Moderation for example, which you addressed
The other aspect is related to content editing rights, but tangent to the questions I have raised so far in this topic. I’m not seeking for you to concede or justify your stance, I don’t envy having to juggle everyone’s demands and I already believe you are more than fair in that regard. So what follows can just be taken as a monologue, if I really feel like I want you to address a particular point, I’ll do that in a later reply as needed.
As a user of a community deck, I think I should have all the editing capabilities for that deck as the original author. There’s two sides to that coin, for sure. Some users are better off staying downstream of the author and picking up on their mods. Other users however are better branching off, losing access to future improvements by the author and editing the deck as they see fit.
For myself, I desire less control over the content (let’s say the values of the fields and the notes/cards themselves) but I want full control over the presentation style. To me, most of the content is authored by folks that are clearly more expert than I am with the language, I want them to call the shots there. When it comes to style and formatting they are not experts, and sometimes they fall into the common trap of going overboard when given the opportunity. I think it would be unreasonable of me to expect them to be experts in that area.
Also the language experts tend to include some features that are useful to users with more language proficiency, but are just clutter and distraction for the less experienced. I’m not ready for a 和＞和 dictionary yet.
I have taken as shot at it, but I’m no longer interested in trying to explain interface design principles to a content author. Twelve buttons going across the screen might be someone’s idea of utility, but to someone else it’s UX hell. Nor do I think content authors should have to juggle those concerns. It’s frustratingly difficult to praise someone on one hand for all the great work they’ve put into the deck and at the same time say the formatting needs major changes. I just want to say thanks for the fantastic content and go on applying whatever presentation changes I see fit and leave it at that.
On Kitsun, if I want to tweak the way one side of the card looks, I should have as much control over that as the original author of the deck. For myself, I think Anki is a little clunky, but the actual experience while studying is fine, and I can tweak it to my needs. But Anki is seemingly infamous for more than just its interface. As a developer and someone who reads patch notes, I got a strong impression of how bad Anki syncing could wreck your day, and I am very careful and deliberate about how I sync on the occasions that I need to.
So to me I see Kitsun with a brighter future in terms of content, but considering how much backlogged Anki content I have, if I had to decide today, I wouldn’t pay to access what I consider to be roughly the same decks that I’m using. The part of me that would be willing to pay so that I wouldn’t have to deal with platform migration, is overshadowed by the part of me that prefers to manage my own versions of notes/templates/layouts to suit my changing needs.
I hear you loud and clear, and I think that’s a good direction