I'm getting sick and tired of the childish behaviour here.

[Daniel Wu]

So I don't think splitting the forums is a solution that will fix the problem. It could even go the other way, and when people try to be good, and they still aren't accepted, they will randomly spam and flame everyone because they give up and don't care anymore.

I think this will be the most likely result of splitting the forums.

 

[JTW2007]

I can see it going either way. You do raise a very valid point about creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by separating "superior" members.

@Mistarts: I don't think the forum gives off the impression of being against children. I was never heavily discriminated against.

 

[PatrickJameson]

The only problem with this idea of splitting it is one thing.

A lot of newcomers already think that the other members 'act superior,' as shown in samlambert's (or some name like that) thread about him leaving. In there at least 3 people talked about how they felt other people were acting superior, and how it ruined their experience on the forums.

How does this tie into our discussion?
By splitting the forum, it is acting as if the people allowed in there are "superior" to the other members. While it is usually the case, most newcomers won't like the idea, especially if they think they deserve to be in there and they aren't.

So I don't think splitting the forums is a solution that will fix the problem. It could even go the other way, and when people try to be good, and they still aren't accepted, they will randomly spam and flame everyone because they give up and don't care anymore.

Just my opinion.
~Chris

Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with any these ideas but, this whole, 'acting superior', thing is stupid. First off, in the case of SamLambert, I was one of the main people who set him over the edge in a conversation I was having with him. If anything, he was being the person, 'acting superior'. I won't go into detail but if his case is similar to the other people complaining of people, 'acting superior', then it's completely the person's fault they feel that way.

Secondly, not that I encourage using superiority to make people feel bad about themselves, nor am i saying I am one of these people, but why is it a bad thing to point out the more knowledgeable, 'superior', people in the community? Pointing them out would help newcomers in figuring out which people are more reliable in their answers.

 

[4Chan]

The only problem with this idea of splitting it is one thing.

A lot of newcomers already think that the other members 'act superior,' as shown in samlambert's (or some name like that) thread about him leaving. In there at least 3 people talked about how they felt other people were acting superior, and how it ruined their experience on the forums.

How does this tie into our discussion?
By splitting the forum, it is acting as if the people allowed in there are "superior" to the other members. While it is usually the case, most newcomers won't like the idea, especially if they think they deserve to be in there and they aren't.

So I don't think splitting the forums is a solution that will fix the problem. It could even go the other way, and when people try to be good, and they still aren't accepted, they will randomly spam and flame everyone because they give up and don't care anymore.

Just my opinion.
~Chris

Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with any these ideas but, this whole, 'acting superior', thing is stupid. First off, in the case of SamLambert, I was one of the main people who set him over the edge in a conversation I was having with him. If anything, he was being the person, 'acting superior'. I won't go into detail but if his case is similar to the other people complaining of people, 'acting superior', then it's completely the person's fault they feel that way.

Secondly, not that I encourage using superiority to make people feel bad about themselves, nor am i saying I am one of these people, but why is it a bad thing to point out the more knowledgeable, 'superior', people in the community? Pointing them out would help newcomers in figuring out which people are more reliable in their answers.

Hey man, I know what youre talking about, I was in that thread too.
Indeed, samlambert was forcing his own opinions in that thread, patrickjameson and I simply enlightened him.

Also, if we were to use quantitative data with people and classify them by speed, experience, and general usefulness to the community, we will have a superior group and an inferior group.

Example: Lucas and Stefan are far more superior than tfkscores or 4weeksandimsub60. Thats just a way of life.

 

[PatrickJameson]

Hey man, I know what youre talking about, I was in that thread too.
Indeed, samlambert was forcing his own opinions in that thread, patrickjameson and I simply enlightened him.

What thread? I'm guessing we are thinking of different situations. The conversation I was talking about was not on this forum.

 

[4Chan]

Hey man, I know what youre talking about, I was in that thread too.
Indeed, samlambert was forcing his own opinions in that thread, patrickjameson and I simply enlightened him.

What thread? I'm guessing we are thinking of different situations. The conversation I was talking about was not on this forum.

Ah, sorry.

I thought it was the thread in which samlambert said that fridrich was not the "normal" method.

I gave him the dictionary definition for normal, and you did too, a few posts later.

EDIT: This was the day before he posted his farewell thread.

 

[ChrisBird]

The only problem with this idea of splitting it is one thing.

A lot of newcomers already think that the other members 'act superior,' as shown in samlambert's (or some name like that) thread about him leaving. In there at least 3 people talked about how they felt other people were acting superior, and how it ruined their experience on the forums.

How does this tie into our discussion?
By splitting the forum, it is acting as if the people allowed in there are "superior" to the other members. While it is usually the case, most newcomers won't like the idea, especially if they think they deserve to be in there and they aren't.

So I don't think splitting the forums is a solution that will fix the problem. It could even go the other way, and when people try to be good, and they still aren't accepted, they will randomly spam and flame everyone because they give up and don't care anymore.

Just my opinion.
~Chris

Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with any these ideas but, this whole, 'acting superior', thing is stupid. First off, in the case of SamLambert, I was one of the main people who set him over the edge in a conversation I was having with him. If anything, he was being the person, 'acting superior'. I won't go into detail but if his case is similar to the other people complaining of people, 'acting superior', then it's completely the person's fault they feel that way.

Secondly, not that I encourage using superiority to make people feel bad about themselves, nor am i saying I am one of these people, but why is it a bad thing to point out the more knowledgeable, 'superior', people in the community? Pointing them out would help newcomers in figuring out which people are more reliable in their answers.

I think having people that are superior is fine, but new members want to feel accepted into the forums, and not be treated like garbage.

As long as those superior people don't use that title to gain advantage.
Example:
User: Algorithm A is better because of this reason.
Person who is Superior: No, Algorithm B is better, and I'm superior to you so your opinion is not valid here.

That kind of thing.
The problem with superiority, like with YouTube and fanboys/girls is that people will agree with the person deemed superior due solely to the fact s/he is labeled as superior. Not even taking into consideration the situation at hand.

In the situation above, people would all agree with the superior person, usually without giving any thought to the other persons opinion. Kind of like the mob mentality (be on the side thats winning and mercilessly flame and destroy the other without knowing much/anything about the situation.)

On these forums, I have seen the people who I see as superior usually acting in a respectable way, and accepting of other peoples thoughts. But in a few rare incidents, I have seen them using their position to gain an advantage that isn't always proven.

While I am unable to point to any such case specifically, you guys understand what I mean.

So to sum this up, I'm fine with superior people, and them being superior, but we can't have everyone else joining in with them, against someone else, because that someone else attempted to point out a different opinion or viewpoint.

As for the 'superior only' forum, as suggested, I would still think this isn't a completely good idea. Maybe a section where only select people can make/start threads, and everyone can post might be a good idea.

Again, only my opinion.

~Chris

 

[ender9994]

A quick question to everyone who thinks splitting the forums into two groups is a good idea. How exactly do you plan on implementing this? Are you going to do background checks on every member? Or perhaps you plan on going through every post everyone has ever made and judging its usefulness. My main point here is that a fair way on implementing this would be almost impossible to implement and I doubt a good solution to this problem will ever be found.

 

[Dene]

I don't think superiority is an issue at all. New members will in fact have a guide as to who to rely on for answers. Presently the only guide they have is post count, and we all know that is not an indicator of anything (myself being the best example of that).

A quick question to everyone who thinks splitting the forums into two groups is a good idea. How exactly do you plan on implementing this? Are you going to do background checks on every member? Or perhaps you plan on going through every post everyone has ever made and judging its usefulness. My main point here is that a fair way on implementing this would be almost impossible to implement and I doubt a good solution to this problem will ever be found.

We are a fairly close-knit community. We already all have some good ideas as to who would be valuable in such a group. New people can be let in as they show themselves to be of value to the community outside the section.

 

[fanwuq]

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13461
See my latest post.
Rubik's Cube Fan made a nice 1st reply that should have ended the topic.
But no. Insults came and then Dene declared it a LOLthread and Bam. Yeah we all love Dene, but sometimes I think he goes too far with beginners who don't know his style.

I say Mike Hughey should be a moderator.

I don't think new posters should show value immediately. Just help them a little and be friendly... they will either leave because of lack of interest or stay and gain knowledge.

 

[PatrickJameson]

I think having people that are superior is fine, but new members want to feel accepted into the forums, and not be treated like garbage.

As long as those superior people don't use that title to gain advantage.
Example:
User: Algorithm A is better because of this reason.
Person who is Superior: No, Algorithm B is better, and I'm superior to you so your opinion is not valid here.

Anyone who would say something like this I would never see as superior.

That kind of thing.
The problem with superiority, like with YouTube and fanboys/girls is that people will agree with the person deemed superior due solely to the fact s/he is labeled as superior. Not even taking into consideration the situation at hand.

In the situation above, people would all agree with the superior person, usually without giving any thought to the other persons opinion. Kind of like the mob mentality (be on the side thats winning and mercilessly flame and destroy the other without knowing much/anything about the situation.)

One thing with Youtube is, the more views you have, the more people you have watching you, and the more people in which you have the chance to get them on your side. Unlike Youtube, speedsolving isn't a community in which, the more people like you, the more people will view your threads. Everyone will view everyone's threads evenly.

On these forums, I have seen the people who I see as superior usually acting in a respectable way, and accepting of other peoples thoughts. But in a few rare incidents, I have seen them using their position to gain an advantage that isn't always proven.

Anyone who I, in my opinion, see as superior would always take into consideration other people's thoughts and admit when they were wrong about something. I can not think of anyone in that category who would be so stubborn as to not take into consideration the thoughts of others, nor use their superiority to gain an advantage during a situation.

 

[JLarsen]

I think there are some real....jerks on this forum, and that the noobs really aren't that incredibly annoying. But I'm probably the only one that thinks this way, and has been here as long as I have.

 

[ChrisBird]

I think having people that are superior is fine, but new members want to feel accepted into the forums, and not be treated like garbage.

As long as those superior people don't use that title to gain advantage.
Example:
User: Algorithm A is better because of this reason.
Person who is Superior: No, Algorithm B is better, and I'm superior to you so your opinion is not valid here.

Anyone who would say something like this I would never see as superior.

That kind of thing.
The problem with superiority, like with YouTube and fanboys/girls is that people will agree with the person deemed superior due solely to the fact s/he is labeled as superior. Not even taking into consideration the situation at hand.

In the situation above, people would all agree with the superior person, usually without giving any thought to the other persons opinion. Kind of like the mob mentality (be on the side thats winning and mercilessly flame and destroy the other without knowing much/anything about the situation.)

One thing with Youtube is, the more views you have, the more people you have watching you, and the more people in which you have the chance to get them on your side. Unlike Youtube, speedsolving isn't a community in which, the more people like you, the more people will view your threads. Everyone will view everyone's threads evenly.

On these forums, I have seen the people who I see as superior usually acting in a respectable way, and accepting of other peoples thoughts. But in a few rare incidents, I have seen them using their position to gain an advantage that isn't always proven.

Anyone who I, in my opinion, see as superior would always take into consideration other people's thoughts and admit when they were wrong about something. I can not think of anyone in that category who would be so stubborn as to not take into consideration the thoughts of others, nor use their superiority to gain an advantage during a situation.

Thats the point, splitting the forum would make a definite line of who IS superior, and who ISN'T. Whether I think person X is superior or not, allowing him into that forum will mean that the powers at be claim he is superior, so even if I don't think he is, he can do that (claim he is right in any situation etc), and still be labeled superior.

Except people will join in with the people they deem superior, especially if they are set aside as superior, just because of the fact they view him/her as a better person, and therefore someone who is obviously always right regardless of situation (fanboy/girl tendency). Allowing someone access to some special forum will not make them superior, just make them viewed as superior by people who don't know that person.

Lets say Person Y is set aside, and allowed access to that forum.
But you hate person Y, because he secretly treats you like some lame piece of crap no one likes.
He is claimed to be superior, even though you don't think so. This is the problem ender was trying to bring up. There is almost no one who everyone thinks is superior. There will always be one group of people who that one person annoyed. Which kills the whole argument of "no one who I think is superior would do that."

I do fully understand and respect your opinion, and the fact that is based solely in logic, but I just wanted to let you know my opinion.

~Chris

 

[PatrickJameson]

I think having people that are superior is fine, but new members want to feel accepted into the forums, and not be treated like garbage.

As long as those superior people don't use that title to gain advantage.
Example:
User: Algorithm A is better because of this reason.
Person who is Superior: No, Algorithm B is better, and I'm superior to you so your opinion is not valid here.

Anyone who would say something like this I would never see as superior.

That kind of thing.
The problem with superiority, like with YouTube and fanboys/girls is that people will agree with the person deemed superior due solely to the fact s/he is labeled as superior. Not even taking into consideration the situation at hand.

In the situation above, people would all agree with the superior person, usually without giving any thought to the other persons opinion. Kind of like the mob mentality (be on the side thats winning and mercilessly flame and destroy the other without knowing much/anything about the situation.)

One thing with Youtube is, the more views you have, the more people you have watching you, and the more people in which you have the chance to get them on your side. Unlike Youtube, speedsolving isn't a community in which, the more people like you, the more people will view your threads. Everyone will view everyone's threads evenly.

On these forums, I have seen the people who I see as superior usually acting in a respectable way, and accepting of other peoples thoughts. But in a few rare incidents, I have seen them using their position to gain an advantage that isn't always proven.

Anyone who I, in my opinion, see as superior would always take into consideration other people's thoughts and admit when they were wrong about something. I can not think of anyone in that category who would be so stubborn as to not take into consideration the thoughts of others, nor use their superiority to gain an advantage during a situation.

Thats the point, splitting the forum would make a definite line of who IS superior, and who ISN'T. Whether I think person X is superior or not, allowing him into that forum will mean that the powers at be claim he is superior, so even if I don't think he is, he can do that (claim he is right in any situation etc), and still be labeled superior.

Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with any these ideas

Just reminding .

 

[JTW2007]

I say Mike Hughey should be a moderator.

Agreed! And you just gave me an idea. What if we could have a mod vote thread, in which people vote others to be mods? With enough votes, someone would be PM'd with a notice and could either accept or decline.

 

[mazei]

Of course this should be something that is done once or at most twice a year? By mods and not some person?

 

[dbax0999]

I say Mike Hughey should be a moderator.

Agreed! And you just gave me an idea. What if we could have a mod vote thread, in which people vote others to be mods? With enough votes, someone would be PM'd with a notice and could either accept or decline.

This is just my humble opinion. But I think the current moderators should determine who, if anybody, becomes a new moderator.

 

[ChrisBird]

I think how we choose moderators is kind of off-topic.

So far, it seems all of the ideas have downsides.

Has there been any decisions that most people have agreed on that have more upsides then down?

 

[JTW2007]

Of course this should be something that is done once or at most twice a year? By mods and not some person?

I was thinking once a year by all the mods.

 

[masterofthebass]

But I'm probably the only one that thinks this way, and has been here as long as I have.

Are you serious? you haven't even been here for a year. plenty of others have been here for almost 3... Don't go thinking you are a forum veteran when you have little experience of speedsolving in its "glory days", when almost every thread had a purpose and generated a good discussion.