Smashboards Upgraded

[Johnknight1]

Currently evaluating keeping social groups - there are some negatives to having them at this point.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!!!!

Social Groups are awesome; it's like 99% of the reason I visit here!!!

It's where I post/go first and where I post/go last every visit.

Literally without Social Groups... I'd have like 50 convoluted PM's and I'd be better off just posting in NorCal Melee's Facebook page (and I hate Facebook, but I love me some Melee and some of my NorCal Melee brethren!!!).

There's no negatives (minus programming) that I can think of (unless you like watching your post count go up, which I don't really care, even though I'm #46 on the post count list).

It gives users another option for how to post and where to post, what to post on, how to post how they like, as well as ultimately another place to post.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Posted this in a different thread - issues that exist with Social Groups:

• Keeps content from new users
• Creates division within the site (e.g. cool kids club) based on [insert random criteria]
• Moderation is difficult
• And it just didn't work with Xenforo (very weel) and was a pain to get to work (this being the biggest issue)

I understand there is debate, but if as a member here you spend most time in a hidden group, and that applied to all members and their patterns of activity, then eventually new members will have difficulty finding meaningful places to contribute, talk, and share experiences.

 

[Hoots]

Posted this in a different thread - issues that exist with Social Groups:

• Keeps content from new users
• Creates division within the site (e.g. cool kids club) based on [insert random criteria]
• Moderation is difficult
• And it just didn't work with Xenforo (very weel) and was a pain to get to work (this being the biggest issue)

I understand there is debate, but if as a member here you spend most time in a hidden group, and that applied to all members and their patterns of activity, then eventually new members will have difficulty finding meaningful places to contribute, talk, and share experiences.

Except as we can see there is a massive amount of discussion going on in the countless public threads. The amount of conversation going on in social groups is absolutely minuscule in comparison.

There should really be a way for users to have a private conversation that isn't simply one on one pm's. Gutting that because it is something "new users" can't see it is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Warchamp7]

There should really be a way for users to have a private conversation that isn't simply one on one pm's.

Users can have PM conversations with up to 10 people. Premium can have up to 50.

 

[Hoots]

Users can have PM conversations with up to 10 people. Premium can have up to 50.

First, wasn't the point not to discourage new users, the kind of people who wouldn't have a premium account?

For those that don't, what if you'd like to have a conversation with more than 10 people?

Also, PM's still are an incredibly sloppy and ad hoc substitute that can't be nearly as categorized as a Social Group with multiple threads.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Except as we can see there is a massive amount of discussion going on in the countless public threads. The amount of conversation going on in social groups is absolutely minuscule in comparison.

Exactly. I see no point in making decisions based on outrageous hypotheticals that we do not see in reality. Also, I only know of a very small selection of people that don't frequent the threads outside of the group I was involved with.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

• Keeps content from new users
• Creates division within the site (e.g. cool kids club) based on [insert random criteria]

Backrooms and PMs do this as well, don't they?

Moderation is difficult

Make it mandatory to include a mod/admin in the Social Group. Problem solved.

And it just didn't work with Xenforo (very weel) and was a pain to get to work (this being the biggest issue)

It worked fine from our side, but if there are problems behind the scenes, then I understand.

I understand there is debate, but if as a member here you spend most time in a hidden group, and that applied to all members and their patterns of activity, then eventually new members will have difficulty finding meaningful places to contribute, talk, and share experiences.

One problem here.

You're using a "what if" scenario. You say, what if all members spend time in a hidden group? That will not happen. I assure you. It didn't happen before hand and it won't happen in the future. People in social groups still post all over the place.

Sure, there are Social Group members who only post in their social groups, but they are by far the minority. I can only count three people who do that in the SSB4 BRoom.

AZ. I respect you, but that excuse is poorly crafted. Is that really a key factor in this decision?

Users can have PM conversations with up to 10 people. Premium can have up to 50.

PMs are a lot more limited than actual forums.

Plus, they're kinda wonky.

 

[IsmaR]

We're apparently willing to fight you on this.

I say you make examples of them, and ban them on the spot.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

We're apparently willing to fight you on this.

Uses "We're."

I say you make examples of them, and ban them on the spot.

Uses "them."

I see how it is...

 

[Johnknight1]

• Creates division within the site (e.g. cool kids club) based on [insert random criteria]

Shouldn't we just abandon all forums and sub-forums then=???

 

[Frostwraith]

I understand the programming issues that the staff team may face and I really respect that, since I do program stuff from time to time. However, the other reasons are poor, especially the one stating that it creates division on the site.

Most people on social groups, me included, post outside of them as well. Also, people can create their own groups about whatever subject they desire.

About moderation being difficult, make it so that groups require a moderator within the group. Considering groups are smaller communities within the bigger one, I think the owner of a group could assign a moderators to manage his/her own group. The owner of a group obviously would also have moderation powers too.

On the reason that it keeps content from new people. Really? That's one big contradiction, when there's the Disco Room and the other Premium Membership bonuses. I'd argue that Social Groups may be actually be more accessible to new people than it may be to acquire Premium.

 

[ndayday]

• Keeps content from new users
• Creates division within the site (e.g. cool kids club) based on [insert random criteria]

What is the BRoom? I'm not counting DR because it's a perk and sees no activity anyway and the Smash BRooms are kind of prey to this but they at least serve a purpose. Is that going to be removed for that reason as well?

I understand there is debate, but if as a member here you spend most time in a hidden group, and that applied to all members and their patterns of activity, then eventually new members will have difficulty finding meaningful places to contribute, talk, and share experiences.

I don't think that many people use them and I certainly didn't feel that way about them before. I remember character specific back rooms being in Social Groups but those died out...

 

[FalKoopa]

Posted this in a different thread - issues that exist with Social Groups:

• Keeps content from new users
• Creates division within the site (e.g. cool kids club) based on [insert random criteria]
• Moderation is difficult
• And it just didn't work with Xenforo (very weel) and was a pain to get to work (this being the biggest issue)

Please, bring back the Social Groups. I spend nearly half of my time on Smashboards there.

To address your points:
1. Since most of the Social Groups are just discussion topics among a group of people, I don't see why a new user would even care about that content. It's not like people in Social Groups share/post stuff that new users would be dying to see.
2. It's not like people post only in the Social Groups once they join one. The number of users who post exclusively in Social Groups is a very small minority compared to the total number of active users on the site. Social Groups have been a part the site for a long time, and as far as I know, there is hardly any evidence of divisions within the site.
3. I'm pretty sure it won't be too hard to appoint some more moderators within a Social Group to keep a watch over its content.
4. That is a valid point, yes. But given how long Social Groups have been a part of the website, it's definitely worth the effort to bring them back.

Users can have PM conversations with up to 10 people. Premium can have up to 50.

Eh... A PM is far less convenient than a Social Group with multiple threads.

 

[Johnknight1]

About moderation being difficult, make it so that groups require a moderator within the group. Considering groups are smaller communities within the bigger one, I think the owner of a group could assign a moderators to manage his/her own group. The owner of a group obviously would also have moderation powers too.

That isn't even necessary, since admins can get into any groups (although mods might need such powers, or at least super mods).

On top of that, most users groups that are active are fairly well self-governed, A LOTTTTTTTT better than the standard boards.

 

[Warchamp7]

I think, personally, my biggest issue with how the XenForo social groups add on handles things, is that groups are private, and don't seem to have any stats or info on the threads within until you actually join it. Forums on the other hand, you can see a list of all threads, the latest post, levels of activity, etc.

Browsing the list of social groups, it was just a wall of titles, some mangled from being from vB, and on the right, it just had (private). They didn't feel inviting, or like a part of the community at all, even though most groups were probably public and available to anyone to join.

It's not a final decision, and we are reading all the feedback, don't worry. I will say though, if they do return, it is likely it would be a fresh start.

 

[God Robert's Cousin]

I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. Social Forums just aren't something we should just be rid of considering how they don't really impede the main forum in any way. Higher users still participate in the public forums all the time.

But yes, thank you for the consideration. Having organized social groups means a lot to many of us.

 

[Deleted member]

If the social groups don´t come back, I can guarantee I will be less active in SWF, and will likely start using Google Hangouts or something similar to replace probably what was most interesting about this site in the first place.

And that was the friends I made.

I definitely feel it was a poor decicion to remove them, even more so to block/delete the content, we all shared very personal stories in our groups and it´s a pity they´re gone forever.

I´m not gonna go on a rant about things, but it was defintely a poor decision, as the Social Groups played a HUGE role in how close I felt to the community.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

I don't really spend any time on the Social Groups anymore, considering that I only really went to them before we got the Smash 4 forums. Still, there are people who use the Social Groups, so I'm pretty much neutral with the situation.

 

[Johnknight1]

Sons of Smash Boards!!!
I am Johnknight1!

And I see a whole army of my Smash Brothers
Here in defiance of the end of User Groups

You have come to fight as free User Group Users
And free User Group Users you are

WHAT WILL YOU DO WITHOUT USER GROUPS!?!?!?
WILL YOU FIGHT!?!?!?

Fight, and you may lose
And run, you'll win...
...at least for a while
(until you miss User Groups)

And dying in your beds many years from now,
Would you be willing to trade
ALL THE DAYS
from this day to that
For One Chance
JUST ONE CHANCE
To come back here
And tell our (lovely) site administrators
That they may take our user groups
But they'll never take
OUR FREEDOMM!!!!!!!​

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I think we should be concerned about what other people do, not just ourselves, M&S Guy.

 

[WindMajor]

For the record, all moderators had full viewing access to social groups before.

Adding a moderator to every social group is not the right solution, and the reason why lies in the fact that there are so many social groups to be made. Groups will have to be put on extended waiting periods because of how fast social groups are made vs. how fast moderators can be assigned to social groups. You have to take into account that all of us moderators are volunteers, and not every moderator will be jumping at your social group to moderate it. An admin will be scrambling to assign a mod to every group ever made (and every group that has yet to be made), and moderators will inevitably be forced to take some social groups on. This is an endless cycle, as social groups just don't stop being created. I wouldn't be surprised if after a year, each moderator was assigned to watch over 100 social groups, many of which they didn't even volunteer for. This kind of workload will inevitably lead to moderators simply depending on the reported posts system, which is counterproductive to the whole "add a moderator to every social group so that moderation won't be a problem" thing. Adding a moderator to every social group is an inefficient system that causes a giant strain on moderators doing work for small, niche groups.

 

[Johnknight1]

For the record, all moderators had full viewing access to social groups before.

Adding a moderator to every social group is not the right solution, and the reason why lies in the fact that there are so many social groups to be made. Groups will have to be put on extended waiting periods because of how fast social groups are made vs. how fast moderators can be assigned to social groups. You have to take into account that all of us moderators are volunteers, and not every moderator will be jumping at your social group to moderate it. An admin will be scrambling to assign a mod to every group ever made (and every group that has yet to be made), and moderators will inevitably be forced to take some social groups on. I wouldn't be surprised if after a year, each moderator had to watch over 100 social groups, many of which they didn't even volunteer for. This kind of workload will inevitably lead to neglect, which is counterproductive to the whole "add a moderator to every social group" thing.

How about this...
-Archive all the current User Group data, like the rest of the site.
-Keep the current User Groups.
-Limit the amount that can be made from now on, and make them require pre-approval.
-Don't moderate the user groups unless you get complaints, and just rely on reports.

Otherwise we might as well just abandon the Back Rooms for each game plus Project M.

After all, they might need strict moderation, and their users haven't proven they aren't worthy of governing themselves.

Plus, let's keep this in mind for those BRooms, having private groups apparently...

Creates division within the site (e.g. cool kids club) based on [insert random criteria]

 

[Thirdkoopa]

I think, personally, my biggest issue with how the XenForo social groups add on handles things, is that groups are private, and don't seem to have any stats or info on the threads within until you actually join it. Forums on the other hand, you can see a list of all threads, the latest post, levels of activity, etc.

Why not just have private boards then like the ones already in existence? That could work a lot easier for everyone.

hi warchamp

 

[Big-Cat]

I don't see what the big deal behind social groups being exclusive. You can't just hop into one social circle full of strangers like nothing in real life, why should this not apply to social groups here?

I understand the technical concerns, but the rest of these reasons are flimsy at best.

 

[Johnknight1]

I'm going to do what DJ Nintendo told me to do.

I'm going to start....

(Having User Groups) Creates division within the site (e.g. cool kids club) based on [insert random criteria]

User groups being "exclusive" is no different from mods, super mods, admins, back rooms for each games, friends' lists, ignored users lists, followers, following, likes, different forums and sub forums, different games (let's all play PlayStation All-Stars! TMNT Smash Up! Cartoon Network Punch instead!), and so on.

They're all exclusive, and ultimately up the users with these powers to use them.

So if we're getting ride of it for that reason, why not just eliminate all categories of division=???

To use the first Smash meme ever...

TIRES DON EXITS​

 

[augustoflores]

isn't it about time he shows us his moves? and no JOHNS!

 

[Deleted member]

For the record, all moderators had full viewing access to social groups before.

Adding a moderator to every social group is not the right solution, and the reason why lies in the fact that there are so many social groups to be made. Groups will have to be put on extended waiting periods because of how fast social groups are made vs. how fast moderators can be assigned to social groups. You have to take into account that all of us moderators are volunteers, and not every moderator will be jumping at your social group to moderate it. An admin will be scrambling to assign a mod to every group ever made (and every group that has yet to be made), and moderators will inevitably be forced to take some social groups on. This is an endless cycle, as social groups just don't stop being created. I wouldn't be surprised if after a year, each moderator was assigned to watch over 100 social groups, many of which they didn't even volunteer for. This kind of workload will inevitably lead to moderators simply depending on the reported posts system, which is counterproductive to the whole "add a moderator to every social group so that moderation won't be a problem" thing. Adding a moderator to every social group is an inefficient system that causes a giant strain on moderators doing work for small, niche groups.

Why have the mods moderate the groups?

Why not have the group creator moderate it? Or just let them be, social groups would self-moderate anyway, as it was only a part of the forum, people weren't forced to be a part of it, and it was invite only. Mods aren't needed in social groups, and the group itself would respect the authority of the creator, since once again, they were invite only.

As for them being 'cool kids clubs,' yeah... SWF has I think it was over 100,000 users. I'm not gonna make friends with 100,000 people, it's not even possible, and even in the social group I had a circle of only a handful of really close friends. Like in irl social interactions, people split into groups of like-minded individuals, and create their own hang outs. Trying to do away with that, is like trying to do away with a basic instinct of human interaction.

Anyway, as I said, if those don't come back, expect me to log on to SWF only to respond to a couple ongoing PMs with some people, and that's it. I really would have no more reason to come back here if that were the case. I'm sure many other users feel the same way.

 

[Johnknight1]

That post above is literally my best post ever.

You can find it here.

I don't think I will ever in a million years ever top that post.

[collapse="So with that, I leave you with the logic that:"]

Tires don exits

We must combine all forms of chess because we can't leave any form out

Always counter-pick with either Rainbow Cruise, Mute City, Delfino Plaza, Peach's Castle 64, or Dreamland 64 (in that order), because YOLO and stage hazards that are super predictable on fun stages are the best and have epic combos

"YOLOing through the game" is how you win the game by not actually winning the game

Guile's Theme doesn't go with everything, Everything goes with Guile's Theme

The cake is a lie, but what about the pie=???

Sub-Zero didn't cause the North American Polar Vortex, Scorpion did

I'm the Goddamn Batman; also, Bane

Inception all took place within a night terror, thus the "dream theory" doesn't apply

I saw what happened in the Red Wedding coming and I didn't even read the books. Also, Tyrion dies before the end probably

Gwen Stacy will get killed by the Green Goblin in the Amazing Spider-Man 2 or 3

The Walking Dead TV show is a blasphemous try hard fail copy of the incredible Walking Dead comic books, which you should totally read

Tripping is the wavedashing of Brawl
[/collapse]​

 

[AEMehr]

Social Groups were great though.
/:

I understand the technical hardships it may bring to the staff, but I feel that at least trying to bring it back is better than just saying "No".
It is a major reason why people do continue to return to the forums.

But those are just my thoughts.

 

[Groose]

I'm always shocked by the number of people who use those groups, even though I rarely do myself.

 

[Fastblade5035]

My opinion on this?
Stupid. Absolutely stupid.
And I've gone through this **** before on Zelda Universe. It's scary how similar the two scenarios are.
I've lost one home, and dammit, I refuse to lose another.

 

[Johnknight1]

People of Smash Boards!
Hear my plea!

Our user groups are at stake!

We need your energy!
Lend us your energy by posting support for user groups!

So that we can unite together UNDER ONE SPIRIT BOMB!!!!

 

[Conviction]

For the record, all moderators had full viewing access to social groups before.
.

Damn it, Dan. Oh btw, nice to see you again, we need to chat on skype some time soon.

Anyway, why do we need mods in the first place? Forget auguring for mods in every group. How long have we had social groups? When did this "problem" arise? We've been fine without moderation for a while.

This all goes back to the list AZ made in the first place. The only legit reason I saw was the functionality. How could all those reason become pressing when we've been using them for so long.

I call BS.

 

[Vinylic.]

The best solution is to add modbots, guys!

Social Groups aren't really gonna give me any interest. In fact, I still feel like it's better replaced with an Internet Relay Chat.
However, since it's being heavily demanded to be brought back, I won't bother refusing that option.

 

[lobotheduck21]

meh, outside of functionality (and outside of changing titles it was fine our end), I find all the reasons to be poor, if I want to discuss something, why shouldn't I discuss it with the people I want to discuss it with, plus almost all, if not all, information about SMASH is posted outside of social groups

pm's can't have multiple threads, I don't want to have someone create a pm for everythread for every member

I'll probably be gone (might keep pms with people at the most) if this happens, which is sad, because this is a great website, and I like my internet buddies

 

[lobotheduck21]

heck, our social grouphad had about 1/3 (1/2 at the most) of the group post in the back room, only about me and john post mostly exclusively in there (#MenofMoonknights)

 

[Swamp Sensei]

In short, the normal forums were like our workplace. We enjoyed them and spend much of our time there but they can be stressful at times.

Social groups were places where we could go to relax. Get away from it all and hang out with people we like. They can be compared to our homes.

Don't get rid of our homes.

Please.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

I believe the social groups, while exsclusive in nature, have a sense of community that is different from the larger community we see on boards as a whole. Those who apart of the group community share a common interest and love for the topic.

It's not impossible for new users to enter into them but perhaps admittance to the groups could be more lenient or the different groups are made public knowledge? When a new user registers and after accumulating 10~50 posts, the list of groups are made available to them.

I know next to nothing about coding but my understanding is that it was difficult to implement groups into the new forum. However, if possible, it would be something worth attempting to implement. I think social groups are an excellent addition that, with some moderation and improvements, could really be beneficial to Smashboards.

I agree with Dan (Twinkie) that assigning a mod to each group would end up being more work than its worth. Perhaps limit the amount of social groups or even require a admin/mod to view the group and decide to allow/refuse the social group request? That way, legit groups about justifiable topics are allowed in while unnecessary groups are refused.

Social groups allow users to not restrict the topic purely to a single thread but to create a community that focus on a wide-spectrum of topics thus creating free discussion and meaningful conversation. I sometimes go into the social groups when in the mood but I spend most of my time modding the Smash 4 discussion subsections. Despite that, I do like the social groups, the friends I make in them, and have a lot good memories. For me, the social groups is a positive element for Smashboards. For others, it's really nothing special. And for many more, it's home for them.

Those are my two cents.If it's impossible to program groups into the new forum, that is entirely understandable but if it's possible, please do try.

 

[SuperBrawler]

Some people use it for business I believe

Also, have we lost the ability to change titles?

 

[Warchamp7]

Also, have we lost the ability to change titles?

Should work fine since a couple days ago