maybe I just cooled off or I was just tired yesterday). You'll just have to accept that some parts of it will be simply impossible for the rest of the other people to get by without - so we'll be implementing them. But I suppose you can get over that.

Rest assured that nobody is trying to make the Org a new FB - there is no such desire from our side and I think neither is from the side of (most of) the users.

Once again I apologize for my words and we'll try to take your opinions in account too.

[Kionon]

That's all I am asking for. I am not a programmer, so I have no idea how hard it may be to implement an opt-out feature. As long as the real reason that I cannot be exempted from a feature I dislike is because the coding is difficult or impossible, that won't bother me.