Thread Moderators and Staff Threads

[FinePoint]

Posting with permission from @DarkDragonMedeus.

Basically, in regards to actually making staff threads, the rules only say the following:

Community members seeking to create staff threads must adhere to the following guidelines:

• Clearly specify in the thread title and opening post that they have obtained explicit permission from authorized staff members to create the thread.
• Provide accurate and relevant information within the staff thread, ensuring it aligns with the purpose for which permission was granted.

Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by administrators or bureaucrats.

• If a staff member permits a regular member to create a Staff Discussion thread, the thread starter is automatically permitted to continue posting indefinitely there unless those rights are specifically revoked.

Now, according to these rules, Thread Moderators, myself included, are not allowed to approve nor post their own Staff Discussion threads.

However, I've done both things literally dozens of times and not once has anyone ever taken issue with it.

It's my opinion that either we should enforce our rules as they're written, or change them to match how we actually enforce them.

Regardless of the verdict, I do think something needs to change to make things consistent. So below are three proposals.

---

Proposal 1: Extend permission to Thread Moderators.

• My personal preference. We clearly don't have an issue with it, so why is it even a rule? I think we can trust Thread Moderators enough to merely propose something to the staff. Barring them from creating and approving staff threads seems pointless to me.
• The wording would literally just change from "Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by administrators or bureaucrats." to "Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by thread moderators, administrators, or bureaucrats."

Proposal 2: Make it depend.

• A proposal both @DarkDragonMedeus and @Antvasima proposed in private. I'll quote the former:
• "I believe that to be more of a case by case thing; revising an entire range of tiers such as Ultima's revision of 1-A and above literally needs Bureaucrat's permission to make even if he's an Admin. But a proposal such as a new ability that has some common thing in fiction is something I wouldn't mind Thread mods approving."
• I believe a workable wording for this would be: "Authorization to create minor staff threads can be granted by any evaluating staff, but threads about major policy revisions must receive permission from an administrator or bureaucrat."
• My personal issue with this is that I think the subjective nature will lead to confusion, and while admin and bureaucrats being the only votes that matter for these things make sense, but I don't see the purpose in barring thread moderators from even suggesting them on their own.

Proposal 3: Keep it the same, but actually enforce it.

• If we decide to keep it this strict, then we need to actually enforce it, and close threads which are posted which don't follow the guidelines.
• I'm obviously opposed to this, my job is hard enough already without needing to beg for permission every time I want to bring something up.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Proposal 2 probably deserves more elaborate discussions which we as collective staff may do here. We could perhaps categorize different levels of staff threads where Thread Mods can create or approve the lower levels, but there of course are the absolute highest levels that require Bureaucrat approval. As for levels in between, unsure at the moment, but we could discuss them here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think just allowing thread mods to permit the creation of staff threads is fine, really. I think we've been doing that all along- I surely thought that was how it worked, too- and it hasn't caused any demonstrable issues. If a thread is uniquely awful, we can deal with that thread itself, but as a matter of policy I think it's much more straightforward to take the approach of Proposal 1, here, rather than being bogged down in the minutiae of Proposal 2.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I think just allowing thread mods to permit the creation of staff threads is fine, really. I think we've been doing that all along- I surely thought that was how it worked, too- and it hasn't caused any demonstrable issues. If a thread is uniquely awful, we can deal with that thread itself, but as a matter of policy I think it's much more straightforward to take the approach of Proposal 1, here, rather than being bogged down in the minutiae of Proposal 2.

Same

Specially since our Advice to the staff of the Vs Battle wiki page cites the following:

Do not create policy revision threads that are open for all members to participate. They almost always spiral out of control into extremely time-consuming pure chaos, and it is up to the staff to decide such issues in the first place, so please post them in our staff forum.

Implying they were able to.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't think that thread mods should be allowed to initiate revisions with major ramifications for our wiki and/or community as a whole on their own, without any further safety clearance, as that would exceed their intended authority and proven reliability, but less important staff forum discussions are probably fine.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

So I decided to investigate when the rule was introduced

This was the thread where it was discussed. Originally, the proposal was, in fact, that staff with evaluation rights (so including thread mods) could grant permission.

This was later changed by Antvasima and implemented with barely discussion for the change (with specifically DDM accepting it and LordGriffin seemingly, but unclear if he accepted the OP or the rewrite, so eh).

So yeah, this thread is more than warranted here.

 

[Antvasima]

So I decided to investigate when the rule was introduced

This was the thread where it was discussed. Originally, the proposal was, in fact, that staff with evaluation rights (so including thread mods) could grant permission.

This was later changed by Antvasima and implemented with barely discussion for the change (with specifically DDM accepting it and LordGriffin seemingly, but unclear if he accepted the OP or the rewrite, so eh).

So yeah, this thread is more than warranted here.

That seems like an unfairly accusatory summary. Check the timeline of the comments please. Almost nobody else seemed to bother to be active and help out in that thread towards the end.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

That seems like an unfairly accusatory summary. Check the timeline of the comments please. Almost nobody else seemed to bother to be active and help out in that thread towards the end.

Accusatory? That's... What happened. It barely got discussion, because no one else seemed interested. That doesn't change that it barely got discussed.

So imo, this thread is good to have a better view of the overall staff opinion on it, if it needs to change or if its fine as is.

 

[FinePoint]

I don't think that thread mods should be allowed to initiate revisions with major ramifications for our wiki and/or community as a whole on their own, without any further safety clearance, as that would exceed their intended authority and proven reliability, but less important staff forum discussions are probably fine.

What safety concerns do you have, exactly?

It's not like merely proposing a revision has any bearing on whether or not it's accepted.

Besides, the standard for hiring even thread moderators on this platform is seemingly extremely high.

You have to also consider the inverse ramifications. Psychologically, creating any additional barriers to someone helping will deter them from doing so in the first place. We constantly complain about not having enough people to do meaningful work, yet we simultaneously are extremely strict on who we allow on the team while also being scared to allow them any real freedom or authority.

I've made a lot of staff proposals over the years without permission, and there was never any problems. Most of them have led to some kind of change or at least a productive discussion.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I obviously agree with Antvasima that a revision for the overhauling notable parts of the tiering system absolutely demand Bureaucrat approval, but I do not think most staff only threads go that far. If it's about discussion rule addition/removal, a topic regarding heavily controversial verses that ended up having to be moved to staff threads, or just some revisions to an ability page, I think thread mods approving permission to make is fine however.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think that thread mods should be allowed to initiate revisions with major ramifications for our wiki and/or community as a whole on their own, without any further safety clearance, as that would exceed their intended authority and proven reliability, but less important staff forum discussions are probably fine.

I think delineating those two categories will be very difficult in terms of creating an effective policy to do so, and I think we're looking at minimum improvement if we do given how things have already been running. I understand caution and concern in the face of lessening restrictions but in this case I think it's fine. That'd be my vote on the subject.

 

[Antvasima]

What safety concerns do you have, exactly?

It's not like merely proposing a revision has any bearing on whether or not it's accepted.

Besides, the standard for hiring even thread moderators on this platform is seemingly extremely high.

Our standards for promoting thread moderators are not nearly as high as for promoting administrators, and initiating drastic changes to our rules and systems should always have to be cleared by our highest ranked staff members as a safety measure to not potentially cause massive damage. My apologies.

 

[FinePoint]

Our standards for promoting thread moderators are not nearly as high as for promoting administrators, and initiating drastic changes to our rules and systems should always have to be cleared by our highest ranked staff members as a safety measure to not potentially cause massive damage. My apologies.

Well right now they can't initiate any changes at all.

Do you have any ideas for how a 'drastic change' should actually be defined?

 

[Antvasima]

No, but it should be rather intuitive whether a change is less significant or affects large parts of our wiki or community as a whole.

 

[FinePoint]

No, but it should be rather intuitive whether a change is less significant or affects large parts of our wiki or community as a whole.

Well, what are your thoughts on my initial wording then?

"Authorization to create minor staff threads can be granted by any evaluating staff, but threads about major policy revisions must receive permission from an administrator or bureaucrat."

I also thought it would be pretty intuitive, but DDM wanted to be more specific.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems fine to me.

 

[FinePoint]

That seems fine to me.

Okay. So these are the relevant votes so far:

Proposal 1: Mr. Bambu, LephyrTheRevanchist, Agnaa, Qawsedf234

Proposal 2: Antvasima, DarkDragonMedeus (with more specifics)

Proposal 3:

 

[Agnaa]

I prefer proposal 1.

 

[KingTempest]

I'm not really an admin so my vote doesn't count, but regarding proposal 2 I think maybe staff who specialize in certain verses should have jurisdiction to grant staff threads about certain verses

Like I frequent OP, more than any staff on the site save for maybe Damage, I believe I should be able to grant someone the ability to make an OP staff thread. Same for other staff in other verses

 

[Antvasima]

The issue of disagreement here is not about thread moderators being allowed to post and give permission for regular content revision threads that need staff input on their own. That is fine. It is about that I and Medeus think that clearance from higher ranked staff members should be required for staff threads regarding changes that greatly affect our wiki and community as a whole.

 

[Agnaa]

The issue of disagreement here is not about thread moderators being allowed to post and give permission for regular content revision threads that need staff input on their own. That is fine. It is about that I and Medeus think that clearance from higher ranked staff members should be required for staff threads regarding changes to that greatly affect our wiki and community as a whole.

I'm just not really worried about the communication of ideas. It's the acceptance of it that matters, which is already controlled by limiting votes for those things to administrators, and by giving bureaucrats a veto.

Especially since, even with a rule like this, people would still be able to bring up these ideas on profiles, general threads, Q&As, etc.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that is a good point. However, I also don't want to risk any potential inflammatory agitation if we accidentally promote inappropriate members to thread moderator positions at some point. Requiring an extra step up the ladder for confirmations would limit the risks, as they have been promoted twice.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

However, I also don't want to risk any potential inflammatory agitation if we accidentally promote inappropriate members to thread moderator positions at some point.

If such occurs, it would just lead to an automatic closing of the thread anyways (on top of a citation with HR group). We already have the proper protocol for these cases, imo.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Maybe I am obeing overly cautious then.

 

[Vietthai96]

Bump, has this thread reached a conclusion yet?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I prefer proposal 1.

I'm also fine with proposal one. Any massive site overhaul require upper level input anyways so I don't see it effecting anything and makes it more in-line woth current practices.

 

[Vzearr]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Which staff members have thought what here so far?

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. So these are the relevant votes so far:

Proposal 1: Mr. Bambu, LephyrTheRevanchist, Agnaa

Proposal 2: Antvasima, DarkDragonMedeus (with more specifics)

Proposal 3:

Current vote count. Needs more votes.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Current vote count. Needs more votes.

Qawsedf voted for proposal 1 too

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will not block option 1 from being applied in that case. I do not feel strongly about the issue.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Qawsedf voted for proposal 1 too

Yea

 

[Vzearr]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

So should the consensus here be applied now?

 

[FinePoint]

So should the consensus here be applied now?

The votes are still a little split but if you're willing to concede then it's just DDM still objecting.

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

if you're willing to concede then it's just DDM still objecting.

Not a staff but I just want to point this out:

Okay. I will not block option 1 from being applied in that case. I do not feel strongly about the issue.

 

[FinePoint]

Not a staff but I just want to point this out:

Right, but 'not blocking it' and 'conceding' are different.

The former implies merely being accepting if the other option passes, while the latter implies changing/nullifying your vote for the sake of progress.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I do not feel strongly about the issue, but haven't changed my view as such regarding it. I am just saying that you can go ahead and apply the consensus here.

I only potentially use my veto if I think that something seems to be a completely destructive disaster for our wiki or community, and even then I am open to arguments why I am mistaken.

 

[FinePoint]

Well, I do not feel strongly about the issue, but haven't changed my view as such regarding it. I am just saying that you can go ahead and apply the consensus here.

Alright.
I'd need the page unlocked.

 

[FinePoint]

Bambu unlocked it for me, and it has been applied, so I suppose I will close this now.

Thank you to everyone who helped out.