Despite agreeing in part, it feels like this measure isn't more than a quick excuse to enact a revoke when someone may be toeing the line but isn't outright doing anything banable. Doubly so as its coming in days after a member of both here and the other site was banned for malicious votes, but staff was made aware of their dual-membership days beforehand.

As obvious as their habits were at the time (as authors I am working with were partially on the receiving end) and as much as I would have preferred this quick fix solution in the moment, I think that overall this policy'd do more harm than good. As brought by Prismal we've had dual-site users in the wiki/discord with no behavorial issues; I don't think we need to penalize users who are otherwise not problematic.

We can work in our existing methods of logging issues and submitting bans/revokes based off behavior.

I think given the kind of footnote offbrand sites have become in the years since their forming we don't need to make a show of signposting "KEEP OUT". The original rule was a balwark against a flood. Now, if anything, it's a puddle.

For instance, as Ori mentions below, having sites inexorably tied to PAI cases excluded is sensible, whereas our past and current issues with RPC are hardly unknown to the general public.

Given what has been brought up so far, I feel like the list should be public save for PAI-tied sites.

Transparency is important, but this is a difficult intersection.

Could you elaborate on your concerns with making the list public?

Basically, the optics of having an official "enemies list" in public. I'm concerned that it'd come off as aggressive rather than defensive.

I don't think it should be an automatic ban, but instead considered in each circumstance given the facts, how the user in question responds to the matter, etc.

Could you elaborate on your concerns with making the list public?

I think that noting that if a user leaves an adversarial community, joins the SCP Wiki and rejoins the adversarial community, that should definitely result in a ban? Kind of like, the first time it happens, revoke, and the second time, results in a ban?

There should be an explicit list of adversarial sites for reference, maintained by staff.

Are you envisioning a publicly-accessible list or one restricted to staff? I'd have concerns about the former.

Speaking of, what set of sites are we considering adversarial at the start here, assuming the policy is approved?

This was mentioned in chat but probably worth noting here: the response is only a revoke (so they can remedy the situation, vs a ban), however if the user continues to attempt to sneak a rejoin in after a revoke then they can land a ban for attempting to game/abuse site procedure.

Anyways, general support but wanted to make a few points.

If it's just removal and they can rejoin at any time, having fixed the issue, then I'm much more comfortable with the idea of this.

Is their mere membership on that site enough to net them a potentially permanent ban? I'm not sure.

You're right, it's not.

That's why I said "membership revocation" rather than ban. I do not believe Disc should ban for this, I think any user willing to leave these communities should be invited right back in. This is not a permaban or a timed ban, just a "please remove your membership to x community and then you may rejoin" action.

This gives Disc a lot of leeway by not defining either what makes a site adversarial or which sites are adversarial.

A broad definition makes it easier on Disc, no doubt, but it's possibly ripe for abuse, and is certainly entirely subjective, as presented.

Additionally, this lack of a clear definition would make it difficult for users to know if a site fits the bill, either as a member of that site, or as a user reporting a potential rule infraction.

To us, it may seem obvious, but certainly not to everyone.

At the very least I think it would prove useful to have a list (descriptive not prescriptive) of sites which fit this bill and/or of attributes that would make a site fit this bill.

(I recognize this applies to one of our current reasons for application denial, treat this as a commentary on that current rule as well.)

Currently, it is policy to deny applications from users who hold membership with a community that is antagonistic to our own. While users are required to leave these sites in order to join our wiki, there is currently no policy that stops them from simply rejoining those communities after becoming a member of the SCP wiki. Simply put, we do not revoke/ban users who are discovered to be members of antagonistic communities after they've joined our community.

This currently exists as a loophole in the system, and Disc would like to move forward with closing it. The proposal is to take our current policy regarding user applications:

Please note that membership in various sites which have had adversarial relationships with our own is cause for an application to be declined.

And append it to the following:

Please note that membership in various sites/communities which have had adversarial relationships with our own is cause for an application to be declined or for membership to the SCP wiki to be revoked.

This version is also future-proofed in case further adversarial sites/communities are identified in the future.

This discussion will be open for 1 week.