Staff Discussion rules

[ImmortalDread]

​

Introduction​

---

As a result of its significant size and popularity, rules have been established for content revision board. Similarly, there is a need for rules regarding this section due to misunderstandings among members. I have compiled a list of rules that I wish to formalize, although they are not necessarily unspoken rules. Additionally, I would like to include some additional reminders.

Staff Board​

---

Here are some potential rules that I am thinking of:

• Participation on the Staff Board is restricted to members who are staff or who have been deemed highly trustworthy by staff, unless exceptions are explicitly noted.
• Only staff members with evaluation rights can grant authorization for participation on the Staff Board.
  • They can only grant permission for a single post and cannot grant permission for indefinite posting, except for Bureaucrats who are exempted from this rule.
• If a staff member determines that you have misused the permission they granted you, another staff member can remove that permission.
• When a staff discussion is designated as "Restricted solely for staff members," it signifies that non-staff members are prohibited from participating in any communication within the specified thread. This is because such threads are highly sensitive and primarily focused on Wiki policy matters and other sensitive topics.

The receipt of judicious and beneficial suggestions from our esteemed staff members would be highly esteemed and profoundly valued.

Note: This rules will be found in the discussion rules under the section of content revisions.

• This can be pinned in the staff board

 

[Crabwhale]

Don't really see the point of this. This is all common knowledge.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I thought we already have rules in Discussion Rules that mention something about staff threads, but if not there should be. Also, a lot of us know from experience that something being "Common Knowledge" doesn't tend to stop a lot of people from going against it anyway. Also, I will add that a staff member giving permission to comment is generally assumed to only be permission for a single post unless otherwise stated and generally agreed amongst multiple staff members that they have full permission to debate as much as the staff.

 

[Propellus]

I believe this is already covered

 

[Firestorm808]

I thought we already have rules in Discussion Rules that mention something about staff threads, but if not there should be. Also, a lot of us know from experience that something being "Common Knowledge" doesn't tend to stop a lot of people from going against it anyway. Also, I will add that a staff member giving permission to comment is generally assumed to only be permission for a single post unless otherwise stated and generally agreed amongst multiple staff members that they have full permission to debate as much as the staff.

There are no rules established for Staff Only threads.

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

At this time, I don't see any issues with the above rules being published.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There are no rules established for Staff Only threads.

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

At this time, I don't see any issues with the above rules being published.

In that case, with the one thing I added as another suggestion also being added.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that these seem like sensible official rule suggestions.

@Deagonx also gave me the suggestion that staff permissions to non-staff should usually only extend to them posting single very important/relevant information/evaluation messages, not to let them spam a staff only thread with posts.

 

[Crabwhale]

There are no rules established for the staff only threads because there shouldn't be any. It should be self-explanatory, and I highly doubt adding legislation to an off and away page that, let's be honest, few regulars actually read is going to do much.

You can still add such things if it tickles your fancy, of course, but the real issue here is enforcing. Too many times I've seen people leave comments that should've been removed ages ago around. Too many times I've seen repeat topic breakers in threads not get so much as a glance. And too many times I've seen staff members allow people to comment almost immediately after being asked, which tells me that very seldom is the nature of the user asking being taken into consideration.

We don't strictly need a rule change, or addition, or revision, or whatever have you. We just need to start applying what we already have.

 

[Antvasima]

We likely need some official rules to refer to in order to be able to do that more efficiently.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't know what you are trying to say Crab, but this does not look self-explanatory if we looked at least last 25 staff threads

 

[Crabwhale]

We likely need some official rules to refer to in order to be able to do that more efficiently.

I highly doubt that, but again, if it's what you want, I have no issue with it. I'm just trying to shed some light on the real problem.

I don't know what you are trying to say Crab, but this does not look self-explanatory

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

This is the very definition of a well-explained system. I can get all the relevant information I need from this. With all due respect, and not disallowing your rule additions, but they say the exact same thing except lengthier and thus more tedious.

 

[Antvasima]

I still think that this would help in order to be more specific and give more official regulations to refer to.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is the very definition of a well-explained system. I can get all the relevant information I need from this. With all due respect, and not disallowing your rule additions, but they say the exact same thing except lengthier and thus more tedious.

Do the statistics support your point? No, the rule is not well-explained, and even staff members who do not have evaluation rights are allowing random members to give their input.

My rules actually clarify this as well.

Crab, I see your point, but I am approaching this from a statistical perspective.

 

[Crabwhale]

And I still strictly believe it's an issue of enforcement, not rules. If you want to implement said rules, go ahead, but it won't solve any problems.

 

[Deagonx]

I thought we already have rules in Discussion Rules that mention something about staff threads, but if not there should be. Also, a lot of us know from experience that something being "Common Knowledge" doesn't tend to stop a lot of people from going against it anyway. Also, I will add that a staff member giving permission to comment is generally assumed to only be permission for a single post unless otherwise stated and generally agreed amongst multiple staff members that they have full permission to debate as much as the staff.

I think it should be spelled out, yeah.

Especially in terms of who can give permission, and for how long. I've often seen users ask every single staff member who is involved, and even if they get a "no" from one or two, if they can get a "yes" from one they'll start posting, and not just one time, but as many times as they want. I've seen users post based on permissions from calc group users and/or content mods as well, which from what Wok has said is not the intent.

I had the idea that I expressed to Ant where Thread Mods can give permission to make a single post, but the ability to post indefinitely should only be granted by an admin. Under the current system I feel like I often see Staff Discussion threads become huge messes (which is the opposite of the point) due to being taken over by bickering between multiple users who got staff permission to comment.

A good counter-example is the Low 1-A thread, where I feel like despite the length, the discussion amongst Ultima, DT, and Agnaa was very high quality, even if there was strong disagreement between parties. When supporters/opposers of a verse get involved in the same Staff Discussion thread it often quickly devolves to the same kind of circular bickering as a lot of other CRTs.

 

[Antvasima]

I largely agree with Deagonx's post above.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I largely agree with Deagonx's post above.

I am pretty sure his concerns are covered in my draft.

If he has any objections, I don't mind hearing them.

 

[Antvasima]

I am pretty sure his concerns are covered in my draft.

If he has any objections, I don't mind hearing them.

@Deagonx

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Staff members have the authority to revoke a member's permission to participate on the Staff Board without providing a reason

Do I even need to explain what the glaring problem is with this statement? No one here sees even the slightest issue?

 

[Deagonx]

I am pretty sure his concerns are covered in my draft.

If he has any objections, I don't mind hearing them.

The mechanism I'm proposing isn't in the draft.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The mechanism I'm proposing isn't in the draft.

Oh, I forget the part with "only one single post". Let me modify it.

 

[Deagonx]

Oh, I forget the part with "only one single post". Let me modify it.

With Admins being the exception.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx yeah no offense but we staff also can get into a lot of bickering. If we have to make a staff thread in regards to a particular series, we shouldn’t invalidate the knowledgeable members of that series just for the fact that they’re blue names because they have the context for a lot of the arguments for said series.

@ImmortalDread Why the hell is staff members just allowed to thread ban someone for no reason? This feels really stupid as well as being potential power abuse if any staff members just get a lot of disagreement from blue names who have a lot of arguments against their point.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@ImmortalDread Why the hell is staff members just allowed to thread ban someone for no reason? This feels really stupid as well as being potential power abuse if any staff members just get a lot of disagreement from blue names who have a lot of arguments against their point.

Why do you need to list a reason if someone is blatantly obviously derailing the thread with constant multiple posts?

 

[ImmortalDread]

With Admins being the exception.

Staff members who have evaluation rights can only grant permission for a single post and cannot grant permission for indefinite posting, except for Admins who are exempted from this rule.

 

[Planck69]

​

Introduction​

---

As a result of its significant size and popularity, rules have been established for content revision board. Similarly, there is a need for rules regarding this section due to misunderstandings among members. I have compiled a list of rules that I wish to formalize, although they are not necessarily unspoken rules. Additionally, I would like to include some additional reminders.

Staff Board​

---

Here are some potential rules that I am thinking of:

• Participation on the Staff Board is restricted to members who are staff or who have been deemed highly trustworthy by staff, unless exceptions are explicitly noted.

I suppose I can see this.

• Only staff members with evaluation rights can grant authorization for participation on the Staff Board.

Makes sense. I'd prefer allowing more categories of staff than just bureaucrats, administrators and moderators but that's a separate issue.

• Staff members have the authority to revoke a member's permission to participate on the Staff Board without providing a reason

Yeah, no. If someone brings up actually important information to a CRT then I'd at least explain that they can't do this at will rather than give staff the ability to unilaterally prevent supporters from participating in a CRT.

• If a staff member determines that you have misused the permission they granted you, another staff member can remove that permission.

I can see this.

• In the event that a staff discourse has been designated as “Restricted solely for staff members,” it implies that non-staff members are precluded from participating in any form of communication within the specified thread.

This is a potentially horrible way to abuse power when combined with the above. Like, legitimately what stops me from making a CRT Staff Only for a verse with no staff supporters and passing whatever changes I damn well please?

I get that we staff are responsible for maintaining order and a fair and calm environment but getting draconian this way is a very good reason why the forum is waning as it is compared to the wiki.

 

[AxisPowerRanger]

Staff members have the authority to revoke a member's permission to participate on the Staff Board without providing a reason

Oh this sounds totally reasonable and not ripe for exploitation.

 

[Theglassman12]

That’s not thread banning for no reason, you just shot your own argument in the foot here.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Why do you need to list a reason if someone is blatantly obviously derailing the thread with constant multiple posts?

That’s a hypothetical that you just made up. Your initial post says “without a reason”, and you only thought of the one possible instance that could justify doing that. As if “derailing” isn’t subjective from person to person.

This thread was not made in good faith of benefitting anyone, it’s just blatantly trying to silence anyone who doesn’t have extra tags under their name.

 

[KLOL506]

Given the importance of such a thread, it'd be preferable to add all the relevant admins and thread mods not already present here.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Sir_Ovens @ByAsura @SamanPatou @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @GyroNutz @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @JustSomeWeirdo @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @DarkGrath @Moritzva @Eficiente @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist

 

[Deagonx]

yeah no offense but we staff also can get into a lot of bickering

I agree, but I feel like it tends to be better.

If we have to make a staff thread in regards to a particular series, we shouldn’t invalidate the knowledgeable members of that series just for the fact that they’re blue names because they have the context for a lot of the arguments for said series.

I agree, that's not my goal here either. But would you agree that within hotly contested verses, there are members on both sides who are knowledgeable, but tend to act too rashly or don't tend to discuss things in a productive way? For members who are mature, reasonable, and productive, I agree they should be able to participate and have their voice heard. For those who are knowledgeable but tend to be shit-stirrers or get too aggro in the face of disagreement, they should just be permitted to summarize their full opinion and evidence on it and let the staff discuss, rather than both sides being given full reign to rage at each other circularly until the thread is too big of a mess to read anymore.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is a potentially horrible way to abuse power when combined with the above. Like, legitimately what stops me from making a CRT Staff Only for a verse with no staff supporters and passing whatever changes I damn well please?

Eh, this is when there are threads that are only focused solely for the wiki's concern itself, for example this one.

That’s not thread banning for no reason, you just shot your own argument in the foot here.

As in, you don't need to justify yourself to the member if he still does not agree with your thread ban, but I can modify the rule a bit.

Yeah, no. If someone brings up actually important information to a CRT then I'd at least explain that they can't do this at will rather than give staff the ability to unilaterally prevent supporters from participating in a CRT.

I generally disagree that verse discussion should be part of staff board as mostly has no business with what staff board supposes to be.

But I will try to modify the rule a bit since I weirded it weirdly

 

[Planck69]

Eh, this is when there are threads that are only focused solely for the wiki's concern itself, for example this one.

You do realize it is entirely possible for moderators, bureaucrats and administrators to just declare a verse thread "controversial" in their subjective opinions and make it Staff Only, right?

As in, you don't need to justify yourself to the member if he still does not agree with your thread ban, but I can modify the rule a bit.

Yeah but I'd rather not give staff the power to just do that in the first place. It's one thing if someone's posting memes and won't stop in a CRT. It's another if someone drops a lot of well sourced text and scans about their verse.

I generally disagree that verse discussion should be part of staff board as mostly has no business with what staff board supposes to be.

But controversial threads can and have been made Staff Only. For good reason at times. Even then, allowing the knowledgeable members to participate was a vital aspect of preventing whatever chucklefuck with a colored name (me included) from just deciding verse ratings on their own.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright, I modified it.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx then we focus on the more rational side of those supporters. I’ve had CRTs with massive amounts of supporters, a good chunk of them either just have some confirmation bias or just like to talk shit. I don’t really give them the time of day and just ask the more rational folks to provide evidence. Besides even if we have a situation where both sides are constantly arguing, we just need a summary from both sides and evaluate what’s given to us.

Besides it’s not like the staff members are free from being more level headed folks when we had instances like Eficiente telling people who agreed with me on a final fantasy thread to “have better reading comprehension”.

@ImmortalDread or just remove that rule because the next rule gives a valid reason to thread ban a user.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Besides the obviously problematic rule everyone already called out, these proposals seem sensible.

 

[ImmortalDread]

You do realize it is entirely possible for moderators, bureaucrats and administrators to just declare a verse thread "controversial" in their subjective opinions and make it Staff Only, right?

I made quite distinction between "Only Staff members" and "Solely strictly only for staff members", I assume I need to make clear which types of staff discussion I am referring.

Noted, will modify this as well.

@ImmortalDread or just remove that rule because the next rule gives a valid reason to thread ban a user.

I removed the last part of the sentence since thread moderators do still have the right to revoke someone's permission if they noticed it get derailed or spammed.

Yeah but I'd rather not give staff the power to just do that in the first place. It's one thing if someone's posting memes and won't stop in a CRT. It's another if someone drops a lot of well sourced text and scans about their verse.

Alright noted. You can check the rule.

But controversial threads can and have been made Staff Only. For good reason at times. Even then, allowing the knowledgeable members to participate was a vital aspect of preventing whatever chucklefuck with a colored name (me included) from just deciding verse ratings on their own.

Sure, I modified the rule as stated above.

 

[Theglassman12]

Just get rid of that point, it’s redundant as **** with the next point literally explaining why a staff member can remove your permission.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Actually, I did not see the other point. You're right. Removed. Also no need to swear on me lol-

 

[Deagonx]

then we focus on the more rational side of those supporters

That's my goal, yeah. But allowing any moderator to give someone full reign to post as many times as they want is not ideal, IMO, given how many mods there are to ask permission from. Thats why I think that guideline above should be added.