Most Important Discussion Rule Section - Staff Thread Creation Guidelines

[ImmortalDread]

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 threads.

Introduction​

---

As you may have noticed, many threads are being created or moved to the staff category. It might seem satisfactory at a surface level, but it has become quite annoying. The reasons for this, important as staff threads are for the community, have become repetitive and lack fundamental significance to justify their placement in the staff category.

I want to clarify that I am not targeting any specific staff member here. However, there are instances where threads are moved without considering their necessity or significance. It's a misconception that the staff category is only meant for threads that are 'getting' out of control. This is not a kindergarten; it's an indispensable category for the community.

Practical Necessity​

---

Well, this is crucial to discuss. Do you think its vital to include those rules? Yes, I do believe so. I will try to create an example of why the guidelines are needed.

Ultima once created a wide-policy thread regarding the tiering system and addressing the philosophical scaling inconsistency. But there is an issue:

• https://vsbattles.com/threads/bigge...eing-a-low-1-c-standard-clarification.158884/
• https://vsbattles.com/threads/dealing-with-dimension-once-and-for-all.159694/

Those two minor yet significant threads were also quite similar to Ultima's proposal, which is now closed. However, the main point here is that neither of those two threads had any permission, nor did they specify from whom they obtained permission to create a staff thread.

Inconsistency with moving threads to staff board

---

There is currently a widespread misconception among our community members. Many staff members tend to move threads to the staff category as soon as discussions get out of control. This practice has become significantly annoying for various important reasons.

First and foremost, members should have the freedom to express their opinions and share their knowledge during heated or controversial discussions. However, when a conversation becomes intense, staff members swiftly move the thread to the staff board, limiting participation. This approach contradicts the essence of effective chat moderation and sends a troubling message to the community. Many individuals perceive this action as silencing, leading to frustration and discontent.

The second issue arises when specific-verse threads are treated as mere content revisions. It is crucial to maintain accuracy and minimize biased evaluations. Members knowledgeable about the verse should be allowed to voice their opinions and refute arguments. After all, discussions are meant for constructive dialogue. Silencing members by relocating threads to the staff board is counterproductive and detrimental to healthy debate.

Staff moderators possess various tools to moderate chats without resorting to moving threads to the staff board. They can issue chat bans based on rational reasons or provide warnings for rule violations, among other methods.

The third concern revolves around the inconsistent demand for threads to be moved to the staff board. Most discussions focus on topics within the context of specific verses, making it unnecessary to relocate them to the staff board. This action should only be taken when the OP insists on adding, removing, or changing a rule in a wide policy or a discussion rule.

To address these issues, I proposed a suggestion to Antvasima some time ago, suggesting the creation of a new sub-category within the staff board specifically for verse-specific threads. Although Antvasima did not express significant interest in this idea initially, I believe it is worth revisiting. Through personal observations and statistical analysis, I am convinced that creating a separate sub-category is essential, given the considerable number of verse-specific threads, which already surpasses the importance of wide policies significantly.

How does this practically solve the issue? Any staff member can move those threads to the suggested sub-category mentioned earlier, and the priority level will differentiate them from wide-policy threads. They won't be treated the same way as staff threads.

Current Rule​

---

The closely relevant rule or guideline regarding this topic would be a mere description from the staff category.

Discussions regarding important wiki projects, policy or explanation page revisions and controversial revisions.

Board activity is allowed for VS Battles wiki staff and highly trusted members only, unless stated otherwise. Derailing is heavily discouraged.

As much as you can see, it is actually vague to determine whether the intention here pertains to participation, thread creation, or all activities in general. Additionally, this is meant to be a description of the staff board, not a strict guideline.

However, we do have a small rule regarding staff discussions.

Only staff members and regular members staff have deemed highly trustworthy may participate in Staff Discussion threads unless an explicit exception is noted

This rule is intended solely to restrict participation. It does not specify whether the user is still allowed to create staff threads without strict instructions or permission.

Draft​

---

As always, whenever I attempt to introduce something new, I also create draft texts for the proposed rules.

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.

Note: Verified community members would exclude new users who have recently registered on the forum.

The Concept (bonus)

---

The concept I am proposing involves the creation of a sub-category within the staff board. This can be easily implemented by any bureaucrat, and it does not incur any additional costs. All active verse-specific threads would be moved to this designated sub-category. Visually, this means consolidating all verse-specific staff threads into one sub-category, while the rest remain categorized as wide-policy threads. This approach is essential to allow staff members, each with their unique expertise, to choose which threads merit their attention and active participation.

Concept Illustration​

This is how it looks like. And I could give explicit instructions on how to add one, this is without any plugins and completely free.

Notice (Disclaimer)​

---

This is a wide policy. Only administrators and bureaucrats are allowed to vote in this thread. The rest of the staff members are welcome to comment.

• In wiki policy revision threads, bureaucrats have both voting and veto rights. Administrators also have voting rights, and all staff members are welcome to comment in these threads, regardless of whether they have evaluation rights or not.

Staff Vote Tally​

Agreements (0)​	Neutral (0)​	Disagreements (0)​
	@Crabwhale (regarding the draft)​	@Crabwhale (regarding the concept)​

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for trying to help out, but do we truly usually have a sufficiently large number of verse-specific discussion threads moved to our staff forum that are active at the same time for that part of your suggestions to be relevant? We do need to try to avoid extreme controversy and derailment sometimes.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Thank you for trying to help out, but do we truly usually have a sufficiently large number of verse-specific discussion threads moved to our staff forum that are active at the same time for that part of your suggestions to be relevant?

We truly have, as I have said, for starters, I would suggest only active ones (first 3 – 5 pages), but here is the list:

Spoiler: The list

1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/jjk-the-speed-ceiling.160229
2. https://vsbattles.com/threads/ben-10-re-evaluation-of-the-low-1-c-time-stream-proposal.158660/
3. https://vsbattles.com/threads/should-tokyo-revengers-remain-on-the-wiki-and-in-what-form.159784/
4. https://vsbattles.com/threads/fuji-never-cry-dmc-tier-1-downgrades-yet-again.158138/
5. https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-c...-ushiro-no-daimaou-staff-only-version.155814/
6. https://vsbattles.com/threads/where...s-translation-and-where-they-both-fit.156060/
7. https://vsbattles.com/threads/nasuverse-swirl-of-the-root-tier-and-reasoning-re-evaluation.152698/
8. https://vsbattles.com/threads/nasuverse-dimensions-revision.157247/
9. https://vsbattles.com/threads/tokyo-revengers-discussion-rule.159031/
10. https://vsbattles.com/threads/god-of-war-possible-low-1-c-upgrade-staff-only.155385/
11. https://vsbattles.com/threads/revising-marvels-abstracts-part-2-5-of.157896/
12. https://vsbattles.com/threads/dbs-low-1-c-upgrade-pt2.156715/
13. https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-herald-level-characters-upgrade-discussion-part-2.152269/
14. https://vsbattles.com/threads/marvel-dc-rules-on-minimum-appearance-count.157694/
15. https://vsbattles.com/threads/revising-marvels-abstracts-part-2-of.154943/
16. https://vsbattles.com/threads/tokyo-revengers-calcs.156608/
17. https://vsbattles.com/threads/maou-gakuin-resistance-discussion-staff-only.154982/
18. https://vsbattles.com/threads/revising-marvels-abstracts-part-1-of-staff-only.153381/
19. https://vsbattles.com/threads/nasuverse-8-d-earth.152690/

These are the first three pages. I could list all of them, and realistically (statistically), half of all existing threads are verse-specific threads (@IdiosyncraticLawyer could confirm this as well). However, this can be an ongoing project over time, so there is no rush to move those threads. I am only suggesting the first three pages to start with, and any staff member who is willing to handle the rest is welcome to do so. My main focus is on the future ones.

Fun Fact: half of those threads are simply moved to staff board because of extreme derailment and poor moderation. And they are all practically content revisions.

We do need to try to avoid extreme controversy and derailment sometimes.

As I mentioned before, this board is not a kindergarten. Just because a thread is being derailed, it doesn't mean we should automatically move it to the staff board, especially if a staff moderator is hesitant to effectively moderate the chat.

The staff board is not meant for advertising either, and unfortunately, it is being misused. Some members exploit it solely to garner attention from evaluating staff members. This board is being used in a manner entirely different from its intended purpose.

 

[Dereck03]

The concept I am proposing involves the creation of a sub-category within the staff board. This can be easily implemented by any bureaucrat, and it does not incur any additional costs. All active verse-specific threads would be moved to this designated sub-category. Visually, this means consolidating all verse-specific staff threads into one sub-category, while the rest remain categorized as wide-policy threads. This approach is essential to allow staff members, each with their unique expertise, to choose which threads merit their attention and active participation.

This is how it looks like. And I could give explicit instructions on how to add one, this is without any plugins and completely free.

I want to say that it seems to me a good option, if the part that does not bring with it any additional cost or is problematic to do, also that it is not that difficult to implement, as it would first clean up and organize the Staff Forum board and only need to list the threads that need to be moved and it would not take a lot of time to move them, as it would take just a few clicks to do so.

As I mentioned before, this board is not a kindergarten. Just because a thread is being derailed, it doesn't mean we should automatically move it to the staff board, especially if a staff moderator is hesitant to effectively moderate the chat.

The staff board is not meant for advertising either, and unfortunately, it is being misused. Some members exploit it solely to garner attention from evaluating staff members. This board is being used in a manner entirely different from its intended purpose.

Well, I can attest to some truth in this, as mainly popular verse threads are the ones that end up being moved to the Staff Board and just such verses are the ones that have a large number of Staffs who can monitor the thread, give warnings, etc. Although I must emphasize that the staffs do not spend all their time on the forum to moderate the threads and each one has their preferences.

As always, whenever I attempt to introduce something new, I also create draft texts for the proposed rules.

The 2 points in the draft looks good to me, but what do you mean by "Verified Community Members"?

 

[ImmortalDread]

The 2 points in the draft looks good to me, but what do you mean by "Verified Community Members"?

Verified community members would exclude new users who have recently registered on the forum.

 

[GarrixianXD]

The second issue arises when specific-verse threads are treated as mere content revisions. It is crucial to maintain accuracy and minimize biased evaluations. Members knowledgeable about the verse should be allowed to voice their opinions and refute arguments. After all, discussions are meant for constructive dialogue. Silencing members by relocating threads to the staff board is counterproductive and detrimental to healthy debate.

If participants of the thread are being overly uncivilised and derailing then moving it to the staff discussion is an optimal solution. We shouldn’t prohibited all verse related threads from the staff discussion and should allow heated topics that’ll spark controversy amongst our members. I wouldn’t like our moderators being overly stressed over members behavior in the RVRT.

 

[Planck69]

The proposal seems fine, provided it's feasible and not too much of a hassle to implement, at a glance. I may give a more in-depth opinion later.

 

[Antvasima]

Is the suggestion here simply to add an extra staff forum for extremely controversial content revision discussions that have been moved there by our staff (while keeping our policy revision threads in our regular staff forum), but that will have the same staff only rules, or a much more extreme and inflexible policy to not allow us to restrict any very controversial content revision discussions to staff only, no matter how extremely overworked our staff would get from vainly trying to moderate the sheer chaos within them otherwise?

 

[Crabwhale]

Hmm.

Introduction​

---

As you may have noticed, many threads are being created or moved to the staff category. It might seem satisfactory at a surface level, but it has become quite annoying. The reasons for this, important as staff threads are for the community, have become repetitive and lack fundamental significance to justify their placement in the staff category.

See, here's the problem with starting off your thread with that statement. Your speaking here is very personal and not very professional. It may have become more annoying and inefficient for you in particular, but for me, for instance, nothing has really changed. What should have been done here is the collection of data, of the number of threads and numbers of replies per thread in the last however long period of time you wish to argue the problem has become prevalent in, and the comparison with a time frame in the past.

If what you say was backed up by this hypothetical data, you'd have a good leg to expand the rest of your argument on. As it stands though, the very introduction of this thread leaves me unconvinced.

Inconsistency with moving threads to staff board

---

There is currently a widespread misconception among our community members. Many staff members tend to move threads to the staff category as soon as discussions get out of control. This practice has become significantly annoying for various important reasons.

Again, you're providing nothing but your own unfiltered opinion. Just because you feel a certain way about something doesn't mean it's any more valid or indicative of the majority opinion than if any other individual person were to say this. Actual data, hard facts to latch onto would be appreciated.

First and foremost, members should have the freedom to express their opinions and share their knowledge during heated or controversial discussions. However, when a conversation becomes intense, staff members swiftly move the thread to the staff board, limiting participation. This approach contradicts the essence of effective chat moderation and sends a troubling message to the community. Many individuals perceive this action as silencing, leading to frustration and discontent.

I've seen plenty of threads get heated and continue onwards without staff intervention beyond being told to behave themselves, so this is not an "always" thing.

The way staff discussion about hot issues is supposed to work is like an ascending court system. You can't win the court case (or in this case can't keep the thread civil) in local court so you move it up to an appeal court (or staff thread, in this case).

The second issue arises when specific-verse threads are treated as mere content revisions. It is crucial to maintain accuracy and minimize biased evaluations. Members knowledgeable about the verse should be allowed to voice their opinions and refute arguments. After all, discussions are meant for constructive dialogue. Silencing members by relocating threads to the staff board is counterproductive and detrimental to healthy debate.

It takes a great deal for a verse to be placed on the staff board. It either has to be extremely controversial or extremely popular, usually both. And in such cases the option to give regular users messaging rights exist. They're more limited than they ought to be nowadays, in my opinion, but it's not that big of a deal.

Staff moderators possess various tools to moderate chats without resorting to moving threads to the staff board. They can issue chat bans based on rational reasons or provide warnings for rule violations, among other methods.

This is fair enough.

The third concern revolves around the inconsistent demand for threads to be moved to the staff board. Most discussions focus on topics within the context of specific verses, making it unnecessary to relocate them to the staff board. This action should only be taken when the OP insists on adding, removing, or changing a rule in a wide policy or a discussion rule.

As mentioned previously there are certain verses and certain situations that would best be suited to the staff discussion forum. This should not be overused, yes, but at the same time we have to draw a line between being convenient for most users and being expedient for the sake of our wiki. I don't think rule-changing alone should be the deciding factor on making a staff thread.

To address these issues, I proposed a suggestion to Antvasima some time ago, suggesting the creation of a new sub-category within the staff board specifically for verse-specific threads. Although Antvasima did not express significant interest in this idea initially, I believe it is worth revisiting. Through personal observations and statistical analysis, I am convinced that creating a separate sub-category is essential, given the considerable number of verse-specific threads, which already surpasses the importance of wide policies significantly.

How does this practically solve the issue? Any staff member can move those threads to the suggested sub-category mentioned earlier, and the priority level will differentiate them from wide-policy threads. They won't be treated the same way as staff threads.

I've said it before, I'll said it again: the current realm of subforums for the wiki perfectly covers all our needs. Expansion at this stage does not need to happen.

Current Rule​

---

The closely relevant rule or guideline regarding this topic would be a mere description from the staff category.

As much as you can see, it is actually vague to determine whether the intention here pertains to participation, thread creation, or all activities in general. Additionally, this is meant to be a description of the staff board, not a strict guideline.

However, we do have a small rule regarding staff discussions.

This rule is intended solely to restrict participation. It does not specify whether the user is still allowed to create staff threads without strict instructions or permission.

Draft​

---

As always, whenever I attempt to introduce something new, I also create draft texts for the proposed rules.

This is just using fancy terms for what's de facto already the current model we operate, spread out through a few different rules. I suppose it's not to egregious an addition but also not strictly necessary.

The Concept (bonus)

---

The concept I am proposing involves the creation of a sub-category within the staff board. This can be easily implemented by any bureaucrat, and it does not incur any additional costs. All active verse-specific threads would be moved to this designated sub-category. Visually, this means consolidating all verse-specific staff threads into one sub-category, while the rest remain categorized as wide-policy threads. This approach is essential to allow staff members, each with their unique expertise, to choose which threads merit their attention and active participation.

Concept Illustration​

Refer to what I said about adding superfluous subforums.

Consider me a negative on this.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Is the suggestion here simply to add an extra staff forum for extremely controversial content revision discussions that have been moved there by our staff (while keeping our policy revision threads in our regular staff forum), but that will have the same staff only rules, or a much more extreme and inflexible policy to not allow use to restrict any very controversial content revision discussions to staff only, no matter how extremely overworked our staff would get from vainly trying to moderate the sheer chaos within them otherwise?

Yes, although those "extremely controversial content revisions" will follow the same CRT guidelines, so for example, a thread moderator can vote there. But yes exactly as you have said.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I will reply to @Crabwhale later once I get free time and have chance to access to my PC.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, although those "extremely controversial content revisions" will follow the same CRT guidelines, so for example, a thread moderator can vote there. But yes exactly as you have said.

But thread moderators can already usually vote there, as long as it concerns content revisions for our verses, rather than policy revisions for our entire wiki.

 

[ImmortalDread]

But thread moderators can already usually vote there, as long as it concerns content revisions for our verses, rather than policy revisions for our entire wiki.

I am aware, I simply want to denote the difference between sub-category and the other wide-policy threads.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I'm unsure what to think about this. As the only staff member actively working on clearing out our backlog of hundreds of staff discussions, I naturally have a vested interest in the outcome of this thread. Still, I haven't had the time to contemplate this thoroughly and formulate some opinions; I'll make sure to respond later when I have the time.
@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @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 @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Shadowbokunohero @Ogurtsow @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Marvel_Champion_07 @Therefir @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @KingTempest @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 What do you think about this?

 

[Antvasima]

I am aware, I simply want to denote the difference between sub-category and the other wide-policy threads.

Okay, so do you only want to create an extra staff forum for extremely controversial content revisions that would get out of hand otherwise, and not change any actual procedures or rules for our handling of it compared to currently?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Okay, so do you only want to create an extra staff forum for extremely controversial content revisions that would get out of hand otherwise, and not change any actual procedures or rules for our handling of it compared to currently?

So we can be clear:

Not an "extra staff forum" but a "sub staff forum". A section inside staff board as my illustration shows.

As for question: Yes. The actual procedure will stay the same and the board will be organised through that.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for your explanation.

However, we would need to write an appropriate and concise new sub-forum information text.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Okay. Thank you for your explanation.

However, we would need to write an appropriate and concise new sub-forum information text.

I can do this as well. My bad, I should have thought about it before.

Do you also want precise instructions on how to do it by yourself or would like to wait for forum manager to do that?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I have a bunch of notifications, but will read this over later.

 

[Antvasima]

I can do this as well. My bad, I should have thought about it before.

Do you also want precise instructions on how to do it by yourself or would like to wait for forum manager to do that?

I can probably handle it myself, but I don't feel confident in messing around with dangerous settings, so I prefer if our forum system manager handles it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Reading over some posts, I am kind of torn. I do agree staff discussions for site wide policies should preferably be brought up privately to Bureaucrats ahead of time before being published so that they may have time to prepare. But a lot of verses do indeed have fanbases that are infamous for their toxic communities and thus we often move those to staff threads to tone down the hostile comments and let a few fans/supporters who know how to debate while keeping calm under pressure have permission. So it stands to reason why there are some threads that get moved to staff discussion to minimize controversy. Especially Marvel/DC threads, some Dragon Ball threads and various HST threads.

I also agree with what Garrixian has said.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I'm unsure what to think about this. As the only staff member actively working on clearing out our backlog of hundreds of staff discussions, I naturally have a vested interest in the outcome of this thread. Still, I haven't had the time to contemplate this thoroughly and formulate some opinions; I'll make sure to respond later when I have the time.
@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @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 @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Shadowbokunohero @Ogurtsow @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Marvel_Champion_07 @Therefir @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @KingTempest @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 What do you think about this?

I didn't get a ping, btw

Overall, I agree with Crab

 

[ImmortalDread]

Reading over some posts, I am kind of torn. I do agree staff discussions for site wide policies should preferably be brought up privately to Bureaucrats ahead of time before being published so that they may have time to prepare. But a lot of verses do indeed have fanbases that are infamous for their toxic communities and thus we often move those to staff threads to tone down the hostile comments and let a few fans/supporters who know how to debate while keeping calm under pressure have permission. So it stands to reason why there are some threads that get moved to staff discussion to minimize controversy. Especially Marvel/DC threads, some Dragon Ball threads and various HST threads.

I also agree with what Garrixian has said.

So to summarise, what to do you think of my draft and the concept I introduced that are both outlined in my OP?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

So to summarise, what to do you think of my draft and the concept I introduced that are both outlined in my OP?

@DarkDragonMedeus

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I suppose the Draft looks fairly good from glance.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I suppose the Draft looks fairly good from glance.

@Antvasima @AKM sama @sultan Unless anyone has more objections, we can probably get to applying this now.

 

[Antvasima]

We need to decide what the new sub-forum should be called first, as well as the accompanying information/instruction text at the top of it.

Also, please leave all communication with Sultan to me. He is getting paid for helping us here, and has other important work to do as well for other sites.

Meaning, never ping him unless it is a very serious genuine emergency please.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima @AKM sama Given what happened with Dread, what should we do with this thread?

 

[GarrixianXD]

This thread has ultimately already been rejected.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This thread has ultimately already been rejected.

?

 

[GarrixianXD]

?

From what I've seen, most of us here didn't really have a positive view of this. Though, nonetheless, we can continue without Dread. It doesn't mean we should end this discussion because the OP got banned.

 

[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?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your reply.

However, we also need to write a draft for a new instruction/information text to place at the top of our new staff sub-forum.

 

[Crabwhale]

I am still against for the reasons stated above.

 

[Antvasima]

I am still against for the reasons stated above.

Are you against both suggestions or just one of them?

 

[Crabwhale]

To my knowledge there was only one overlaying proposal for the thread. Can you elaborate?

 

[Catzlaflame]

To my knowledge there was only one overlaying proposal for the thread. Can you elaborate?

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."

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Reading over some posts, I am kind of torn. I do agree staff discussions for site wide policies should preferably be brought up privately to Bureaucrats ahead of time before being published so that they may have time to prepare. But a lot of verses do indeed have fanbases that are infamous for their toxic communities and thus we often move those to staff threads to tone down the hostile comments and let a few fans/supporters who know how to debate while keeping calm under pressure have permission. So it stands to reason why there are some threads that get moved to staff discussion to minimize controversy. Especially Marvel/DC threads, some Dragon Ball threads and various HST threads.

I also agree with what Garrixian has said.

I actually forgot what I originally said and what the thread was about. But after a memory refresher, this is still more or less my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Crabwhale]

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?

Second proposal is fine, iffy on the first.