Spinoff thread from here to discuss a particular issue with the http://www.scp-wiki.net/criticism-policy.
Here's my (wall-of-text-y) phrasing of the rule, which came initially from Mann, and is currently just a "guideline" and not a full-on rule:
Don't tell people they can't do something if there isn't actually a rule. It's better to say "I downvoted because you did X," or "it's a bad idea to do X," or "X is inaccurate." If you say "don't do this" you're implying it's a rule (unless there is, in fact, a rule they're breaking). For example, "Don't post without using a sandbox," "Don't post a humanoid, those never work," "Don't post a -J until you've got at least five SCPs already," or "Don't try anything new. You're too new to make it work." There's no rule saying someone must use a sandbox, or swear off writing humanoids/-Js/Keters until they're more experienced. They probably should. But they don't have to. And if a new writer wants to try something risky, let them go for it. The worst that can happen is that their article gets deleted in 24 hours. We do want people being ambitious and taking chances.
And now a brief conversation about this, for context:
[00:24] DrMann All it boils down to is "Don't tell people they can't do something if there isn't actually a rule."
[00:24] DrMann Technically, it's already against the rules. Backseat modding.
[00:24] thedeadlymoose Like, plenty of people say "don't use amnesiac, use amnestic" even though that's technically not a rule
[00:24] thedeadlymoose Is /that/ backseat modding?
[00:24] DrMann And they should stop. They should instead say, "You should use amnestic," or "amnesiac is inaccurate, and I'm downvoting because of it."
[00:25] DrMann Like, the basic message isn't the problem. It's the wording, and the way it leads to other pernicious thinking. "You can't start off with a -J."
[00:25] DrMann "You can't write an article with multiple exploration logs on your first go."
[00:25] thedeadlymoose I agree, but I'm not really prepared to enforce that discipline-wise.
[00:25] thedeadlymoose I really think it's a bad idea.
[00:25] thedeadlymoose The rest of this stuff, sure.
[00:25] Wogglebug Mann: I think it's fine as a guideline.
[00:26] Wogglebug S'not like they're actually stopping them.
[00:26] DrMann Eh, all right. I'm willing to be overruled. I /do/ think it's one of the more important parts of the thing, though.
[00:26] DrMann That's the problem, Wog.
[00:26] DrMann They are. Because they're presenting these as rules and the newbies don't know any better.
[00:26] Wogglebug I think that's the solution.
[00:26] thedeadlymoose Okay. Then I think what we need to do is have a discussion about that particular rule on O5
[00:26] Wogglebug Because if it's a guideline, we can just tell them they're wrong.
[00:26] DrMann Again, when they present it as "this is my opinion," that's okay. It's when they present it as "you are not allowed to do this" that I get annoyed.
[00:26] thedeadlymoose I know it's not just you or I who's discussed this. This entire time I was wondering when it came up
[00:27] thedeadlymoose For /now/, I'll leave it as a guideline
So: I know even some staff do this regularly or have done it occasionally (I've probably done this). Enforcing this as an actual rule, could, in my opinion lead to some unnecessary problems, but I can also see potential benefits.
Thoughts?
