Suggestion for a New Discussion Rule

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluation. I agree with your points.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Neutral on this but MrBambu makes sense, if this rule is adapted 1-2 weeks is fine with me.

 

[Agnaa]

This thread wasn't concluded.

I think something along the line of AKM's suggestion sounds good. Since Ant wanted a reword encouraging staff to be flexible, I'd suggest the addition of this:

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.

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.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, your modification to AKM's suggestion seems like a valid option, but what about Bambu's concerns above?

 

[Agnaa]

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.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, your modification to AKM's suggestion seems like a valid option, but what about Bambu's concerns above?

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.

Okay.

@AKM sama @Mr._Bambu

What do you think about this?

 

[DontTalkDT]

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.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluation.

I think that Agnaa's text can probably be applied then, but we should probably wait a bit for AKM and Bambu to respond.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.
Quite a while sure has passed.

 

[Antvasima]

I think it would be a good idea to put that clearer into the rule text.

@Agnaa

What about this? Should the latest rule text draft be further modified?

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, how about...

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.

Bolded parts are changed since the last draft.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

@DontTalkDT

What do you think about Agnaa's last preceding post in this thread?

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I personally think that Agnaa's text is probably fine to apply now.

What about the rest of you? Input would be appreciated.

 

[Bobsican]

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.

 

[Antvasima]

No, staff members cannot be expected to argue forever. At some point you have to accept their decisions and move on.

 

[Bobsican]

Well, there's also cases like when Azzy left some revisions in hiatus out of leaving the site, if anything reasonable cases like that could also be filtered in.

 

[Antvasima]

What do the rest of you think?

 

[Agnaa]

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.

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?

 

[Bobsican]

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.

 

[Agnaa]

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 can't comprehend how that could be used, and I'd expect every user present to call that out for the sophistry it is.

The idea you're suggesting sounds absurd, and we'd be wasting space to include it in our rule, and to include similar things in every single rule we have.

"If someone doesn't reply for two weeks, moderators should try to conclude the thread without them" does not imply "If someone says they'll stop replying, moderators have to wait two weeks before they can try to conclude the thread." If you see someone actually trying to argue that, I'd almost consider reporting for trying to pointlessly abuse perceived loopholes to waste everyone's time.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa makes good sense above.

 

[Bobsican]

If the above is agreed on then there'd be at least some precedent on that common sense being accepted, so I don't mind.

 

[FinePoint]

Migrating from this thread.

This is something I do think is an issue, and I believe I even remember being personally present for some controversy involving the Elder Scrolls.
I have no serious complaints about Agnaa's suggested draft. I believe 2 weeks is a reasonable timeframe for this sort of format where waiting a week for a response is not unreasonable.

 

[Agnaa]

Do we want to wait for another reply from DT, or should it just be applied now?

 

[Antvasima]

I will ask him to comment here via a PM.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Hm, how about...


Bolded parts are changed since the last draft.

I guess that's fine as long as people understand that this means the votes will continue to be counted.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply, DontTalk.

 

[Agnaa]

We could say "their arguments and votes" instead of just "their arguments".

 

[DontTalkDT]

We could say "their arguments and votes" instead of just "their arguments".

That sounds good. I would say we add that and then add the rule.

 

[Agnaa]

So in total:

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.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that seems fine to apply.

 

[Agnaa]

I have added the rule.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

Is it fine if we close this thread then, or is there anything left to do here?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Close the thread

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.