Staff Discussion rules

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx I don’t think limiting anyone’s amount of comments, whether it’s a staff member or a normal user is ideal. That’s just needless restriction, especially when it involves a series that has a lot of stuff to explain. I know this because a couple of franchises I’ve reworked from the ground up needs an entire college essay to explain a lot of the mechanics on how it translates to the versus stuff.

 

[Deagonx]

I disagree, personally. The basic premise of having a Staff Discussion is to limit comments, so I think this is just the best way to do that while still making sure people can participate. That's just my take on it, though.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The OP is fine in concept. I generally agree with Deagonx's points to speak on the more current aspect of the conversation.

 

[Duedate8898]

Is this one of those cases where we have a rule we all know about, we just don't have it written down anywhere?

 

[ImmortalDread]

The only rule you know about in this draft is the first one, the rest I doubt anyone knows this.
Also, why it sounds like your comment is ironic or a backhanded compliment or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[Duedate8898]

Not trying to be ironic or backhanded or anything like that, I'm more asking because I feel like everything outlined in the OP has either been explicitly said or assumed by most users. This has essentially been my understanding of how staff threads are to work for a while now, and I thought that clear to the community.

If we're putting this to text however, my only bit of disagreement with all of this is the stipulation of a person only getting one message per permission in a thread. If we're going to have the added bit where a staff member can revoke someone's permission to participate if misusing their granted permission, then limiting users to a single post just adds unnecessary barriers to communication that can easily lead to spamming mods. I say once someone gets permission, let them speak until its been decided they've said enough.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Not trying to be ironic or backhanded or anything like that, I'm more asking because I feel like everything outlined in the OP has either been explicitly said or assumed by most users. This has essentially been my understanding of how staff threads are to work for a while now, and I thought that clear to the community.

Then I misunderstood it. Apologies.

 

[Deagonx]

If we're putting this to text however, my only bit of disagreement with all of this is the stipulation of a person only getting one message per permission in a thread

Well my idea was to have admins have the authority to low full participation but normal thread mods can only authorize one/one at a time, for a longer post that fully summarizes their views and evidence

 

[Duedate8898]

Sure, but what happens when that user wants to respond to others responses to their response? They have to check with admins again just to post a response. If there's room for debate, as there will be in any thread, then I see the one post per permission rule as a barrier which actively keeps users who might have valuable input from participating where they otherwise would.

 

[Deagonx]

They have to check with admins again just to post a response.

No if they get admin permission they can reply as many times as they want. Thread mods would be the ones who can only authorize one comment at a time.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx If you limit a discussion to having only a handful of comments per person how exactly are you going to clear everything? There's too much flaws with the idea on making people only commented a few times that can easily be abused by anyone.

 

[Deagonx]

@Deagonx If you limit a discussion to having only a handful of comments per person how exactly are you going to clear everything? There's too much flaws with the idea on making people only commented a few times that can easily be abused by anyone.

I'm not sure what you mean, I'm sorry. Can you be more specific?

 

[Theglassman12]

For a series that requires a lot of explanation, whether it’s filled with a lot of terminology techno gargon, or some word of god that explains a lot of vague stuff, etc. etc., you limiting the people to comment a certain amount of times can lead to someone making a last comment where they take a scan or statement out of context and the opposing side wouldn’t be able to prove they’re taking said argument out of context because of the stupid limit. This only causes more problems than answers so it’s better that we have the more professional knowledgeable members get all of the arguments out until everything is addressed.

 

[Deagonx]

you limiting the people to comment a certain amount of times can lead to someone making a last comment where they take a scan or statement out of context and the opposing side wouldn’t be able to prove they’re taking said argument out of context because of the stupid limit

They can always get Admin permission to post freely, request another post, or PM an involved staff member about it.

There are a lot of cases where the scan in question is a point of contention, and the last thing we want IMO is for two people to bicker back and forth about the scan, essentially repeating their opposing interpretations over and over, when ultimately it'll be up to the staff to decide either way

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think what Deagon suggests is reasonable- we should not necessarily equate a one-time permission to speak with a permanent, unrevokeable permission to speak on a given thread. I'm unsure of the actual mechanisms he presents, but again, I support the notion in concept.

 

[Deagonx]

I think what Deagon suggests is reasonable- we should not necessarily equate a one-time permission to speak with a permanent, unrevokeable permission to speak on a given thread. I'm unsure of the actual mechanisms he presents, but again, I support the notion in concept.

My "rough draft" idea is that thread mods can give permission for individual comments but admins can give permission for full participation. But there could be a better way to go about it.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I understood that much, yes. It just seems as though it would be a pain to have a thread mod potentially repeatedly give permission per post.

If we're putting things to official rules, I think the ability to revoke permission would be a good idea. Too often are random people given permission to speak by simply asking nicely and then doing very little of contribution with said permission. Perhaps this may also serve as a less controversial version of what you're trying to do- all staff members with thread evaluation authority (mods and up) may grant permission to speak on a thread, but admins and those above them may in turn rebuke and dismiss a given member's permission to speak on a thread, should the things they're talking about be found to be insubstantial, sidetracking, unintuitive to the situation at hand, etc etc, so on and so forth.

 

[Firestorm808]

I would say it depends on the intent of the requester. Do they want to make a quick post or participate in the long-term discussion?

 

[Deagonx]

I understood that much, yes. It just seems as though it would be a pain to have a thread mod potentially repeatedly give permission per post.

If we're putting things to official rules, I think the ability to revoke permission would be a good idea. Too often are random people given permission to speak by simply asking nicely and then doing very little of contribution with said permission. Perhaps this may also serve as a less controversial version of what you're trying to do- all staff members with thread evaluation authority (mods and up) may grant permission to speak on a thread, but admins and those above them may in turn rebuke and dismiss a given member's permission to speak on a thread, should the things they're talking about be found to be insubstantial, sidetracking, unintuitive to the situation at hand, etc etc, so on and so forth.

I wonder if there is also a solution to the problem (at least, IMO) of users asking every single mod involved until one says yes, even if others have said no

 

[Golden_Void]

What about retired staff? I've been under the impression we have the same rights to post here as active staff since plenty of us make guest appearances in staff threads.

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

 

[Crabwhale]

I wonder if there is also a solution to the problem (at least, IMO) of users asking every single mod involved until one says yes, even if others have said no

Could be somewhat mitigated by disallowing staff members who aren't involved in the thread (and thus have no context to judge) from letting members comment.

 

[ImmortalDread]

What about retired staff? I've been under the impression we have the same rights to post here as active staff since plenty of us make guest appearances in staff threads.

Ex-staff members are not allowed to act as staff members since they left the team irregardless of the reason. They have no evaluation rights.

If you wish to re-apply for a staff position, simply ask Ant in DMs.

 

[Golden_Void]

Ex-staff members are not allowed to act as staff members since they left the team irregardless of the reason. They have no evaluation rights.

If you wish to re-apply for a staff position, simply ask Ant in DMs.

I said nothing about acting as staff. My question was simply about commenting on staff threads.

 

[Crabwhale]

Ex-staff members are not allowed to act as staff members since they left the team irregardless of the reason. They have no evaluation rights.

Hikarious that a blue name is saying this.

Far as I'm concerned, retired staff that stepped down instead of getting demoted have proved they're trustworthy enough to have their voice heard in most circumstances. So for example, if Ryukama deigns to speak in a staff thread, as a former bureau who retired of his own volition, he's fully in his right to. Someone like WeeklyBattles on the other hand would have to ask permission.

 

[Antvasima]

I largely agree with Bambu and Deagonx here, except for that if a non-staff member is forbidden from responding further, sensible reasons should be provided.

Also, if the purpose of a controversial staff forum thread is to avoid spam and unconstructive bickering, I think that the standard should be for regular members to only be allowed single highly relevant posts each, not a free reign to spam or hijack important threads, even if administrators gave them the permission. There should preferably be very good reasons for anything beyond that limit, such as that their expertise and/or information is absolutely necessary.

 

[Antvasima]

Hikarious that a blue name is saying this.

Well, it is probably only a matter of time until she becomes a content moderator.

Far as I'm concerned, retired staff that stepped down instead of getting demoted have proved they're trustworthy enough to have their voice heard in most circumstances. So for example, if Ryukama deigns to speak in a staff thread, as a former bureau who retired of his own volition, he's fully in his right to. Someone like WeeklyBattles on the other hand would have to ask permission.

That is pretty much how I view it as well, yes.

 

[Golden_Void]

Well, it is probably only a matter of time until she becomes a content moderator.

That is pretty much how I view it as well, yes.

My case is a little different (as you know), but you still consider my opinions on topics whenever I give them.

 

[Planck69]

Ex-staff members are not allowed to act as staff members since they left the team irregardless of the reason. They have no evaluation rights.

If you wish to re-apply for a staff position, simply ask Ant in DMs.

Irony of ironies that this is being said.

Yeah, no. Non-demoted retired staff have more than proven themselves capable of good judgement and proper reasoning and critical thinking. It'd be asinine that they'd be barred from offering their views cause they don't have "Le funny tag" under their names anymore.

 

[Antvasima]

My case is a little different (as you know), but you still consider my opinions on topics whenever I give them.

Well, you are a bit of a special case, since you were removed due to misunderstandings if I remember correctly. My memory is not good regarding these types of issues though.

 

[Antvasima]

Irony of ironies that this is being said.

Yeah, no. Non-demoted retired staff have more than proven themselves capable of good judgement and proper reasoning and critical thinking. It'd be asinine that they'd be barred from offering their views cause they don't have "Le funny tag" under their names anymore.

Well, I agree with the sentiment itself, but there are much more respectful and polite ways of stating it.

 

[Antvasima]

I largely agree with Bambu and Deagonx here, except for that if a non-staff member is forbidden from responding further, sensible reasons should be provided.

Also, if the purpose of a controversial staff forum thread is to avoid spam and unconstructive bickering, I think that the standard should be for regular members to only be allowed single highly relevant posts each, not a free reign to spam or hijack important threads, even if administrators gave them the permission. There should preferably be very good reasons for anything beyond that limit, such as that their expertise and/or information is absolutely necessary.

@ImmortalDread

 

[ImmortalDread]

I guess there is some misunderstanding here:

I am open to retired staff members sharing their valuable opinions in staff discussions, but I do not believe they should have evaluation rights as this is the crux of the matter.

In our previous discussion about who has permission to evaluate, retired staff members were not included. In my opinion, if a retired staff member wants to be part of the team again, they should reapply for a position since they will only be questioned and not required to undergo investigation again.

I hold no personal animosity towards any ex-staff members, but it is important to treat everyone equally regardless of their status, meaning that either all ex-staff members have the same evaluation rights or none do. I am approaching this issue from a rational and logical perspective.

(Unless they get perks while being a retired staff member, please point this out since I don't see anywhere in the rules)

Regarding the statements made by Deagonx and Bambu, I agree that the staff forum thread serves to prevent spam and unproductive arguments. Deagonx's idea, which is currently in draft form, is a great solution.

• 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 Admins who are exempted from this rule.

And if they misuse or abuse the permission, this rule will clarify that a thread moderator or a staff member who has an evaulation right got every right to provoke the permission:

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

 

[Golden_Void]

I guess there is some misunderstanding here:

I am open to retired staff members sharing their valuable opinions in staff discussions, but I do not believe they should have evaluation rights as this is the crux of the matter.

In our previous discussion about who has permission to evaluate, retired staff members were not included. In my opinion, if a retired staff member wants to be part of the team again, they should reapply for a position since they will only be questioned and not required to undergo investigation again.

I hold no personal animosity towards any ex-staff members, but it is important to treat everyone equally regardless of their status, meaning that either all ex-staff members have the same evaluation rights or none do. I am approaching this issue from a rational and logical perspective.

Your OP mentions non-staff input in staff threads and equality.

Our staff hierarchy is inherently unequal, especially with regard to your original post only giving the power to authorize non-staff speaking rights to staff with evaluation rights. If admin is the average peak of the staff track for most staff members (excluding bureaucrats and super moderators), then you have the evaluation track, which is only discussion mods, and the technical track, which is everybody else (content/image/calc roles.) Below administrator, only one out of four of our staff groups would benefit from that suggestion.

Assuming you don't mean "evaluation rights" as staff members of a certain category, but you mean all staff in general as a right of their roles to comment in the staff subforum, then you can't both welcome retired staff opinions while simultaneously restricting their ability to give evaluations. Those things are mutually exclusive.

Historically, it has been commonplace for retired staff to continue to weigh in on staff threads, provided they meet the requirements such as the ones Planck and Crab posted. DontTalk being the biggest example. I'm pretty sure the unofficial role "consultant" was created for him, and Ultima had that role as well.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the way I remember it, I think that the consultant role was technically invented for DarkLK, since Kavpeny hastily decided to promote him to bureaucrat without asking me about it first before a very old leave of absence that he decided to take, and although DarkLK graciously agreed to quickly abdicate, he still received a special position after this.

However, later on others, most prominently DontTalk, also received it, but since Sera was a complete disaster, DontTalk was promoted, and Ultima didn't help out enough to keep it, AKM and I eventually decided that it seemed pointless to keep around.

I largely agree with Bambu and Deagonx here, except for that if a non-staff member is forbidden from responding further, sensible reasons should be provided.

Also, if the purpose of a controversial staff forum thread is to avoid spam and unconstructive bickering, I think that the standard should be for regular members to only be allowed single highly relevant posts each, not a free reign to spam or hijack important threads, even if administrators gave them the permission. There should preferably be very good reasons for anything beyond that limit, such as that their expertise and/or information is absolutely necessary.

@ImmortalDread

You still preferably need to add this to your draft.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Our staff hierarchy is inherently unequal, especially with regard to your original post only giving the power to authorize non-staff speaking rights to staff with evaluation rights. If admin is the average peak of the staff track for most staff members (excluding bureaucrats and super moderators), then you have the evaluation track, which is only discussion mods, and the technical track, which is everybody else (content/image/calc roles.) Below administrator, only one out of four of our staff groups would benefit from that suggestion.

I understand that the recent changes have brought about some concern regarding the inequality within the system. However, I would like to clarify that the discrepancies were a deliberate decision, and it is not a cause for alarm. I want to emphasize that the benefits will only be awarded to those who are qualified for their roles, ensuring that the system operates efficiently.

It is important to remember that selection for a particular job does not imply the ability to perform the same tasks as other team members. Each role has its own specialization, and team members are selected based on their expertise in specific areas. For instance, image helpers were chosen for their proficiency in image manipulation and creativity and specialize in evaluating images. Content moderators, on the other hand, are responsible for evaluating content within fandoms, and calculation members evaluate calculations. It is worth mentioning that CGM is the only role under the administrator with the right to evaluate calculations, and the other roles do not have this responsibility.

Moreover, ex-staff members have no obligation to the team since they have retired or demoted. Although their opinions and expertise are highly valued, they do not carry the same weight as current staff members with evaluation rights.

As such, their input may be taken into account but will not affect the decision-making process to the same degree.

To provide further clarification, the thread evaluations under this staff discussion will only benefit the relevant category. In other words, the benefits are tailored to suit each role's specific responsibilities, ensuring that each team member is recognized and rewarded for their expertise and contributions.

Assuming you don't mean "evaluation rights" as staff members of a certain category, but you mean all staff in general as a right of their roles to comment in the staff subforum, then you can't both welcome retired staff opinions while simultaneously restricting their ability to give evaluations. Those things are mutually exclusive.

That's incorrect. Let me clarify - I was referring specifically to staff members of a particular category, which has already been predetermined. In matter of fact, the former staff members and the "technical track" mentioned earlier in your post are not applicable to this particular category.

Historically, it has been commonplace for retired staff to continue to weigh in on staff threads, provided they meet the requirements such as the ones Planck and Crab posted. DontTalk being the biggest example. I'm pretty sure the unofficial role "consultant" was created for him, and Ultima had that role as well.

With all due respect, the two usernames that you have mentioned are still staff members irregardless of their history, and you can be one if you want to re-apply.
I simply don't see any logical reasoning for counting staff members that are no longer staff members to have exceptions, even if there is an unofficial history about it.

Not doubting their skills and expertise, but you simply can ask a staff member for permission if you want to share a professional opinion in a matter.

 

[ImmortalDread]

You still preferably need to add this to your draft.

• 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.
• In controversial staff threads designed to avoid spam and unconstructive bickering, regular members should be allowed only a single highly relevant post each. This is to prevent spamming or hijacking of important threads, even if administrators have given permission for participation. Exceptions to this rule should be made only if their expertise and/or information is absolutely necessary.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out. That set of rules seems good to me.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Thank you very much for helping out. That set of rules seems good to me.

Can they be applied now?

 

[Golden_Void]

With all due respect, the two usernames that you have mentioned are still staff members irregardless of their history, and you can be one if you want to re-apply.
I simply don't see any logical reasoning for counting staff members that are no longer staff members to have exceptions, even if there is an unofficial history about it.

Not doubting their skills and expertise, but you simply can ask a staff member for permission if you want to share a professional opinion in a matter.

They weren't at the time, which is the point that I have made. They are currently staff again, but their decision to step away didn't stop us from using their expertise. The point is less of "who has what colored name" and more of who has reliable knowledge and expertise and is willing to contribute to the community. That is what consulting is.

• 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.

Gracefully retired staff meet the criteria for being considered highly trustworthy, as they've already proven themselves beyond normal members. I assume you are considered highly trustworthy yourself since you made several staff threads. Or you consistently ask for permission. So it seems on that point, retired staff are already accounted for. There's probably only a handful of active retired staff anyway, which makes the scope of this issue infinitesimal.

Moreover, ex-staff members have no obligation to the team since they have retired or demoted. Although their opinions and expertise are highly valued, they do not carry the same weight as current staff members with evaluation rights.

As such, their input may be taken into account but will not affect the decision-making process to the same degree.

These points seem entirely arbitrary. Although yes, they have no obligation, their participation is entirely voluntary if they believe they can make meaningful contributions, or are experts in a given category.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Golden_Void

You raised a valid point regarding the honorable and trustworthy nature of Ex-Staff members, although I would respectfully offer that being demoted may cast doubt on their trustworthiness. Nonetheless, I concede this point.

Nevertheless, I maintain the position that Ex-Staff members should not be granted any exceptional evaluation rights or permissions. Please note that this assertion is not meant to detract from your argument, but rather to provide additional clarification.