Most Important Discussion Rule Section - Staff Thread Creation Guidelines

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we can continue here.

If I remember correctly, the two intentions with this discussion thread are to create a new sub-forum within our regular staff forum where very controversial regular content revision threads can be posted by our staff members or regular members with permission from an administrator or higher, as well as to add the following text to one of our wiki's rule pages in order to create a structure that is easier to navigate within our staff forum.

"Only community members who have completed the verification process are allowed to create staff threads. Verification ensures the authenticity of members within the community and their eligibility to initiate staff threads.

Verified community members seeking to create staff threads must adhere to the following guidelines:

• Clearly specify in the thread title and opening post that they have obtained explicit permission from authorized staff members to create the thread.
• Provide accurate and relevant information within the staff thread, ensuring it aligns with the purpose for which permission was granted.

Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by staff members with evaluation rights."

This seems quite reasonable to me at least.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath

What do you think?

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath

What do you think about this?

 

[Antvasima]

And can somebody investigate where exactly that our new rule text should be placed please?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I guess that looks reasonable.

 

[Antvasima]

Which staff members currently think what here? And have these suggestions been rejected due to a lack of interest?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Which staff members currently think what here?

I think people were fine with the second proposal, which was just adding this to one of the staff pages

"Only community members who have completed the verification process are allowed to create staff threads. Verification ensures the authenticity of members within the community and their eligibility to initiate staff threads.

Verified community members seeking to create staff threads must adhere to the following guidelines:

• Clearly specify in the thread title and opening post that they have obtained explicit permission from authorized staff members to create the thread.
• Provide accurate and relevant information within the staff thread, ensuring it aligns with the purpose for which permission was granted.

Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by staff members with evaluation rights."

Which I think is alright. The other proposals by Dread were rejected, however.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I think people were fine with the second proposal, which was just adding this to one of the staff pages

Which I think is alright. The other proposals by Dread were rejected, however.

@Antvasima

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I think people were fine with the second proposal, which was just adding this to one of the staff pages

Which I think is alright. The other proposals by Dread were rejected, however.

@Antvasima Can I apply this? It has enough staff approval.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am uncertain about the point of the following text section:

"Only community members who have completed the verification process are allowed to create staff threads. Verification ensures the authenticity of members within the community and their eligibility to initiate staff threads."

And the following slightly modified text seems more appropriate to add to our Discussion Rules page:

"Community members seeking to create staff threads must adhere to the following guidelines:

• Clearly specify in the thread title and opening post that they have obtained explicit permission from authorized staff members to create the thread.
• Provide accurate and relevant information within the staff thread, ensuring it aligns with the purpose for which permission was granted.

Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by administrators or bureaucrats."

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Well, I am uncertain about the point of the following text section:

"Only community members who have completed the verification process are allowed to create staff threads. Verification ensures the authenticity of members within the community and their eligibility to initiate staff threads."

You said you were okay with it.

Most Important Discussion Rule Section - Staff Thread Creation Guidelines

Ya, this thread is not permitted by anyone, but this will be the last staff discussion to be ever created without any permission Premise The premise involves the desire to establish additional rules related to the use of the staff board, specifically focusing on guidelines for creating staff...

vsbattles.com

 

[Antvasima]

Well, currently it seems uncertain what it refers to exactly, and if it refers to that members need to seek approval from bureaucrats or administrators beforehand, that should be made easier to understand by casual readers.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Well, currently it seems uncertain what it refers to exactly, and if it refers to that members need to seek approval from bureaucrats or administrators beforehand, that should be made easier to understand by casual readers.

Then can I add the modified text you suggested without that section?

Community members seeking to create staff threads must adhere to the following guidelines:

• Clearly specify in the thread title and opening post that they have obtained explicit permission from authorized staff members to create the thread.
• Provide accurate and relevant information within the staff thread, ensuring it aligns with the purpose for which permission was granted.

Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by administrators or bureaucrats.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Then can I add the modified text you suggested without that section?

@Antvasima

 

[Antvasima]

It seems fine to me at least, but it would be preferable with further staff input.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @DarkGrath Is the following addition to our discussion rules acceptable?

Community members seeking to create staff threads must adhere to the following guidelines:

• Clearly specify in the thread title and opening post that they have obtained explicit permission from authorized staff members to create the thread.
• Provide accurate and relevant information within the staff thread, ensuring it aligns with the purpose for which permission was granted.

Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by administrators or bureaucrats.

 

[Crabwhale]

I don't think stating it in the title specifically should be a necessity, but it should be on the thread itself prominently, if not the very first thing in the message.

I've always been iffy on thread mods getting their so far de facto staff permission granting rights revoked.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @DarkGrath Is the following addition to our discussion rules acceptable?

I think the rule is fine.

 

[Antvasima]

I've always been iffy on thread mods getting their so far de facto staff permission granting rights revoked.

Well, our staff forum needs to be restricted to only very important discussion threads, mainly ones with a significant effect for our entire wiki, so we need to make certain that our more experienced staff members evaluate if they should be posted.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I'm fine with the rule, don't think the promotion needs to be mentioned in the title (just just stated clearly in the OP) but it's fine with me either way.

 

[Antvasima]

@IdiosyncraticLawyer

Would you be willing to apply what has been accepted here then please?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@IdiosyncraticLawyer

Would you be willing to apply what has been accepted here then please?

Done, close this.

Discussion Rules

VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc. However, certain topics keep popping...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so.

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.