- 2,335
- 1,005
(There is a TL ; DR at the bottom of this post which summarizes the points and Hop's grievances that will be mentioned in the bulk of this post. Forgive any typos.)
- "Hop, what are you talking about, man? Why is this important?"
Hop ranted about this offsite, but in order to be seen by all relevant parties (the current, future and returning staff of the wiki), Hop will make a post and highlight his concerns briefly here. This wiki runs on what Hop finds to be fair logic, sound rulings and often civil discussions, across the board. Do we always get it right? Not with the content, but hey, that's what CRTs and Calcs are for. No big deal. How about the way we handle ourselves? Hop has not been any more frustrated in his several years moderating this site. Old and new staff alike, this is an issue that needs to be nailed dead in the coffin.
- "What is the problem?"
No matter how unanimous it is, we need to adopt a "patience policy" regarding our Staff Only threads. Unless it is the difference between the wiki literally ending (closed by Fandom or gravely afflicted by other forces), we need to cease this quick-pace, at-a-glance, open-and-shut behavior. It unintentionally censors voices and indirectly creates a feeling of breaking the relationships between staff members. We should avoid making ourselves uncomfortable with something we come here to enjoy discussing. Staff Only threads are highly important to maintaining this, directly so.
A recent example of this would be this one. (Open for merely 6 days, involved Rule Violations, a very important topic)
If someone opens a closed staff thread with all involved gave their input, but it is opened again, the previous contributors will want the thread closed again just so they don't have to go back to it. That's not fine. Just because you have given your input, you do not have control over those who didn't get the chance to. If you have counter points, just act like it never closed. Oh wait, we don't do that! We silently close it again, delete the newest reply, and move on! Or maybe we just reiterate it's been discussed (Hop hates seeing this phrase) "discussed to death" or "we should just stick with what we already decided". That's extremely childish and it puts others in a spot where perhaps an minority of the Staff decides something for the majority of the users, including the disagreeing Staff who had not shared with us yet.
If you invite the staff to give input on something so important that it needs to be a "Staff Only" thread, then maybe you should wait until we use the platform we have to speak. Not anymore of this "It reached the conclusion I personally sought out when I opened the thread, gonna close it before my opposition brings up a counter point." That is toxic, creates a social divide, especially between lower rank staff and admins. Sometimes closing the thread early only serves to harm the open forum we encourage here. Let the bad blood of the past die, and let's work on fixing Staff threads, one issue at a time.
A recent example of this would be this one. (Open for merely 6 days, involved Rule Violations, a very important topic)
If someone opens a closed staff thread with all involved gave their input, but it is opened again, the previous contributors will want the thread closed again just so they don't have to go back to it. That's not fine. Just because you have given your input, you do not have control over those who didn't get the chance to. If you have counter points, just act like it never closed. Oh wait, we don't do that! We silently close it again, delete the newest reply, and move on! Or maybe we just reiterate it's been discussed (Hop hates seeing this phrase) "discussed to death" or "we should just stick with what we already decided". That's extremely childish and it puts others in a spot where perhaps an minority of the Staff decides something for the majority of the users, including the disagreeing Staff who had not shared with us yet.
If you invite the staff to give input on something so important that it needs to be a "Staff Only" thread, then maybe you should wait until we use the platform we have to speak. Not anymore of this "It reached the conclusion I personally sought out when I opened the thread, gonna close it before my opposition brings up a counter point." That is toxic, creates a social divide, especially between lower rank staff and admins. Sometimes closing the thread early only serves to harm the open forum we encourage here. Let the bad blood of the past die, and let's work on fixing Staff threads, one issue at a time.
- "What about staff threads that never close or go on forever?"
The opposite problem isn't as serious and far harder to address. If we have a Staff thread go on for weeks or months because we haven't come to an agreement, it is fine. Then we are using our time window to our advantage. Sharing thoughts, gathering evidence, waiting until we can put our thoughts into words, etc. That's what we do here. As always, the one exception to Hop's issue, is if the thread it toxic beyond repair. If it is derailed so heavily, become so full of bitter insults, then close it. It's no good, even the best of us all are prone to our emotions.
If this is a good point to you, (the never-ending threads) then let's discuss that in another thread, but that topic feels far more difficult to handle and Hop cannot fathom a solution for it that doesn't initiate this one all over again. Moving on.
- "What should we do to fix the problem?"
Hop implores us to use this thread agree upon a fair timespan where we can have a guaranteed period from when a Staff Only/major wiki-wide thread is opened, and when it is closed. There are several numerous instances, both recent and past, where someone, any staff member, from Hop himself to veteran members like Antvasima, to even the newest additions to our team, where we will usually ask "Are we done? Anything more to discuss?"
Problem solved itself? No, because the moment someone says "yes" the thread is often closed, and only one of us stubborn or brave enough to challenge the others opens it again to bring up a point that "we already discussed and closed." Which is a moot excuse. Yes, excuse. Do not wait a meager 30 minutes and say "our job is done here." and wipe your hands clean of the responsibility you owe this site as a staff member. Just because you have the power to do it, doesn't justify doing it. Set a good example for others, not one that benefits yourself.
Hop proposes we should choose either a 48-hour, 3-day, 1-week, etc format for what we think is best. We can vote in a poll, or discuss it below as to why we should not implement this fix.
Problem solved itself? No, because the moment someone says "yes" the thread is often closed, and only one of us stubborn or brave enough to challenge the others opens it again to bring up a point that "we already discussed and closed." Which is a moot excuse. Yes, excuse. Do not wait a meager 30 minutes and say "our job is done here." and wipe your hands clean of the responsibility you owe this site as a staff member. Just because you have the power to do it, doesn't justify doing it. Set a good example for others, not one that benefits yourself.
Hop proposes we should choose either a 48-hour, 3-day, 1-week, etc format for what we think is best. We can vote in a poll, or discuss it below as to why we should not implement this fix.
- Personal Issues / Ramble related to the problem (optional reading, skip ahead if you don't care)
It need not be said, but some newbies might have to made aware. Some of us staff members work many days a week, go to school/university and sleep, come back here once a week, and 3 different topics we wanted to talk about that are closed before any input is given. It is equally unfair to every staff member. For instance, the threads mentioned below all closed within a week or less from being opened. That is absurd. Too brief of a window for all of us with something to add to share their thoughts.
- TL;DR / Conclusion
This is a crucial issue and it is not shared only by Hop's own feelings/opinions. Others on the wiki have expressed a desire to jump into a Staff Only thread, just to be locked out in time and get yelled at for re-opening it, when it was unfairly closed off to them (and the rest of us) in the first place.
A discussion needs to be had on how long of a period should we enforce before closing a Staff Only thread. This is a matter that should have been implemented long ago, and maybe we could come back to it as the staff team grows. Not everyone wakes up at 8 UTC goes to the wiki for an hour before work, and comes back to it every night. A daily visit to this site is a time-sensitive privilege not every staff member has. To clarify, no, not every staff member needs to reply, but a time window should be allotted to us all. It's unfair to have the top 5 most frequent admins make a thread, talk about it, maybe 1 other less common member joins in, and then boom. It's closed, with no variation in who voiced what they believed. It's maddening and needs to stop if we seek to be professional wiki that actively shows we respect each other, even if we disagree. That most importantly of all.
A discussion needs to be had on how long of a period should we enforce before closing a Staff Only thread. This is a matter that should have been implemented long ago, and maybe we could come back to it as the staff team grows. Not everyone wakes up at 8 UTC goes to the wiki for an hour before work, and comes back to it every night. A daily visit to this site is a time-sensitive privilege not every staff member has. To clarify, no, not every staff member needs to reply, but a time window should be allotted to us all. It's unfair to have the top 5 most frequent admins make a thread, talk about it, maybe 1 other less common member joins in, and then boom. It's closed, with no variation in who voiced what they believed. It's maddening and needs to stop if we seek to be professional wiki that actively shows we respect each other, even if we disagree. That most importantly of all.
- We should not punish our fellow staff if they do this out of habit, by mistake, or forgot about this. But in order to cement it, we should add our decision (if we find a reasonable length-of-time to agree on) to the Site Rules. That way we can show new staff (and ones who didn't get to see this thread) what they should know before going about Staff threads.
- On that note, this thread will not close for 14 days. That's far more than fair enough. We do not need to do this many days for our future staff threads, but that's what this one is open for. Fairness for everyone who cares to participate, say their thoughts and move along. Please, be civil, give your input below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At's for everyone:
@Antvasima @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @Dino_Ranger_Black @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @The_Impress @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @QuasiYuri @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @Confluctor @AKM sama @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @Just_a_Random_Butler @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Amelia_Lonelyheart @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @DMUA @Jasonsith @KieranH10 @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506 @M3X @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @The_Divine_Phoenix @ZackMoon1234 @MistaClean @MonkeyOfLife
Last edited:
