ideas Site Suggestion Box

[nos.17 5,120]

Can we get RMIP added as an abbreviation?

RMIP = Runway Markings Improvement Pack.

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

20 minutes ago, nos.17 said:

Can we get RMIP added as an abbreviation?

Sure thing. I think this is one I can do.

(My meal is about ready tho, so I'll peek under the hood later this evening.)

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

RMIP added.

The acronyms work on a per post basis so it's not retroactive, but CB could use his magic to perform a site-wide search and replace in the database. (Let's beep @Cyclone Boom and see if'n he'll do that. )

[nos.17 5,120]

12 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

RMIP added.

The acronyms work on a per post basis so it's not retroactive, but CB could use his magic to perform a site-wide search and replace in the database. (Let's beep @Cyclone Boom and see if'n he'll do that. )

Thank you!

[trar 334]

I've got two suggestions:

The contact methods in user profiles are simply outmoded. There's five fields, and four of them are for AIM, MSN, Yahoo and Skype. The first three literally don't exist anymore and Skype has largely been overtaken by Discord. I'd propose getting rid of AIM/MSN/Yahoo (but keeping Skype since it still does exist), adding newer platforms such as Bluesky, Steam and Discord, and adding email as well since it's a long-standing communications method apparently immune to the ravages of time.

I'd also suggest considering additions to the city-building game(s) profile field, some examples are Urbek City Builder, TheoTown, and Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic. I know Simtrop admins would certainly want to vet any potential additions for quality and relevance, and each addition would likely warrant a new City-Building Games subforum. Maybe there could be a community system or method for specifically suggesting games to add?

[simmering 2,637]

2 hours ago, trar said:

I'd propose getting rid of AIM/MSN/Yahoo (but keeping Skype since it still does exist)

Actually, Skype has only until May 5th 2025, see https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2025/02/28/the-next-chapter-moving-from-skype-to-microsoft-teams/ 

[trar 334]

9 minutes ago, simmering said:

Actually, Skype has only until May 5th 2025, see https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2025/02/28/the-next-chapter-moving-from-skype-to-microsoft-teams/ 

Go figure.

[Haljackey 17,302]

I'd like to address AI images. I understand they might be unavoidable on some forum pages and whatnot, but the home page? Really?

 

 

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

10 hours ago, Haljackey said:

I'd like to address AI images.

That is the image the author submitted to represent their feature presentation. I don't see anything in it depicting violence or pornography or anything which would violate any rules we have in place.

[Haljackey 17,302]

15 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

That is the image the author submitted to represent their feature presentation. I don't see anything in it depicting violence or pornography or anything which would violate any rules we have in place.

I just think it gives the site a bad look. We have so many 'real' images to showcase on the homepage- and the first thing users see is AI slop? 

I understand this isn't breaking any rules, just expressing my disapproval of it. This is the suggestion box, is it not?  

Thus I 'suggest' no AI images on the home page 

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

6 minutes ago, Haljackey said:

This is the suggestion box, is it not?  

It is indeed.  

And I sort of figured since I'm an admin I'd go ahead and shoot it down so you won't lie awake at night wondering when it'll get implemented.  

[Shadow Assassin 336]

34 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

It is indeed.  

And I sort of figured since I'm an admin I'd go ahead and shoot it down so you won't lie awake at night wondering when it'll get implemented.  

Suggestion box or not, I'd like to see a bit more scrutiny around AI-generated images.

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

1 hour ago, Shadow Assassin said:

Suggestion box or not, I'd like to see a bit more scrutiny around AI-generated images.

Sounds like it needs it's own topic then. 

[Shadow Assassin 336]

17 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

Sounds like it needs it's own topic then. 

Yeah, nah, I think it's something that needs to be addressed in this thread honestly.

I am aware that AI generated images are a huge rabbit hole that the moderation team is absolutely not willing to deal with, but you are aware you opened a huge loophole here as an admin of this site, right?

2 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

That is the image the author submitted to represent their feature presentation. I don't see anything in it depicting violence or pornography or anything which would violate any rules we have in place.

Specifically, that as long as said AI images are not violent or pornographic, but that there's no attempt to state specifically what's acceptable as AI content. What's there to stop someone uploading an AI generated image of a SC4 region for example?

All that's needed is a statement that a specific image was AI-generated, or if multiple AI generated images are used in a forum post or similar they probably should state otherwise, otherwise we get an absolute torrent of AI slop that degrades the quality of commentary on this site.

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

I perfer that boundaries are drawn on this site as to what AI can be used and what not.

Using AI to generate an image to publicize an SC4 content may be acceptable in its gray area of morality and for which case by case checks must be made

but using AI to generate a City Journal or BAT is a complete no-no. Already there are users who are testing AI to generate a BAT and the thread is here

but by testing the various AI's they are starting to be capable in generating an developed SC4 region that a person takes time in developing

So the question we all want to have is the following

How should we handle AI-generated content on simtropolis?

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

40 minutes ago, Shadow Assassin said:

... otherwise we get an absolute torrent of AI slop that degrades the quality of commentary on this site.

I believe the integrity of our members will come into play inasmuch as they won't spam the site with those kind of images, but I do see your point and as such, we'll need to remain vigilant and see if it does become a problem. For myself, I'd be a bit curious what AI would come up with for SC4 images. I wonder if they would rival @korver's creations?

 

1 minute ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

Already there are users who are testing AI to generate a BAT

Cool. I'll pop over there and take a peek.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

8 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

I believe the integrity of our members will come into play inasmuch as they won't spam the site with those kind of images, but I do see your point and as such, we'll need to remain vigilant and see if it does become a problem. For myself, I'd be a bit curious what AI would come up with for SC4 images. I wonder if they would rival @korver's creations?

I like your optimism

You completely missed my point though. It's too easy for someone of whatshisface's ilk to come in and create custom content that was generated with ChatGPT and pass it off as their original content. So basically you're saying you're OK with that?

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

12 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

I believe the integrity of our members will come into play inasmuch as they won't spam the site with those kind of images, but I do see your point and as such, we'll need to remain vigilant and see if it does become a problem. For myself, I'd be a bit curious what AI would come up with for SC4 images. I wonder if they would rival @korver's creations?

Maybe we can add a little rule where if you use generated content it has to be declared. I don't think it would be difficult to write a sentence

Mod uses AI generated content to promote SC4 content

or something like that

Because from what I read it seems to me that it's okay for Simtropolis admins to flood the website with AI content without it being explicitly declared

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

6 minutes ago, Shadow Assassin said:

So basically you're saying you're OK with that?

No, I believe I'm saying: Point it out and let's take a look and see if it feels like we need to make a rule about it or not. I personally see nothing wrong with the image @Ulisse Wolf used for their front page feature nor with the linked thread.

What else is there currently?

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

1 minute ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

Because from what I read it seems to me that it's okay for Simtropolis admins to flood the website with AI content without it being explicitly declared

We did that?!? Where?

[Shadow Assassin 336]

4 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

No, I believe I'm saying: Point it out and let's take a look and see if it feels like we need to make a rule about it or not. I personally see nothing wrong with the image @Ulisse Wolf used for their front page feature nor with the linked thread.

What else is there currently?

Okay, so we'll just let it happen, that's fine👍

@Haljackey specifically called out @Ulisse Wolf's image because while it's not malicious at all, and there isn't anything wrong with it, it is still AI-generated and it was highly prominent on the front page.

I know you're thinking "it's just an image, no big deal", it seems harmless, but there are some real thorns below the surface. What are you letting into the community we cultivate by not doing anything?

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

13 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

We did that?!? Where?

The problem that people may interpret the comment I quoted that way.

Although this topic is getting very hot and I honestly don't feel like fighting over an AI, but I think for everyone's sake that we need to add a recommendation where if the user uses AI-generated content to promote an SC4 content they have to declare it.

This is coming from someone who uses AI-generated content to promote a Code Mod (CAM)

 

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

2 minutes ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

I think for everyone's sake that we need to add a recommendation where if the user uses AI-generated content to promote an SC4 content they have to declare it.

Alright. I'll change to saying I'm not opposed to adding something like that if'n y'all feel it's seriously needed. I'm not yet convinced, but I'll not make a blanket ruling as I did in reply to Hal.  

[Shadow Assassin 336]

3 minutes ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

The problem that people may interpret the comment I quoted that way.

Although this topic is getting very hot and I honestly don't feel like fighting over an AI, but I think for everyone's sake that we need to add a recommendation where if the user uses AI-generated content to promote an SC4 content they have to declare it.

This is coming from someone who uses AI-generated content to promote a Code Mod (CAM)

 

Just a reminder, AI is a tool, and should be treated as such. There is nothing wrong with AI-generated content. My beef is when someone creates content that's clearly generated with ChatGPT or otherwise, and they pass it off as their own.

[kschmidt 6,164]

4 hours ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

The problem that people may interpret the comment I quoted that way.

Although this topic is getting very hot and I honestly don't feel like fighting over an AI, but I think for everyone's sake that we need to add a recommendation where if the user uses AI-generated content to promote an SC4 content they have to declare it.

This is coming from someone who uses AI-generated content to promote a Code Mod (CAM)

 

The problem with AI generated content except personal  generated content, the use of others content that´s the problem ! If proofed it should beremoved immidiately.  Single picture used for non profit purpose Ok, City Journals and galleries of work created by others No ! AI to guese words entered on the website very annoying ! Spellchecker, option toturn it on off ! Real horror a crawler wich checks website for content to create AI !

Sincerely yours,

Kschmidt

[simmering 2,637]

Would it be possible to get background information when staff post STEX files on behalf of other users? E.g. the @Pegasus account keeps issuing new files despite having last visited over a decade ago. It would be nice to know why this happens.

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

5 hours ago, simmering said:

Would it be possible to get background information when staff post STEX files on behalf of other users?

You can view the change log for each updated file. It's down near the bottom after the main description.

[simmering 2,637]

3 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

You can view the change log for each updated file. It's down near the bottom after the main description.

Perhaps I am doing something wrong but I cannot see any changelogs for new (first time) releases like these:

• https://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/36983-simpeg-agricultural-mod-spam-base-set/
• https://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/36968-peg-trail-parks-ll/

Do they only appear with the first change but not on initial release?

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

31 minutes ago, simmering said:

Perhaps I am doing something wrong but I cannot see any changelogs for new (first time) releases like these:

Ah! It so happened the one I checked as a recent upload did have a change log.  

Yes, you are correct when it is a first time upload then there will not be a change log. The description itself will tell all about what it is. For members who are no longer active, but have new files appearing then that will be a staff upload restoring lost of missing content (or even a newly tweaked and bundled version of their content).

Once they upload it, they have a tool to change the author's name to the original creator.

So in those cases it's quite likely @Tyberius06 behind the scenes.  

[Tyberius06 12,189]

22 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

Ah! It so happened the one I checked as a recent upload did have a change log.  

Yes, you are correct when it is a first time upload then there will not be a change log. The description itself will tell all about what it is. For members who are no longer active, but have new files appearing then that will be a staff upload restoring lost of missing content (or even a newly tweaked and bundled version of their content).

Once they upload it, they have a tool to change the author's name to the original creator.

So in those cases it's quite likely @Tyberius06 behind the scenes.  

1 hour ago, simmering said:

Perhaps I am doing something wrong but I cannot see any changelogs for new (first time) releases like these:

• https://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/36983-simpeg-agricultural-mod-spam-base-set/
• https://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/36968-peg-trail-parks-ll/

Do they only appear with the first change but not on initial release?

Luckily now there are more of us now. Captcity, Ulisse Wolf, Nos.17 and yes myself are actively restoring/updating contents, when we have time and motivation to deal with them. ChangeLogs only appears if the one used the "upload new version" option, even if they didn't actually replace the existing file with a new one.