mas

My feedback

  1. 30 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    processed  ·  2 comments  ·  Feedback » Feature: Photos  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    mas supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    mas commented  · 

    100% yes.
    The watermark, while a good-intentioned idea, has unintended and serious consequences.

    Basically if a photo you upload here ends up in the wild and someone you know sees it, they will have a url that brings them straight to your profile where other photos and details will instantly confirm the profile is you.

    The other problem with the watermark is that it should really be associated with the logged in account VIEWING the photo, not the account that posted the photo. That way, if a photo escapes into the wild, it will be instantly obvious who the perpetrator that let it loose was. The way it works now, there's no way to know who stole it.

  2. 256 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    processed  ·  16 comments  ·  Feedback » Feature: Profile  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    mas commented  · 

    I believe this is a good idea but better if combined with a reputation system: http://forums.grokiolabs.com/forums/281889-feedback/suggestions/7064528-reputation-tracking

    If someone who has been around for a while and has an excellent reputation flags a profile as spam, it should count for a lot more than if someone who just signed up does it. In fact, it could even count for enough to hide the profile on their own... and spare users from having to wait until some X number of member report it. It would greatly speed up getting rid of egregious trespassers.

    FWIW, I feel that a "suspended" profile should be simply hidden from view by default and treated as if having a negative reputation. Members could, if they wanted, change their settings to see posts by such profiles, or change their settings to allow wall posts or being contacted by such profiles.

    This would be completely separate from the my type filter, of course.

  3. 285 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    processed  ·  37 comments  ·  Feedback » Feature: Cross-functional  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    mas commented  · 

    There are a lot of permutations and shades. I wish there were a simple way to chart it.

    A mutual gainer might still be ok with just encouraging, or just gaining, or either. Or a mutual gainer might be exclusively into mutual gaining.

    A gainer might be someone who just sort of gains but isn't trying to but enjoys it anyway. A gainer might be someone who only likes to gain when they are encouraged to gain. A gainer might be someone who only wishes to gain if they are in a sub/dom relationship with an encourager/feeder.

    A gainer might be someone who doesn't care about gaining, but enjoys being fed... or stuffed. He might enjoy that his partner gets off on his weight gain even if he himself doesn't care. Or maybe he only enjoys that his partner gets off on his gluttony but not weight gain.

    A gainer might only want muscle. Or muscle and fat. Or mostly muscle and some fat up to a point.

    All of these might be mutual to some degree or not.

    Currently, tagging as gainer AND encourager suggests mutual gaining. What would it mean if someone tagged as mutual gainer and gainer but not encourager? That they don't care to encourage someone unless they too are gaining?

    Similarly, currently you can tag as gainer but not check "feeding (feedee)" as an interest. Or vice versa. I find that distinction more confusing than helpful.

    All of this is to say it's not a simple task to reduce the various desires to tags. However, I would like to see it done well. I feel like just having a handful of clear, distinct, profile tags should be able to communicate pretty much every possible combination. But we would need to move some of the stuff out of sexual interests and kinks probably, and abstract it to profile tags.

  4. 490 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    processed  ·  60 comments  ·  Feedback » Feature: Newsfeeds  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    mas commented  · 

    By this argument, even Playboy would be considered prostitution.

    However, I agree it's lame and should be curtailed. At the very least it should be frowned upon as a community. People should not feel comfortable asking for money. If you want money for your gaining, set up a porno site and sell memberships / donations. Xtube enables this. We should not, as a community, have to be dragged through the muck.

    I bet more than half the guys seeking donations for gaining are just milking people for money and don't use it for gaining anyway. There's only so much money you can spend on gaining anyway. At some point you're going to end up with an overage that gets spent on other stuff.

    Also, anyone who actually needs donations to gain is either too young to be engaging in such an enterprise, or has more important problems and shouldn't be spending so much time on Grommr.

    All in all it's totally ripe for abuse and anti-community.

    I would go a step further and say it should be against the community rules to ever solicit at all. Even in private messaging. Even then, there's no protecting the people that ultimately take their interactions with each other outside grommr. But at least if we educated members about what is right or not it might help.

    An encourager might delight in buying food for a gainer to have the feeling that he is responsible for that gainer's gains. But I find that very creepy unless the two involved are already intimate friends. Regardless, PayPal is a horrible way to manage this. So unless the encourager is the one to initiate it "hey, I'd like to send you some food, are you open to that"... or until there's a FoodPal or a way to integrate credits and accounting into Grommr itself and link it up with Amazon or something, I say outlaw it.

  5. 38 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    processed  ·  2 comments  ·  Feedback » Moderation/Community  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    mas commented  · 

    One particularly great application of having reputation is that you can build out Content Flagging Mechanisms.

    If there are trouble-makers on the site, (nudity, spam, etc), then each member that flags that content is essentially putting their reputation behind their report. When enough reputation weight has flagged something, then the system can automatically manage hiding it from all users (or blocking a spammer/phisher), without needing to wait for an admin to manage it.

    It goes without saying that any member caught unjustly reporting someone else could be penalized by having their reputation docked by an admin by an arbitrary amount of points. This would prevent members from flagging someone they have a dispute with.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    mas commented  · 

    The simple way to do this is max out reputation at some number (100 or 1000). Once you hit the max, you've got an A grade and that's it, you're done (requires not assigning grades to anyone until at least one person hits the max though!)

    OR

    The complicated (but potentially more useful) way would be to have no maximum score, grade on a curve, and automatically age reputation:

    Every month, a member who has not logged in would lose 10% of reputation, down to 10 points. Thereafter, lose 1 pt per month until they hit 0.

    Members who are active would lose 0.5X% of their reputation, where X is equal to their reputation percentile expressed as an index of 1 to 10. So if you're at the top of the reputation scale, your index would be 10. You would therefore lose 5% this month.

    This way, new members are always able to catch up and the playing field would constantly be self-leveling.

    An interesting twist would be to make reputation for attending live events protected and unageable. I'm pretty sure that's a lot more complicated than anyone wants to program though ;)

    OR

    A third approach is sort of a hybrid method. Use hardcoded point thresholds/milestones for grades (i.e.: 100 or 1000 for A)... yet still allow points to accrue indefinitely. So John could have 1000 pt and Greg 10000, but both would have an A.

    In this approach, the grade is used for filter behavior as stated in the original proposal, while the raw score would be useful for determining other behaviors (perhaps granting moderation privileges, or running a contest... anything). The raw score need not be exposed in any case.

    mas supported this idea  · 
    mas shared this idea  · 
  6. 364 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    processed  ·  4 comments  ·  Feedback » Feature: Photos  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    mas shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base