One of two Update Posts.
A Preface, Because This Post Needed To Be Longer
So it looks like I have turned into the community bicycle. WHAT FUN. Yes, non-staff users reading 05 obsessively: If you care enough to PM me, then I (still) care enough to post your (heavily summarized) concerns. So just, uh, give me a couple days per round to let staff catch up. And to let ME catch up. Seriously, half you fuckers gave me the biggest walls of texts I've ever seen. That I myself didn't write.
Membership Split & Writer Control of Mythos
Everyone seems to love this so far. I have received no new PMs in opposition since the single user dissent of last post, despite Waxx and Nusquam and Eskobar joining the dissenters. A few representative quotes:
As for the expressed concern of elitism/internecine fighting between Contributors & Members, isn't that what tempbans/permabans are for? People who start deliberately stirring up shit?
Drive-by fans dictating/directing mythos is… a bad thing.
YES! I'm sorry, but watching people who do not write anything bash articles for "not creepy enough" and stuff like that, and downvoting accordingly, is extremely frustrating.
I don't really see any "well you haven't written anything so neener neener" elitism on the existing wiki yet, it probably won't be much of an issue on the new one as long as it's understood upfront being a dick about member level is a douchey thing to do.
regarding elitism and cliquishness with restricting voting rights or whatnot to different levels, I'm gonna admit that that may occur, but the mere fact of having different levels of membership regardless of access/voting rights is going to do that. And if someone on EITHER side of that divide starts getting nasty about it, that's what warnings/tempbans/permabans are for. It just needs to be CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY stated in the site rules that that kind of behavior will result in those consequences. Don't give anyone room to say "I didn't know my assholish behavior would have consequences!"
…And a whole bunch more PMed me in support but didn't say anything in-depth. Of course they are all soon-to-be-Contributors so maybe this doesn't take into account the True Will of the Masses, but if the Masses aren't going to PM me, then they can suck it.
Look, I have been personally convinced that elitism is a potential worry, but more speaking up about this is gonna be necessary to move this from Minority Viewpoint Status. Convince us, guys. OR suggest an alternative that achieves everything important that current proposals do, but controls elitism.
Also, Deletion
A few people did support giving the community some say in page deletion. The three main proposals are as follows:
- The dual vote system - take the 'popular vote' into account for deletion, but 'contributor vote' has more power.
- A system where contributor votes for the purposes of deletion or retention are equal to [(readers)/(contributors)]. This puts both groups on equal ground, making the smaller contributor pool have an exactly equal voice to the presumably larger non-contributor pool. (Note that AFAICT this would backfire like hell if we end up having a smaller non-contributor pool.)
(BY THE WAY: This post does not take into account Scantron's post above re: vote suggestions, as I started writing this before he posted it. You're just gonna have to read up a bit!)
The last two are proposed by GrandEnder, whose brain I have been convinced houses a super-computer. Others have echoed similar suggestions, but without the math. Note that all these proposals don't take into account the creeping terror of elitism.
Also note that the 'core article protection' proposal doesn't account for all of the purpose of weighing contributor votes more (or exclusively): giving writers more say in getting rid of mediocre articles and promoting underappreciated ones is a central goal here, though some staff members do not think this goal is worthwhile. FLAMING ASSHOLES, ALL OF THEM. Note: Moose was set on fire and run over a couple times by a truck for this line of his post.
Next.
JESUS CHRIST WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY
Multiple non-staff users PMed to oppose election of community ambassadors or any staff as silly sounding, and redundant with our current system, and/or a pain-in-the-ass-sounding "stupid" solution to a problem we don't have. I have to say I tentatively agree, because I am an enemy of freedom because it sounds like a potential clusterfuck with drama and extra sauce on the side.
Senior Staff: What Does That Even Mean Now Anyway
Letting good critiquers in an senior staff gets mixed comments. Bland is the name everyone tosses around as representative of someone who is kind of 'eh' in terms of community, doesn't write anything, but has critique that everyone respects. One person suggested a staff-controlled grandfathering system, which I fully support because I love nepotism.
Many people have weighed in on the alteration of senior staff. The main question seems to be: How are we planning to define Senior Staff? Will people who are not very good community members, but can do good critique, become staff? Will they be expected to have any behavioral changes? What about people with great critique who just won't stop being jackasses in chat? (Not that it's not an open secret that we already have a few staff like this! :P)
Note that Eskobar suggested election of temporary senior staff. I strongly oppose this on all levels that I can think of at the moment, and that is a lot of levels. Primarily: Senior staff should not be temporary. IMO.
Also, my personal view: I strongly support the idea that any member may be recommended for senior staff by regular users via an official process, and be able to apply themselves through an official process as well. Thoughts?
On Technical Staff
Okay so a couple people PMed in support of just keeping Technical Staff, and a couple people PMed in opposition of the role existing. This is probably the most boring part of this entire post, but I already told people I was putting it in. Thanks a lot, guys.
Other Questions
- The following Q regarding author deletion was relayed to me and I think it is worth considering:
Also, how would we treat users who make it to Contributor, leave/delete their stuff, then come back later? I know that both vezaz and Lycan Therapy have done that recently, although I think they're both back and have reposted their stuff. If someone makes it to Contributor on the basis of a single SCP, delete it and never write anything else, do they get to stay at the Contributor level?
Thoughts?
- Regarding grandfathering user status, multiple people wanna know if they'll have to reapply for membership, and if they'll automatically get granted Contributor status if applicable. AFAIK, the answer is yes, and I can only see this changing if it's decided to alter the slush pile, OR to kick articles that fail to reach a certain + level back to the slush pile.
- Not sure in which thread to put this… but a couple people have asked whether the site at large is going to get a chance to directly vote on these changes. Thoughts? (I have no opinion as of yet.)
- Will non-contributors be able to edit pages for grammar, assuming user divide goes through?
- Back to the goddamn authorship rights question. Most people agree authors should retain most rights, including deletion. The margins is where there is still debate. How many rights does each author have? How do we as a community handle deletion? There is no consensus that I have seen here, so if you have any thoughts, keep weighing in. [I cross-posted this question to both threads! That's how relevant it is. :P]
Stuff regarding the Administrative side of things has been posted in the Management Overhaul thread.