More Transparency [Lock Requested]

[Mors]

we cant bring back everything mfgg used to have in the past lol

hi

[GeneralGuy]

we cant bring back everything mfgg used to have in the past lol

Not with that attitude.

Yes we can

[Mors]

we cant bring back everything mfgg used to have in the past lol

Not with that attitude.

Yes we can

Okay we can, but should we?

I mean that sprite doesn't really fit in with the current aesthetic of the forums, and there isn't really much of a reason to have them now besides "MFGG used to have them". It's unnecessary clutter too imo.

hi

[GeneralGuy]

we cant bring back everything mfgg used to have in the past lol

Not with that attitude.

Yes we can

Okay we can, but should we?

I mean that sprite doesn't really fit in with the current aesthetic of the forums, and there isn't really much of a reason to have them now besides "MFGG used to have them". It's unnecessary clutter too imo.

Can we have those sprites on the MFGG Classic (2003-2008) skin? You can use whatever images you want for the other skins, or none at all.

[SonicKade2048]

to be frank with you GeneralGuy, the Superstar Saga sprites are quite possibly some of the most-used Mario sprites in existence, and their style alone isn't really something that can fit right in to, say, a forum skin for example.

I don't really care either way for the idea of having other custom images for such, but maybe it's time we move on from some parts of the past that can't be replicated. In other terms, we don't really need it, it's just something folks like you want.

 Twitter / YouTube / Bandcamp / Neocities / Bluesky 

---

[Pedigree]

Even if all we can agree on is putting the ban reason on a forum profile, that's good enough for me tbh.

---

Make your own threads for emoji requests lmao.

 

[OddieTheRock]

I remember when I suggested this and it got shot down, as it could've led to more drama.

So, I don't think it'll happen.

List of projects I eventually plan to finish after the indefinite hiatus is over, assuming I don't abruptly cancel them:

Spoiler

Mario's Rather Unusual Trilogy (Mario's slightly unusual Boss Rush (Original release completed, Godot port underway), Mario vs. Some Unusual Foes (On hold), Mario's VERY Unusual Final Frontier (On hold))
Sonic's Foray into Random/Unusual Zones (spin-off of Unusual Trilogy, on hold)
Super Mario Flashback: Really Good Edition (On hold)
Super Hilda DX (Development underway)

I am aware that all of this is very ambitious, for now I'm only working on two of these at infrequent intervals.

+ List of projects I'm helping out with in some small capacity during my hiatus:

Spoiler

Super Mario Bros Dimensions 2 (as a spriter, only for Mario's sprites)
MFGG Community Fangame Project 3 (as a spriter)
WordGirl ReWired (as a artist)

[Pedigree]

Because your reasoning and the way you presented it were probably what led to that decision, if I had to guess.

 

[Daisy]

To be honest, I'm on the fence for this one. On one hand, it can show greater transparency and give context into why someone was banned to avoid the risks of arguments when someone asks "why was [user] banned". On the other, it could also increase the risks of arguments as some people just never let things go no matter how much someone may redeem themselves and old, outdated drama could be unfairly brought back as a result of the ban. I'm not gonna give any names but I do know some users may continually haunt formerly banned users even if they have changed their ways if the ban reason is revealed.

Everyone says I'm getting down too low
Everyone says "You just got to let it go"
You just got to let it go
You just got to let it go

[GeneralGuy]

To be honest, I'm on the fence for this one. On one hand, it can show greater transparency and give context into why someone was banned to avoid the risks of arguments when someone asks "why was [user] banned". On the other, it could also increase the risks of arguments as some people just never let things go no matter how much someone may redeem themselves and old, outdated drama could be unfairly brought back as a result of the ban. I'm not gonna give any names but I do know some users may continually haunt formerly banned users even if they have changed their ways if the ban reason is revealed.

This is the fundamental issue at hand. It's a matter of complete transparency, curbing the creation of ban threads and public deterrence from committing offenses versus preventing old forum drama from resurfacing, bulling, ad hominem and ensuring the privacy of all members. It's a tough decision to make. Each direction has their pros and cons. Perhaps a hybrid system that uses attributes of both sides should be considered?

[Daisy]

To be honest, I'm on the fence for this one. On one hand, it can show greater transparency and give context into why someone was banned to avoid the risks of arguments when someone asks "why was [user] banned". On the other, it could also increase the risks of arguments as some people just never let things go no matter how much someone may redeem themselves and old, outdated drama could be unfairly brought back as a result of the ban. I'm not gonna give any names but I do know some users may continually haunt formerly banned users even if they have changed their ways if the ban reason is revealed.

This is the fundamental issue at hand. It's a matter of complete transparency, curbing the creation of ban threads and public deterrence from committing offenses versus preventing old forum drama from resurfacing, bulling, ad hominem and ensuring the privacy of all members. It's a tough decision to make. Each direction has their pros and cons. Perhaps a hybrid system that uses attributes of both sides should be considered?

I would be for a hybrid system using the attributes of both sides but the question is how would that be implemented?

Everyone says I'm getting down too low
Everyone says "You just got to let it go"
You just got to let it go
You just got to let it go

[GeneralGuy]

To be honest, I'm on the fence for this one. On one hand, it can show greater transparency and give context into why someone was banned to avoid the risks of arguments when someone asks "why was [user] banned". On the other, it could also increase the risks of arguments as some people just never let things go no matter how much someone may redeem themselves and old, outdated drama could be unfairly brought back as a result of the ban. I'm not gonna give any names but I do know some users may continually haunt formerly banned users even if they have changed their ways if the ban reason is revealed.

This is the fundamental issue at hand. It's a matter of complete transparency, curbing the creation of ban threads and public deterrence from committing offenses versus preventing old forum drama from resurfacing, bulling, ad hominem and ensuring the privacy of all members. It's a tough decision to make. Each direction has their pros and cons. Perhaps a hybrid system that uses attributes of both sides should be considered?

I would be for a hybrid system using the attributes of both sides but the question is how would that be implemented?

The way it would be implemented would be issuing a temporary description that shows up inside a member's profile clarifying in detail why they were banned/suspended, which immediately disappears once their suspension is over. Additionally, the ban usergroup would either be removed to completely remove the unwanted attention, or at least toned down to be less of a spectacle. This ensures complete forum transparency, helps curb the creation of threads asking why someone was banned, dissuades others from breaking the rules, along with preventing old drama from resurfacing because there isn't any ban log to reference, and somewhat gives members privacy due to the subtle and provisional nature of the new warn system.

[Pedigree]

I retract my opinion. Please lock. Thank you.

 

[Mors]

I'd normally keep this unlocked but I guess if someone wants to add something I guess you can make a new thread.

For the record we are probably still going to add this regardless.

But yeah, locked.

hi