Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not quite sure what other situations we'd want staff to be flexible in. If they said nothing, and we don't know or suspect any temporary interruption (such as knowing that they're a student, and that exams in their country are occurring, or that a disaster is occurring in their country), we'd default to 2 weeks.For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded. They should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else if free to argue in their stead.
Well, your modification to AKM's suggestion seems like a valid option, but what about Bambu's concerns above?
Okay.This rule isn't saying that whoever keeps conversing wins the debate.
If Position A has 10 staff members agreeing with it, 9 of whom don't want to debate, and 1 person who was debating but left the wiki, while Position B has 3 staff members agreeing with it and debating, the thread would presumably move to completion with Position A being accepted.
It's just that sometimes these threads have parts of the debate put on hold, or some people choose to withhold judgment until the debate concludes. This rule would aim to say "We can just continue on" after a certain point. Even if they seemed to have more points, if they didn't articulate them before they stopped responding, we can't consider them (as they were never penned down).
So I think Bambu's concern is misunderstanding what the rule does.
I think it would be a good idea to put that clearer into the rule text.This rule isn't saying that whoever keeps conversing wins the debate.
If Position A has 10 staff members agreeing with it, 9 of whom don't want to debate, and 1 person who was debating but left the wiki, while Position B has 3 staff members agreeing with it and debating, the thread would presumably move to completion with Position A being accepted.
It's just that sometimes these threads have parts of the debate put on hold, or some people choose to withhold judgment until the debate concludes. This rule would aim to say "We can just continue on" after a certain point. Even if they seemed to have more points, if they didn't articulate them before they stopped responding, we can't consider them (as they were never penned down).
So I think Bambu's concern is misunderstanding what the rule does.
@AgnaaI think it would be a good idea to put that clearer into the rule text.
Bolded parts are changed since the last draft.For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else if free to argue in their stead.
Of course, but that doesn't seem necessary. Why would anyone wait for a staff member to respond if they've said they won't respond further?I think that given some recent events I've seen, I think it should also be fine to provide as an alternative to the two-week timespan to the staff member in question admitting themselves that they won't continue on the discussion, of course their arguments should still be kept in mind for evaluation, but that's already part of the rule concept.
I can't comprehend how that could be used, and I'd expect every user present to call that out for the sophistry it is.I've seen very often users abuse technicalities, currently as things currently stand with the current wording, it's easy for anyone to stonewall by claiming that's not currently covered and thus forcing the two week timeframe either way.
I guess that's fine as long as people understand that this means the votes will continue to be counted.Hm, how about...
Bolded parts are changed since the last draft.
That sounds good. I would say we add that and then add the rule.We could say "their arguments and votes" instead of just "their arguments".
For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments and votes should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else is free to argue in their stead.