"Staff Only Thread" Rule Proposal [Staff Only]

[Antvasima]

Well, I just don't think that this is nearly as big a problem as you make it out to be, given that we usually take quite a long while to finish important revisions, and that calc group members and content moderators can easily contact a trhead moderator or administrator to reopen a staff forum thread for them if they have something generally important to say.

Also, Fandom very much does care about that we behave ourselves here according to their community rules. We wouldn't be able to turn into a regular badly behaving independent forum even if we wanted to, and we also don't want to, given that it would create a very unpleasant and uncooperative environment.

 

[Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer]

Also, Fandom very much does care about that we behave ourselves here according to their community rules. We wouldn't be able to turn into a regular badly behaving independent forum even if we wanted to, and we also don't want to, given that it would create a very unpleasant and uncooperative environment.

That is not what Hop meant to imply, and of course this wiki's popularity does consist of a portion of revenue they rather not lose or take flak over, clearly, correct, yes. Once again, you lack a counter-argument to the idea presented. That, or Hop does not see it. Identify a deal-breaking drawback to the implementation of this concept, please. You or anyone.

Hop's going crazy, surely. In an effort to clarify one crucial point Hop either failed to bring up, or someone deflected earlier... Being here for more than half a decade has given Hop enough insight to show you that we have already we're imperfect, maybe impatient, but why does that mean we have to make no efforts in avoiding that?

What we want for this wiki, and what we are willing to do to get to where we want are vastly different things, and its best we address that before its an issue. No one is outright claiming a staff member or even a group of us is trying to weasel critical threads in a certain direction for their own desires in spite of the way we operate. There's no sabotage at play here. Do we really need to see the day we have to go back to undo/fix something major we staff disagreed on, just to spend more time doing that than leaving the thread open longer could have avoided all together? Call it an insane slippery slope argument, Hop can see that it is. But with the limited time some of us have on this wiki, we all probably would like to wake up to get work done that we enjoy, rather than missing out. And yes, today, no one is missing out.

Again, why wait for another like incident SeraEX to wander into our wiki and take advantage of the fact we don't regulate our vital Staff Only threads, again? We banned Fllflourine, and despite the reason for it, he (like many others such as AMM and Grudgeman) saw the danger in any "sole entity" taking advantage of our staff's weaknesses when it comes to Staff Only Threads, many major ones in fact were voted on multiple times by one person. Only recently are we fixing that. Let's not make mistakes and ignore things like this. We've already lost much respect in the greater community for what we've gone through, and it might be rude to say, but yes, it's our fault, and we could work harder at preventing it. While, that situation had more to do with sockpuppet accounts, and Matthew S or whomever it was, promoting Sera well before "she" earned our trust and her role... collectively, we should have handled that far better. We can't go back in time, but this proposal of Hop's buys the rest of us time. And of course, nowadays we hold staff elections in a very effective way, it only became the way we did it after an incident happened.

This was much to write, so there's likely a typo or complete thought left unfinished, but Hop will correct it or elaborate if any of you ask. This is tiring.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

I didn't know that there were such events and actions concerning the regulations for staff members and staff elections. As someone who hasn't been a staff member for very long that's pretty fascinating to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Hop:

Well, I just don't understand why you consider prematurely closing staff threads as a major problem, when it happens very rarely, and our staff members can easily reopen them or ask another staff member to do so if they have something genuinely important to say. This just seems like a much simpler solution than constantly trying to keep track of when exactly a week has gone by for every single seemingly finished staff forum discussion on top of all our other work. That is all.

Nehz:

The bureaucrats always ask all current staff members to provide input regarding potential new staff candidates before we promote any of them.

The exceptions being that we only ask the calc group members about new candidates for that team, and only ask the image helpers about who should join their group, since that requires specific competence areas.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

Nehz:

The bureaucrats always ask all current staff members to provide input regarding potential new staff candidates before we promote any of them.

The exceptions being that we only ask the calc group members about new candidates for that team, and only ask the image helpers about who should join their group, since that requires specific competence areas.

Okay, that makes sense.

 

[Moritzva]

Your talking style is absolutely incredible, Hop.

That being said... I'm actually not sure either. It feels like there's too much room for interpretation and a general grey area. Stonewalling or dragging things out is inefficient, but speeding through threads just means we're doing a poor job.

 

[Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer]

Your talking style is absolutely incredible, Hop.

wow!
thanks b0ss, Hop appreciates it

And you have a point but that grey area could be fixed if we like the idea of a short term window. Somethings like a CRT of VS thread can be sensibly settled a shorter time than a Staff Thread because there's more normal members than there is of us. We would logically need more time, especially if a staff member takes a break.

 

[Antvasima]

Hop:

Well, I just don't understand why you consider prematurely closing staff threads as a major problem, when it happens very rarely, and our staff members can easily reopen them or ask another staff member to do so if they have something genuinely important to say. This just seems like a much simpler solution than constantly trying to keep track of when exactly a week has gone by for every single seemingly finished staff forum discussion on top of all our other work. That is all.

Is it fine if I close this thread? It will not lead anywhere, and I am currently feeling very exhausted and rather sick.

 

[AKM sama]

I'd say it's fine considering what has been discussed above.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so then. Thank you for the reply.

 

[Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer]

Is it fine if I close this thread? It will not lead anywhere, and I am currently feeling very exhausted and rather sick.

Rest up, you deserve it.

And yes, as of this time, no one has a concrete decision and its best to leave this topic where it sits. We won't make further progress talking about it as we are now. Maybe a more fitting time for this idea or something like it will show in the future and we'll all have to agree to disagree.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for being reasonable.