Prides

[FlipMode]

[quote="YFWE"]I think the pride leader problem could be solved simply by having the member who suggested it be that pride's leader -- you know, since it was their idea, their pride, and all.

Once all the kinks are worked out in the theorizing stage, I think this is something implementable, if enough members actually WANT it. I think we should wait for more member feedback first and see what direction the rest of us want to take it. If enough members want to do it in some form, fully knowing what consequences could befall it, I don't think it would hurt too much to start them on a trial basis. But they can easily be taken away, I think that should be stressed.[/quote]

That is what I meant originally; the leader (or shall we say king/queen) would be the founder of the pride hence having to earn the right to create one :) would not make sense for them to then not be the owner.

[AdAstrα]

The idea itself isn't bad and I see how it could be better than for instance the member dens, however it could also create many problems and ultimately do more harm than good. I don't know.

[YFWE]

[quote="FlipMode"][quote="YFWE"]I think the pride leader problem could be solved simply by having the member who suggested it be that pride's leader -- you know, since it was their idea, their pride, and all.

Once all the kinks are worked out in the theorizing stage, I think this is something implementable, if enough members actually WANT it. I think we should wait for more member feedback first and see what direction the rest of us want to take it. If enough members want to do it in some form, fully knowing what consequences could befall it, I don't think it would hurt too much to start them on a trial basis. But they can easily be taken away, I think that should be stressed.[/quote]

That is what I meant originally; the leader (or shall we say king/queen) would be the founder of the pride hence having to earn the right to create one would not make sense for them to then not be the owner.[/quote]

Right, I thought that's what you meant too, but it didn't seem clear to some people... wanted to make sure that's what the message was!

One potential issue I could foresee is in terms of a member starting a pride and then like... no one joining. As unfortunate as it'd be, I think we'd have to, say, retire that pride after a period of maybe two weeks of inactivity (i.e. no one else joining) so as to cut down on the clutter of OMG THIS IS MY PRIDE AND IT'S JUST ME IN IT LOL I'M LIKE A ROOOOGUE and stuff.

[KingKivuli]

OK i love the idea just one problem, eventually everyone will want their own pride and we will all be rogues

so heres what i suggest

the mods/admin make the starting prides with their rules. then lets say every 2 months each mod picks a mebmer of their pride to start a new one and they go to voting and the one winner is allowed to start a pride of their own

this way we got get super pride spammed instantly and with the mods in charge for start it can be a test drive for things like contests and what not before letting the members run wild

[FlipMode]

Right okay I get what you are suggesting and honestly I do not mind if for a trial period that only staff would be in charge of one. However I do not think there is too much of a problem in regards to everyone becoming rouges; if inactive prides get archived just like the member dens currently do perhaps.

[KingKivuli]

Thats understandable but im thinking if we just have a trail and then after a month go 'ok you can all have prides' there will be a huge surge and mass clutter and confusion.

basically let the mods do a job of moderating

it stops having possible hundreds of prides at once. and just have a few at a time that will slowly grow and eventiully new ones come in and old ones drop out

[Azdgari]

Having staff run prides, even just initially, will create a massive amount of enmity towards staff. People will not like the idea of only staff being only to make Prides, and given the amount of anti "staff are doing this we have no say power to the members" sentiment around here already I think that would ignite pretty quickly. :3

[SnowyCheetah]

Great idea! I'd love to see this come to fruition =D

[YFWE]

I don't think that staff-run prides are something that needs to be undertaken, for reasons already mentioned here. The simple fact is that you can't have a clamp on everything; sometimes you gotta lean back and let the members sort things out. Yeah, it could go wrong, but it could also go right. Same way with staff-run: could go wrong, could go right.

A potential solution? Allow these on a trial basis at first, and only allow a select few members to start prides at first. Do it by seniority, or something like that. Allow 3 or 4 members to start one, and if one chosen member says no thanks, go to the next member on the list.

I think that if it was done that way, you could avoid certain potential issues, because in theory, the more senior members of the site are also more responsible and won't be causing senseless drama. Let these prides run as is, work out some kinks here and there, and once the staff feels that the concept is ready for a wide launch, go with it. From there, the rogue problem could be solved by taking out inactive prides after, say, a week or two. Or prides could still be added in moderation, maybe five at a time, but that's if members still want to add other prides after the first few are implemented.

I'm sure this still raises some yellow flags here, but I think us members and the staff can get this right through trial and error. Everything may not be smooth sailing at first, nor may it be smooth sailing always, but I think the community will be able to handle it.

And if not, nix the idea, nip it in the bud, and move on, am I right?

[Kopalover]

What if it's a pride and they are planning to get a bunch of people to join it. So the 'Leader' can tell them to put down or bully some other member.