Thread Closure Rule

[GyroNutz]

I think it can be covered in one rule, personally

 

[CinnabarManx421]

Depends on how we word it I guess.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Sera that this should go to Advice to the staff of the VS Battles wiki rather than Discussion Rules page.

Adding this as a rule would be used by regular members with a grudge to demand that we should demote and ban longtime productive staff members that might have just been stressed out or had a bad day, and since it would be noticed by much greater numbers of people, these arguments would clog up the RV threads even more than currently.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Yobo

I mean sure but a mod can both reopen closed threads and restore removed ones. So, while a rule is still not a bad idea, it's not like there isn't a reach around for "regular users removing threads".

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Generally, I'm not of the opinion that a rule should not exist simply because the thing it bans is reversible, but that may just be me.

 

[Elizhaa]

I prefer an addition to Advice to the staff of the VS Battles wiki about giving proper reasons for closing revision threads rather than a rule that only affects a small percentage of the wiki, that being the staff.
Rules are meant to apply to everyone.

This suggestion is for the best so I agree.

 

[Sera_EX]

It's not. There's other rules where there is a similar reversible alternative, so again I'm fine with the rule, I'm just pointing out that unless it's done in excess, it shouldn't count as a violation worthy of the RV. That goes for regulars and staff.

Personally I like the baseball "three strike" method, myself.

 

[PsychoWarper]

I agree with this.

 

[Agnaa]

I agree with this.

 

[Sera_EX]

Still need dem purple names though.

 

[Antvasima]

If any staff member who has ever closed a thread prematurely would be demoted and banned, we would lack a lot of people who have been of enormous help for the development of this community, including myself, which would result in a malfunctioning site and a staff that is afraid of doing its job.

As such, I would much prefer to not give a convenient weapon into the hands of anybody with a grudge against either the site or specific staff members.

 

[Elizhaa]

It's not. There's other rules where there is a similar reversible alternative, so again I'm fine with the rule, I'm just pointing out that unless it's done in excess, it shouldn't count as a violation worthy of the RV. That goes for regulars and staff.
Personally I like the baseball "three strike" method, myself.

Well, we do have staffs from the Human Resources for PM.

 

[IMadeThisOn8-1-2017]

I don't see any reason to disagree. This is only beneficial.

 

[Zensum]

Agreed.

 

[Agnaa]

If any staff member who has ever closed a thread prematurely would be demoted and banned, we would lack a lot of people who have been of enormous help for the development of this community, including myself, which would result in a malfunctioning site and a staff that is afraid of doing its job.

As such, I would much prefer to not give a convenient weapon into the hands of anybody with a grudge against either the site or specific staff members.

This rule isn't about closing threads prematurely, it's about giving a reasoning for the thread closure, or waiting until multiple staff or the OP agree to close the thread.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

If any staff member who has ever closed a thread prematurely would be demoted and banned, we would lack a lot of people who have been of enormous help for the development of this community, including myself, which would result in a malfunctioning site and a staff that is afraid of doing its job.

As such, I would much prefer to not give a convenient weapon into the hands of anybody with a grudge against either the site or specific staff members.

I disagree with letting the OP decide if his thread should be closed, but I think this is just for providing reasons in closing a thread.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I agree with adding this to advice to staff.

 

[Jackythejack]

Seems pretty good. I agree. I'd love to get reasons for these kinda things.

 

[Sera_EX]

Can someone please get the other bureaucrats? Otherwise we can agree all day, it won't go anywhere.

 

[Ryukama]

I'm sad that this even has to be said but agreed.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Agree with the idea of it, as well as threads needing an in depth reason before being closed; but prefer Sera's suggestion. But fine one way or the other.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ryukama

An outright rule can be regularly used as a weapon against any staff member who has a bad day and is too tired to deal with an issue that has been done to death previously, which would cause chaos for the wiki. I much prefer a staff instruction.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Wouldn't saying that they'll reply later be better than simply closing the thread?

 

[Callsign_Castle]

I agree with Sera's idea of adding it to the staff advice page.

 

[Agnaa]

I should mention that I agree with the wording of the OP, but I think it should be added to the staff advice page, as Sera said.

 

[Ryukama]

@Ryukama
An outright rule can be regularly used as a weapon against any staff member who has a bad day and is too tired to deal with an issue that has been done to death previously, which would cause chaos for the wiki. I much prefer a staff instruction.

I sympathize with whatever staff member is having a bad day but this is just proper etiquette and not abusing power. Of course a staff member mistakingly presuming a thread is concluded and closing it is one thing. But staff just closing threads they don't like out of anger should not be allowed. If a staff member is otherwise well behaved they don't need to be demoted or banned for this, just as we've given second chances to other staff before. However this is obviously not something that should be allowed here and I'm surprised you think a rule against staff abusing power would bring "chaos for the wiki".

 

[Callsign_Castle]

The same should be said for staff that open already concluded threads to throw their opinion in.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ryukama

It is partially due to all of the constant insults, harrassment, and paranoia directed against Weekly and Matthew that I am concerned.

I don't want staff members who have otherwise been productive for years to routinely have demands of demotion and banning organised against them. It would cause the rest of the staff to be afraid of doing their jobs, and be efficiently used against us by the old Discord group and others with a grudge. I obviously agree that it is bad form, but that should go to the instructions page. It is definitely not severe enough to go to the "this might get you banned page".

 

[Ryukama]

If Weekly and Matt aren't actually closing threads for no reason at all then there's nothing to worry about in terms of them getting in any sort of trouble. Anyone who reports them for it won't be taken seriously and if they keep falsely reporting then they will be banned. However if Weekly and Matt are just going around closing threads for zero reason as much as I really, really like those guys they shouldn't be doing that. Abuse of power shouldn't be allowed or omitted from the rules just because you think certain staff do it. Also it's not like we'd have to immediately punish staff the very first time they break this rule.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

As I agree with Antvasima completely; Advice to the Staff would be a better idea. I know from experience that Weekly and Matt are both really nice people when you get to know them; but they do go through a lot of stress both here, IRL, or on other websites such as NF's. And there too many people who treat major problems as minor problems and vice versa just to paint staff members the wrong way.

 

[Kaltias]

@Ant

I'm pretty sure that this would be the kind of rule that leads to demotion only when it happens a lot of times in a short timeframe, kinda like the rule about trying to remain polite, we have never banned anyone for being rude unless it was a recurrent thing.

Similarly this rule wouldn't translate to "ban any staff member that closes a thread with poor reasoning on sight".

 

[Ryukama]

@Ant
I'm pretty sure that this would be the kind of rule that leads to demotion only when it happens a lot of times in a short timeframe, kinda like the rule about trying to remain polite, we have never banned anyone for being rude unless it was a recurrent thing.

Similarly this rule wouldn't translate to "ban any staff member that closes a thread with poor reasoning on sight".

^ Exactly.

Also again I don't even mean closing a thread for a poor reason or out of mistaking it for concluded. I mean a staff member literally just closing a thread for zero reason cause they were angry. That shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Antvasima]

I obviously also want the staff to stick to a proper responsible form of behaviour, but I don't want them to be afraid of being demoted and banned unless they have actually done something genuinely serious.

As you know, I am also allergic to drama, and don't want the RV threads to get any more of that than previously. The one-sided reports against Matthew have gone overboard recently, while leaving out that he has been trying hard to be stoic considering all of the insults and paranoia that he usually has to endure, but it is stressful for him to deal with, especially as he is very busy with schoolwork.

 

[Antvasima]

I do think that Matthew should make an effort to explain himself better when closing threads though. He should at least state that he has dealt with a certain topic for several hundred posts previously, and we cannot be expected to constantly repeat ourselves to absolute exhaustion, or that he will deal with it later when his exams are over, or both in combination.

I would much rather wait and deal with issues slowly and properly than rush sudden previously debunked changes because the staff do not have the time and energy to deal with them at the moment.

 

[Ryukama]

Abusing staff power to just close a thread and shut off discussion for zero reason is pretty serious. If people don't want to worry about getting in trouble for this then they just shouldn't do it. The same way that people on this site make sure not to break every other rule here. But I don't think this even applies to Matthew at all since I'm pretty sure he's never flat out closed a thread for zero reason at all, nor will he ever in the future. Even then, like Kal said this isn't something we instantly would ban and demote a staff on either. Also of course people who repeatedly give phony reports and insult Matt (or do this to anyone here) should be banned and not have their reports taken seriously.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

I haven't followed the entire thread, so excuse me if it's not the most relevant but my main issue with such rules is that people actually reporting staff to the RVT, especially if it's another staff doing it, does nothing but stirrs up drama in public, given that it's very unlikely that we'd proceed to ban/demote a staff based on a single offense unless this offense is major. Given this knowledge, reporting a staff on the thread like any other offense only serves to publically shame the staff instead of actually working to solve the problem.

I'm not saying that staff should be beyond the rules, nor that this rule shouldn't exist, but given that the RVT is usually for reporting violations to be acted upon fast by the staff, I feel like such rule shouldn't be something to be posted on the RVT and instead should be taken to other relevant staff.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, he didn't close the two threads for no reasons, but he has been bad at explaining them.

 

[Antvasima]

Saikou makes a good point as usual.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, he didn't close the two threads for no reasons, but he has been bad at explaining them.

He's closed more than two threads with bad reasoning. Four in recent many, and some more going back months before that.

BIG TEXT WARNING THAT I'M NOT CALLING FOR MATTHEW TO BE BANNED/DEMOTED FOR THIS

I want him to explain himself better or to not close them pre-emptively.

 

[Ryukama]

I feel like such rule shouldn't be something to be posted on the RVT and instead should be taken to other relevant staff.

I think that's fair.

Well, he didn't close the two threads for no reasons, but he has been bad at explaining them.

I'm not sure what these two threads are or the situation, but if this is the case that's obviously not anything worth punishing.

Look, what I am talking about is a staff who is constantly going around and closing threads for zero reason. This obviously should not be allowed. Luckily I do not think any of the current staff do this. However it should still be against the rules to do. Like Kal said, if someone does this once or if it's merely out of misunderstanding that's not something to be punished.