Forum Structure

Forum Structure

DrEverettMann 08 Dec 2015 04:43

There was a long discussion in chat on revocation, minor and major forum issues, and the way we treat thread.

The basic issue is that users feel like they're treated poorly when we make threads that basically say "Watch this person until they fuck up, then ban 'em." We're not quite that mean, but that's the impression we're giving off, so we need to fix that. It's especially bad because we often move a thread from minor issues to major, so it conflates the minor stuff they've done with the big stuff.

One idea is a thread for just minor issues and note-keeping. Things like "so-and-so accidentally made an alternate account. It made no votes and is not a member of the site, so non-issue," or "This user didn't read the rules, and their membership has been revoked." Silber created one after getting permission from Moose.

However, that could get a bit tedious to search. I like the idea of having an individual thread for a person. So, alternate idea, which Silber and Moose helped develop: We rename the minor and major user issues forums.

Major User Issues becomes Disciplinary. Any disciplinary action goes into a person's disciplinary thread. Major or minor, it goes in that forum. Minor User Issues becomes Non-Disciplinary Record-Keeping. Bit of a mouthful, but that way every thread effectively says at the top "You are not in trouble." Revocations, silly crap, potential trouble signs that aren't really disciplinary, these go there.

Threads do not move from one to the other. If a person has a Non-Disciplinary thread and then breaks the rules, the thread is not moved. A new thread is created. If their Non-Disciplinary thread is relevant, it can be linked, just as we do with chat threads for wiki users. The point is to emphasize that having a thread in Non-Disciplinary is not a big deal. We still have that stuff recorded if we need it, but it's not conflated with actual disciplinary actions.

Thoughts, please.

Re: Forum Structure

Decibelles 08 Dec 2015 04:58

Few issues not mentioned here:

• Where do Cease & Desists fall under? C&Ds basically tell a user to stop critiquing until they post a successful article and understand what good critique to give; is that command to tell them not to critique disciplinary?
• Would we move threads already created according to where they need to be? It would be strange to see a user who has had disciplinary action taken under the Non-Disciplinary Record Keeping.
• If we create different threads, are we going to title them accordingly? The thread just created on l33tr is titled as Non-Disciplinary. Will that be the new standard? If we have more than one thread for a user and use Wikidot Search, it'll probably be too unintuitive to tell which is which.

revocation

Perhaps revocation should also be clearer that it's not disciplinary, especially if a user is on the receiving end of it. I've mentioned it in chat, but it seems confusing as to when revocation happens or whether it's non-disciplinary or is disciplinary (especially since we occasionally do that thing where we "vote" for revocation).

Re: Forum Structure

Zyn 08 Dec 2015 08:05

I'd say C&Ds are non-disciplinary, since it's effectively saying "slow down, learn how to do the thing and then do the thing before you tell others how to do the thing". The point of a C&D is never to punish the user; it's to ensure they obtain some experience in site writing so they don't negatively affect others through misleading or incorrect feedback. It's when someone ignores the staff order when it moves into disciplinary.

I'd say yes? I can help out with the thread moving once my exams are over.

I'm not too sure about creating new threads, but I don't think it'd be too much of an issue having "Disciplinary:" and "Non-Disciplinary:" at the front of new threads made from now on.

Revokes by nature seem disciplinary, since we're effectively putting the user in a time-out and not letting them use the site. To someone who was just super excited to be on the site and didn't quite get what was going on, a revoke will probably seem nothing but mean. Maybe there can be something put into the site rules about how revocation does not mean you're in trouble? Idk. I feel like the users should be aware of how their actions (and understanding of the rules) affect the rest of the community, but I don't want someone to dive off from "oh, okay, I'll follow the rules, I didn't know it was an issue, I'll fix that" right into "YOU ALL HATE ME I CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT".

Re: Forum Structure

thedeadlymoose 08 Dec 2015 08:25

The thread just created on l33tr is titled as Non-Disciplinary. Will that be the new standard?

This is what I would advocate for, yes. I created the thread that way as a demonstration of how it would help — every post in the thread has Non-Disciplinary Record Keeping on it. Site Search works well with this. We can retitle older threads if we have time.

We can also just call it "Non-Disciplinary" for stuff that's revoke-worthy material, and "Non-Disciplinary Record-Keeping" for stuff that isn't. If we want.

Revocation in general is a mess, but that's another topic.

Re: Forum Structure

RJB_R 08 Dec 2015 06:12

Maybe we could change major and minor user issues to serious and non-serious user issues.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Forum Structure

Silberescher 08 Dec 2015 19:54

Is this sarcasm? I don't see what makes that any different.

Re: Forum Structure

Zyn 08 Dec 2015 07:46

I'd prefer that the forums be renamed for clarity. The reason the "minor user issues" section exists to begin with is because there needed to be a place for records keeping of all the non-extreme things and people could discuss as necessary; a single thread encompassing all of that would get pretty clogged up.

That said, I'm fine with having a single thread for the things that don't require staff follow-up.

It is concerning to me the way the minor user issue threads were interpreted. Most of the records keeping I do is for convenience's sake—the less time I need spend digging through someone's wiki profile for pertinent comments and context, the more time I can spend responding to PMs, reviewing drafts, etc. etc. It would make sense for threads including disciplinary measures to be put separately (I think we have a thread for someone getting banned for trolling in the minor user issues subforum?).

_{Also, finals week sucks, you guys.}

Last edited on 08 Dec 2015 07:49 by Zyn Show more

Re: Forum Structure

Decibelles 08 Dec 2015 07:50

Maybe even having the minor/major user issues renamed and restructured, and then one thread for things that don't require staff follow-up? Best of both worlds?

Re: Forum Structure

Zyn 08 Dec 2015 08:08

Yeah, I was thinking that's the plan.

It'll be good to have that thread. I do get an occasional PM from someone who thinks I'm an admin/the boss/head of the site, and I usually have to awkwardly forward them over to an admin with the usual "they're super busy, so idk if/when you'll get a response" note.

Re: Forum Structure

thedeadlymoose 08 Dec 2015 08:20

It is concerning to me the way the minor user issue threads were interpreted.

Same. Keeping these threads is an enormous convenience to us when the user does fuck up in a more serious way, but almost everyone sees them as minor disciplinary threads.

They also have the same "public humiliation" aspect as an actual disciplinary thread does.

one thread for things that don't require staff follow-up?

The counter-argument for this — from Troy and Mann — is that it'll still be a pain in the ass to search no matter what, and that many things not requiring staff follow-up can later require staff follow-up (the example used was someone having an old account that they don't currently have access to, which wouldn't require staff follow-up unless, say, they regained access and started double-voting).

Note: I supported the thread regardless. [I'm uncertain of my stance now.]

_{zyn good luck with finals}

Last edited on 08 Dec 2015 08:25 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: Forum Structure

DrEverettMann 19 Dec 2015 22:39

Changes implemented.

Re: Forum Structure

Zyn 31 Dec 2015 06:06

And as of 10 PM PST today, all of the Disciplinary/Non-Disc records have been labeled and sorted accordingly. Of note:

• underage users who applied to the site with their real age are treated as "non-disc". Underage users who ban-evaded, sockpuppeted, or lied on successive applications about their age are in "disciplinary".
• users who received warnings but not bans are in records-keeping, not disciplinary
• the "non-disc" and "disciplinary" labels are in the thread description, not the thread name, to facilitate future thread moves (if necessary) and in the case of users changing usernames and/or using multiple sockpuppets
• and probably some other things but I need to rest my eyes for a moment d:

Let me know if any issues are present.

Re: Forum Structure

thedeadlymoose 05 Jan 2016 22:02

the "non-disc" and "disciplinary" labels are in the thread description, not the thread name, to facilitate future thread moves (if necessary) and in the case of users changing usernames and/or using multiple sockpuppets

Just for clarity:

We don't want to be moving threads anymore in most cases. This was a big problem with Minor & Major threads, and helped with the conflation of the two.

If someone has a non-disc thread for something that wasn't against the rules, we don't then move that thread to disciplinary unless we, say, discover that a previously inoffensive-seeming issue was actually a bigger deal.

And someone with a disciplinary thread who needs a record kept about them should have that record in a separate (non-disciplinary) thread.

Turning the question around — Are there any issues with that?

Re: Forum Structure

Zyn 05 Jan 2016 22:53

It might get confusing if there are two threads for the same person, but I think that can be easily dealt with if there's something in the first post and/or thread description noting that there's more than one thread for said person. I think we'll figure something else when the need arises.

Re: Forum Structure

thedeadlymoose 07 Jan 2016 00:58

It might get confusing if there are two threads for the same person, but I think that can be easily dealt with if there's something in the first post and/or thread description noting that there's more than one thread for said person. I think we'll figure something else when the need arises.

Yeah — that's why I recommend putting "Record-Keeping" in the thread title for the Non-Disciplinary threads. If it's in the thread description, it's easily missed.

I still recommend that, but if I'm outvoted… XD

Re: Forum Structure

Zyn 07 Jan 2016 02:55

Only reason I'm iffy on it is because we have some threads for people with multiple account name changes and/or sockpuppets, and those thread names get long and unwieldy.

Doesn't look like this is an issue, actually. Some spaces fix it up.

That said, if someone is willing to go through all the threads and put the label in the title, that's fine with me.

I will do the thing. The thing has been done.

Last edited on 10 Jan 2016 03:15 by Zyn Show more

Re: Forum Structure

thedeadlymoose 10 Jan 2016 05:49

Zyn ur the best

Re: Forum Structure

Zyn 10 Jan 2016 07:25

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:・ﾟ✧*:・ﾟ✧*:・ﾟ✧