Re-litigating Accepted Threads

[Agnaa]

We currently have this in our Discussion Rules

When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.

First Suggested Change​

The first and last sentences here seem to be referring to topics that have been addressed at all, while the second sentence only mentions (and gives a timeframe for) rejected threads.

I think this signifies a mistake, and accepted threads should be explicitly mentioned in the second sentence. If it was truly meant to only apply to rejected threads, I think that's weird; if a thread was overwhelmingly accepted, a person shouldn't be able to make a thread a day later with zero new arguments, and possibly have that one be accepted if 2 staff happen to FRA it, regardless of how many votes the original accepted thread had.

So I think accepted threads should also be subject to a time limit, equal to or lesser than the one for rejected threads, I'm not really fussed either way.

Second Suggested Change​

I'm not exactly sure how to word this in, maybe we'd consider it already covered by "important unconsidered information" or "violation of site standards" as-written, but I think sometimes it can be hard to tell whether something falls into that category. If an argument is brought up late in a thread, earlier staff are asked to look at it, and only one does and has their opinion unchanged, does that actually make the information bunk? I think in general, a decent barometer for whether a topic should be discussed again, is whether a few staff members, when told about something after the thread's conclusion, decided to flip their vote.

I think this provides a more clear way of determining those sorts of things. As many staff (including myself) have thought of things as violating site standards, only to have the greater staff base disagree.

 

[DontTalkDT]

If an argument is brought up late in a thread, earlier staff are asked to look at it, and only one does and has their opinion unchanged, does that actually make the information bunk? I think in general, a decent barometer for whether a topic should be discussed again, is whether a few staff members, when told about something after the thread's conclusion, decided to flip their vote.

I think in the scenario that you lay out here, something would have gone wrong to begin with.

Why is a point debated after a thread, so that staff members change their position?
If the staff was interested in having that debate and were willing to change their mind, then why hasn't that been done in the thread when they were asked for input on it?
If the staff wasn't interested, then the whole point of the rule is that you don't occupy their time by trying to have a debate about the topic that was just decided on with them again.

So I don't really like the policy you suggest as, what it comes down to, is: "Your CRT got rejected? Just continue debating your CRT outside of the CRT forum to evade the whole rule and its purpose."

 

[Agnaa]

I think in the scenario that you lay out here, something would have gone wrong to begin with.

Why is a point debated after a thread, so that staff members change their position?
If the staff was interested in having that debate and were willing to change their mind, then why hasn't that been done in the thread when they were asked for input on it?
If the staff wasn't interested, then the whole point of the rule is that you don't occupy their time by trying to have a debate about the topic that was just decided on with them again.

So I don't really like the policy you suggest as, what it comes down to, is: "Your CRT got rejected? Just continue debating your CRT outside of the CRT forum to evade the whole rule and its purpose."

Yeah, sometimes stuff does go wrong, and staff don't have another look at threads after page 2, yet we still have to count their votes. But if someone can actually get them to look at the thing again, their mind can be changed.

And sometimes new information is found, or new standards are written. But we can't objectively tell off the cuff whether this actually changes the situation for those who voted. I don't think it should be unclear for people whether creating a thread violates a rule or not. A thread should not be an ambiguous state of maybe-violating maybe-not-violating until the staff evaluations collapse that uncertainty.

I think directly asking relevant staff members is a nice way to do that, since if it is bullshit it can be less formally dismissed. ofc, we'd still consider repeatedly asking someone about that to be harassment.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

What do you think about this?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I see merit in both sides, but unsure how to properly handle it. But case by case is important, back and forth arguments do get tiresome if nothing new is brought up indeed. But new details and/or clarifications not brought up previously are important.

 

[Antvasima]

For what it is worth, I think that it seems important for staff members to be able to quickly make interventions in cases where what seems to be blatantly unreliable revisions have been passed.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yeah, sometimes stuff does go wrong, and staff don't have another look at threads after page 2, yet we still have to count their votes. But if someone can actually get them to look at the thing again, their mind can be changed.

Sure. But I see no reason why that can't be done while the thread is still ongoing.

And sometimes new information is found, or new standards are written.

If new canonical information is created (ongoing series and stuff) the thread isn't banned to begin with.
If standards are changed, we would obviously also allow reevaluation regarding that standard.

I think directly asking relevant staff members is a nice way to do that, since if it is bullshit it can be less formally dismissed. ofc, we'd still consider repeatedly asking someone about that to be harassment.

Users generally will have to ask staff whether they are willing to reopen the thread for the reasons the rules list and it is then up to the staff to evaluate whether it's justified. And if you, as staff, are uncertain about a case you are of course allowed to ask other involved staff members for their opinion on the matter.
But I generally don't think we should have continued debates, where if you manage to convince them, we reopen the thread. Quite frankly, I would heavily discourage engaging in such debates, as it means continuing a CRT under the exclusion of the opposition.

In my opinion, if you want to continue a CRT right after the conclusion, the burden of proof shouldn't just be "get a few staff members to lean more in the opposite direction after you talked to them without the opposition". It should rather be "I have been shown a new thing which makes it plenty obvious that the whole preceding debate was complete nonsense." I think the exceptions exist more to counter trickery and glaring mistakes, not to redo a thread when the agreement goes from 40% to 60%.

 

[Agnaa]

Sure. But I see no reason why that can't be done while the thread is still ongoing.

I guess if the staff members obstinately refuse to reconsider new information while a thread's ongoing, they'll probably not do it after it's closed either.

Users generally will have to ask staff whether they are willing to reopen the thread for the reasons the rules list and it is then up to the staff to evaluate whether it's justified.

Huh, I didn't really think it would go that way. I thought, in these cases, we'd expect a new thread to be made, so there wouldn't be any reason to ask a staff member.

And if you, as staff, are uncertain about a case you are of course allowed to ask other involved staff members for their opinion on the matter.
But I generally don't think we should have continued debates, where if you manage to convince them, we reopen the thread. Quite frankly, I would heavily discourage engaging in such debates, as it means continuing a CRT under the exclusion of the opposition.

In my opinion, if you want to continue a CRT right after the conclusion, the burden of proof shouldn't just be "get a few staff members to lean more in the opposite direction after you talked to them without the opposition". It should rather be "I have been shown a new thing which makes it plenty obvious that the whole preceding debate was complete nonsense." I think the exceptions exist more to counter trickery and glaring mistakes, not to redo a thread when the agreement goes from 40% to 60%.

Really, that sounds kinda similar to what I'm suggesting, but with a much higher bar.

 

[Crabwhale]

The first proposal is fine.

Second proposal is more iffy. If a decisive intervention is had at the last moment that upturns a thread, it should engender a response from staff that have been called before. If they had the initiative to look at something once, they probably will respond to it again to some extent.

At the same time staff don't have infinite patience. I know that I personally don't like it when I'm called to something and it already has 6 pages or something akin to that. I'm not sure undoing threads based on retrospective analysis is the best call moving forward however (unless it's blatantly wrong information). It seems lowkey as an excuse to pester people, and probably other vote fuckery I'm not thinking of right now.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure undoing threads based on retrospective analysis is the best call moving forward however (unless it's blatantly wrong information).

I mean that's the issue. "Is this blatantly wrong" is something that people disagree about a ton. While "Did you get a third of the voting staff to flip their votes" has far narrower room for disagreement.

We can keep going forward without that sorta thing. Have people recreate threads and sometimes get warned for something they thought was legitimately blatantly wrong/against site standards. I just think people getting infractions they couldn't have anticipated like that sucks.