Rule Revision Regarding Banned Users and Proxies.

[KLOL506]

Look. If banned members who do not have a history of misinformation are allowed to help with gathering and analysing information, it doesn't make a difference if they are allowed to help compile it into a coherent matter of fact text without any perdonal comments

Let me be clear on this, I have no issue with the first sentence. They can gather and analyze all the information they want, it's how they argue for it is what we're concerned about, AKA, the argumentations. Those should be roughly on par with the other members they work with, not more. We don't care what they do off-site, only what comes on-site, and we should try to neuter their influence as much as possible without completely cutting off what they have to contribute.

It seems pointless to add an arbitrary extra step of vainly attempting to force unbanned members to then completely rewrite it in their own words, which we cannot verify anyway.

It's not really an arbitrary step tho? All we ask is that their argumentations do not constitute the majority of the posts' content, or god forbid, an entire CRT (Which Agnaa concluded already counts as direct proxying). A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Also why is the question of trying to verify them an issue now? Aren't we already mandating that the staff be contacted prior to it being posted on the forums and it requiring the approval of a certain number of staff members? We should also make their presence known to the public so that everyone is not left in the dark.

In any case, it seems like my compromise solution has been accepted, but we still need a draft text for our modified rules regarding this issue.

The one you proposed prior using mine and Clover's suggestions should do just fine.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Let me be clear on this, I have no issue with the first sentence. They can gather and analyze all the information they want, it's how they argue for it is what we're concerned about, AKA, the argumentations. Those should be roughly on par with the other members they work with, not more. We don't care what they do off-site, only what comes on-site, and we should try to neuter their influence as much as possible without completely cutting off what they have to contribute.

We've voted against this notion already.

It's not really an arbitrary step tho? All we ask is that their argumentations do not constitute the majority of the posts' content, or god forbid, an entire CRT (Which Agnaa concluded already counts as direct proxying). A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Also why is the question of trying to verify them an issue now? Aren't we already mandating that the staff be contacted prior to it being posted on the forums and it requiring the approval of a certain number of staff members? We should also make their presence known to the public so that everyone is not left in the dark.

It definitely is arbitrary. Our concern isn't for plagiarization, so we're just requiring people to rewrite things, which as has been said, we have no means of verifying and doesn't really serve us. It is my view that a ban is intended to keep the wiki safe from these elements while reasonably denying them access to the wiki. Their mere phrasings appearing in analysis doesn't breach that to any notable degree.

Insofar as I can tell, no, the current proposal does not require direct staff approval.

The one you proposed prior using mine and Clover's suggestions should do just fine.

While I agree, I'm not sure why you do, as the letter of that rule appears to still align with elements you have been repeatedly speaking against:

Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes banned members sending unbanned members their arguments to secretly post in our forum on their behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of their punishment, and a punishment may also be applied to that proxy member(s) who conveyed their arguments. However, knowledgeable banned members are still allowed to help unbanned members with gathering and analysing evidence outside of our community as a team effort, after which the results can be posted in our forum, but not in a manner that allows the banned members to indirectly communicate with our community through their own comments, personal opinions, any agitation, or similar, just help unbanned members with gathering and analysing information outside of our forum and wiki, to strictly be used for suggested matter of fact constructive revisions within our wiki. The unbanned members who post such revisions should also openly admit if banned members helped them out, and the suggested revisions need to be verified to be publicly posted by a combination of two bureaucrats or administrators from our wiki beforehand.

As it stands, this makes no mention of who wrote the majority of the text. It just says posting their direct personal opinions/statements/what have you is considered to be in breach of the rules, and that if a banned member contributed to the evidence gathering, that should be clearly mentioned. This is the position Ant has held for a few days now, and what the admins are voting to approve/reject currently (with potential amendment in the actual word, if not the spirit, of the rule).

 

[KLOL506]

When you're speaking about the position Ant has held, you're talking about this one, right?

If so, the "team effort" portion is from me. Even Ant said he added the clarification I mentioned here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

When you're speaking about the position Ant has held, you're talking about this one, right?

If so, the "team effort" portion is from me. Even Ant said he added the clarification I mentioned here.

Yes, and I'm aware. Still, the rule as is written does not align with your views, regardless of what phrasing you've contributed to it. It aligns somewhat neatly with Ant's current views, however. Trying to force your views onto Ant's, when he has explicitly rebuffed them in the interim time, also strikes me as poor. You've said your piece, people have voted, I don't understand the need for so much circling about.

 

[KLOL506]

Yes, and I'm aware. Still, the rule as is written does not align with your views, regardless of what phrasing you've contributed to it. It aligns somewhat neatly with Ant's current views, however. Trying to force your views onto Ant's, when he has explicitly rebuffed them in the interim time, also strikes me as poor.

Apologies if it comes to you that way, however, that is somewhat incorrect that it does not align with my views.

The only thing Ant added to that proposal after my suggestion was the teamwork part, otherwise everything else I agreed with. Even the "but not in a manner that allows the banned members to indirectly communicate with our community through their own comments, personal opinions, any agitation, or similar, just help unbanned members with gathering and analysing information outside of our forum and wiki, to strictly be used for suggested matter of fact constructive revisions within our wiki." part that he put in his draft, I agree with (As long as staff uphold it that is), and that was already there before I even made my suggestion comment.

So really, I don't get all these baseless accusations thrown against me that I am suggesting something out of the blue against the original proposals.

 

[Agnaa]

Then this comes down to what the "team effort" portion means.

If it means largely nothing, then as Bambu said, that text largely lines up with Ant's current view, albeit requiring two admin approvals in addition, making it similar to Method 2.

If it requires the user posting on the banned member's behalf to have done a lot of the research involved, then it goes far beyond anything accepted. That goes beyond just rewording, to requiring their contribution in the research process.

If it requires the user posting on the banned member's behalf to have largely reworded the text, then it still goes beyond what's been accepted. It involves elements of both Method 1 (requiring rewrites) and Method 2 (requiring staff approvals, despite this rewriting).

So if that wording change was meant to represent a meaningful difference in implementation, then you are suggesting something more extreme than any of the prior voted on proposals.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, my initial draft text may have gone a bit too far, so feel free to write your own based on what our administrators have accepted here, Agnaa and Bambu.

 

[Antvasima]

More specifically mainly meaning that I am not certain whether or not the "collaborative effort" and "pre-approved by two administrators or bureaucrats" parts should be included or not.