All suggestions in this thread and chat so far have been taken into account. Notably, the current draft goes against two suggestions that I immediately recall, notably:

• Soulless' feedback that "Don't post things like, "The problems with this article should be obvious."" should be a suggestion only — I made it a rule, because I suspect we'd be treating it like one.
• A number of people in Super Secret Staff Chat (including, currently, Wogglebug, Soulless, and possibly Mann) disagree that "Don't say you're saving a bad article" should be explicit. I don't see why it shouldn't be, since I also wouldn't be surprised if people started doing that again. Their argument is: it can be dealt with when it comes up under the "don't be a dick" rule. Rule has been cut per consensus.

Oh yeah, and Wheaton's Law — "Don't Be A Dick" — is now listed under Obligations in Site Rules. Since we all seem to agree it should be there anyway.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not making absolute final decisions here. I suspect we're going to be cutting the bad articles rule based on current consensus, though few enough people have weighed in that I could be wrong. Just cut it.

My goals with the current draft were to make it clear and succinct while also maintaining conversational tone for an easier read. To this end, I bolded the main points and left the explanations conversational. Material that I didn't write came mostly from Mann & Scantron (that's the majority of it, of course).

As for #9, that sounds like something to add into the How to Write an SCP guide.

Agreeing completely. Let's make it happen.

(Generally agree with the rest too, to be clear)

As for #9, that sounds like something to add into the How to Write an SCP guide. While that's not in the required reading, I do think it should be mandatory before writing an article. Possibly add in the provision that they can ask for exceptions from staff if they have a particularly clever idea. Again, I like people taking risks, so long as they are aware of and accept the possibility of failure.

We have a rule. Don't be a dick. This is a very broad rule. It is also seldom enforced.

Mainly because it's actually a chat rule, not a site rule.

It is also enforced completely differently in chat than on the site. We have a zero tolerance policy on the wiki of outright flaming people; in chat, you only get in trouble for 'excessive' flaming (which usually amounts to "doesn't stop when told to" or "does it constantly and we get sick of it"). Occasional flaming is pretty much going to get you a pass.

Site rule is the just as broad "be mature". Hell, I was actually wrong about disallowing flaming. We don't disallow flaming. We just disallow "heated arguments", which is actually somewhat silly since we totally allow "heated arguments" in practice, we just shut them down if they get too heated, but outright flaming are met with a warning at least.

It may be an unwritten rule to 'don't be a dick' but that's not a great rule to leave unwritten because not all sites take 'don't be a dick' for granted, including ourselves (depending on who was being a dick and in what way). And even then, it's more like 'don't just be a dick, and don't be excessively dickish'.

Ditto for 'don't flame', and if you need proof that reasonable people can interpret this differently than other reasonable people, then refer to my point above re: chat.

That's why a more official cleaned-up version of this criticism policy, which is really partly suggestions and partly how we actually enforce things, is pretty important.

Honestly, I think our Site Rules could do with a rewrite, and not just for the above reasons. There are a ton of minor issues that stack up to a whole lot of unreadability. I mean, just taking a cursory glance, I see that #3 under user obligations is actually a right, and a confusingly worded one at that.

Side note re: #9: We do have some rules that must be followed for SCP articles. It might be nice to clarify which are mandatory (use Safe/Euclid/Keter unless you're writing an 001 or a -J or have a similar level of justification) and which are not, even though people can and will downvote for them (amnestic instead of amnesiac).

We have a rule. Don't be a dick. This is a very broad rule. It is also seldom enforced. Largely, I think, because it is so broad, and because we often don't think about it very much. I think people could be a bit freer about enforcing it, since there are too many ways to be a dick to have every one of them enshrined in the rules. So long as we make sure to start with warnings, document what we're doing, and cross-check each other, I don't think we're going to turn into the nice police. However, it seemed to me that in the case of criticism, some explicit guidelines would help.

These rules, as I see them, are extensions of that rule. They are, essentially, a guide on how not to be a dick when giving criticism. The strict rules amount to "if you do these things, you're a dick." The suggestions are mostly "these are not dickish things, and we will not fault you if you want to do them." The latter were included mostly as a reassurance that we didn't intend to jump down people's throats for being blunt, or for various kinds of posts that can still be useful. I wanted to make sure that in keeping people from being dicks, we did not stifle legitimate criticism. They are not rules so much as explicit guarantees that these posts are not against the rules. Or not posting, or what have you. I wanted to make sure people didn't feel like they had to post long criticisms, or that they couldn't be blunt, or that they were horrible people for saying "meh." Only Bright is a horrible person for saying meh. Horrible, horrible person indeed.

1) Obviously, this is the main rule.

2) Yeah, not a rule. I just don't want people to think they're going to get in trouble because they didn't sugarcoat their post.

3) It's not that they aren't within their rights to post, obviously. The point here is that if they downvote an article, they don't have to post. If they don't feel like saying anything, they can just let their vote stand for them.

4) Another kind of post that I don't feel is dickish. It's not as helpful as involved criticism, but it at least lets the author know that it just wasn't engaging or interesting, rather than outright bad.

5) Mostly an umbrella for the lower rules.

6) Again, fairly obvious dickery to be avoided.

7) This gets its own rule because I've seen it so many times. "We're not going to tell you what you did wrong. You should already know better."

8) This is basically a clarification of earlier rules. Agreeing with someone else gives no additional content, so it might seem like a shitpost, but it reinforces the other person's post. I felt this was an important distinction. Again, mostly a reassurance that we're not going to come down on this.

9) This really is a matter of backseat modding, most of the time. But I hate it in other contexts. "Don't post a humanoid, those never work." "Don't post a -J until you've got at least five SCPs already." "Don't try anything new. You're too new to make it work." I see this in chat and on the forums a lot, and it annoys me. Now, "This is going to be very difficult to do," "there's a strong chance you're going to fail," and so forth, that's fine. Letting them know what they're in for, great. But if they want to take the chance, they should be allowed to make a go at the net. The worst that can happen is that their article gets deleted in 24 hours. I want people taking chances. I want people getting ambitious, even if they are newbies.

10) I haven't seen too much of this in a while, which is good. Again, not going to go after people for keeping them (we started it, after all), but let's not rub it into people's faces. Probably doesn't need to be explicit any longer. Just enforce it as it comes up under "don't be a dick."

11) This one's a suggestion rather than a rule mostly because it can be hard to determine at just which point criticism becomes dogpiling.

And punishments should, generally, follow our general guidelines. Give them a warning if they break the rules. Move onto the ban cycle if they don't learn. Move onto the ban cycle immediately if it's a particularly flagrant act of dickery.

Essentially, there is one thing you actively have to do (be helpful), a few things that aren't very helpful (so don't do them), and some more things that are dick moves and will get you slapped. I think the "don't say don't" and "don't say it's obvious" clauses could go if we want it distilled any further.

The "stuff you don't have to do" part basically clarifies no, you don't have to post, you don't have to post much, you don't have to "balance" your posts, you don't have to keep quiet if someone beat you to the punch. I like that part.

As for punishments, my opinion is that these can all be handled under our "Excessive or flagrant breach of general site guidelines or the Obligations listed above" clause, so long as we clearly establish them as such, or the "Excessive rudeness to other users" clause if applicable.

I think which ones are absolute rules that cannot be violated (all others being suggestions):

1. Don't be an asshole.
5. When you do write criticism, make sure the criticism is helpful.
6. Criticize the article, not the author.

And I believe the following should be put in as extremely useful but not absolute:

2. If an article is pretty bad, you don't have to say nice things to make up for your criticisms.
7. Don't post things like, "The problems with this article should be obvious."
11. Try to avoid just dogpiling on an article.

Everything else I feel is not as high priority; those points are useful/important but as guidelines, not rules, and I don't usually see as many people making those kinds of mistakes (we can always PM them). I would suggest revising so that the most important are first, perhaps put in categories ("These are rules and cannot be violated", followed by "These are further guidelines and suggestions").

There's my 0.02.

PS. Thank you Moose for helping me do this english languagey thingy I do not know how grammar.

1. Rule-This is the big one, and the one that should essentially be a rule. It allows staff to reasonably shut down asshat comments, and is the foundation that all the following critique rules spring from. If nothing else, this should be carved into the newbies guide as a critique rule to follow above all else.

2. Suggestion-Nobody's commanding everybody to not say nice things if they don't need to. This is a nice suggestion so that people don't feel obligated to critique if they can't be nice, but it's not like we're going to force people to not say nice things if there isn't a reason for them

3. Suggestion-Unless it veers into shitpost territory or dogpiling (see #1 and #11) we can't really prevent people from commenting, can we? If they want to comment or critique, it is their right, even if they post a short comment.

4. Rule-Exempts such posts as "meh" from the shitposting rule, a good thing considering a sizeable amount of the site, at least at some time or other, has used "meh" or an equivalent post.

5. Rule-This covers and is the foundation for a lot of the suggestions down below, and is a good tool staff can use to sort out harsh-but-helpful posts from plain shit.

6. Rule-Isn't avoiding personal attacks already a rule? If not, it should be; it's in bad taste and has little connection with actual criticism.

7. Rule-This is a logical extension of rules #1 and 5, in that it is both very dickish and is not helpful to the author.

8. Suggestion-There's really no way to enforce it, and besides, it's rather vague and would have to be rewritten before it could be a rule.

9. Rule-This will prevent people making up rules on the spot to justify things and help prevent accidental backseat modding.

10. Rule-As the post says, it is a dick move and has been pretty much eliminated by the thread this is based off of. This should continue.

11. Very strong suggestion-It's hard to stop dogpiling once it begins, but putting this as a very strong suggestion helps prevent it from starting in the first place.

Here are our biggest issues:

• Mann's criticism policy is not linked from in any official capacity. It's only stickied in one of our forums.
• This has the side effect of people basically interpreting the vague "excessive rudeness" clause in the Rules however they like. For example, today a user basically shat all over a number of threads. We stuck them with a warning, but technically they didn't violate our rules, depending on how you interpret "excessive rudeness" or "being mature". What they violated was our criticism policy.
• Mann's criticism policy is not being strictly followed or enforced. That's mainly because some of those bullet points are treated as actual rules, and some of them are treated as mere suggestions. For example, several members of staff certainly say "Don't" do something, when it's just their opinion, and none of us mind.

The solution is clear: Rewrite Mann's criticism policy and make it its own page on the wiki. Be clear on what punishments are (or might be, depending on staff discretion).

To rewrite Mann's policy, we essentially need to decide which bullet points are suggestions and which are rules that cannot be violated and then write it so it's not clearly just a forum post.

In the interim, I'm going to post Mann's policy as a page linked from Site Rules, with an explanation that it's a work in progress and will currently be enforced at staff discretion.

EDIT: Page is here: http://www.scp-wiki.net/criticism-policy

EDITx2: I realize that Mann's forum post says that it wasn't a change in rules but a change in enforcement, but I honestly feel that's a bit silly. Reasonable people can understand our Site Rules as meaning something different — much of Mann's policy doesn't logically follow from the Site Rules. Hell, reasonable people can misunderstand Mann's policy as laid out above, which is why it needs a rewrite.

And also I'm happy to take care of the rewrite myself if that's what's needed (and it's what I'm going to do if others do not weigh in within a reasonable time period, at least in interim). Just so's we can get shit done.

I like it as it stands, if issues arise, or too many complaints, review it at that point?

I will try to be around tomorrow during the day if possible

I think folks have gotten a good bit less snarky since this policy came into being — not necessarily so much because the new people read it, but because Staff have been smacking snarky people on the head when they do it in critique. If snarkiness is not rewarded, fewer people will do it.

I agree with this. In general, I feel that the criticism policy was a step in the right direction. I wouldn't remove anything from there; does anyone else have input?

Just the "Required" stuff. Have links to the actual guides if people want to know about things, but it's pretty absurd the expect people to read seven pages to join a site.

I'm going to make three my target number. I'll be talking with people later tonight. This thread can get back on track for just criticism discussion.

Here's what I think about the required reading: Unless someone is a natural at SCP writing (and few are), one needs to digest a fair amount of sometimes fuzzy/contradictory advice (i.e. read MORE than the required reading), as well as read a lot more SCPs than most people want to read before they start writing. The thing is, most members don't write anything…sometimes I forget that.

Therefore: One could simplify the required reading by completely separating what is necessary to be a voting reader, and what is necessary to be a contributor. Why should people have to read "How to Write an SCP" if they're not planning to write?

I agree, though. It does need a new overhaul. I'll add that to my summer "Stuff I'm Doing Instead of Sleeping" list.

(but of course I would think so, I was involved in it)

I'm loathe to add more stuff to the required reading, because people already don't read it.

Yeah, we need to cut down the required reading rather a lot.

But honestly, it needs to be up there for people to see, whether it's in the required reading or not. If we're enforcing the friggin' policy and all.

If we give people the impression that the required reading contains everything they need to know - which we currently do - then it's not exactly great to omit a major policy.

I also wholeheartedly agree that this should be in the required reading. I'm surprised it wasn't in there earlier.

• It needs to be part of the required reading if we're going to expect people to follow it.
• It needs to be shorter and more readable if it's going to be part of the required reading.

This is my attempt at addressing these issues: http://scpsandbox2.wikidot.com/scantron#toc6 I've distilled and sorted the pertinent information from Mann's post into this draft. It contains all of the directors that the original post did, but not as many justifications or elaborations.

Obviously, we don't have to use this as a base if we choose not to, and it will probably be edited quite a bit before it hits the site. But it's a start.

I'll quote for the lazy.

So, let's talk about criticism.

We've had some issues with that recently. Even Staff. The Staff have been talked to, but now I want to talk to you guys. We're… not changing the rules, but we're going to be enforcing the rules a bit differently, and you have a right to know what we're expecting from you. So here are some guidelines. I'm starting out general and working my way to specifics. Keep in mind that pretty much all of us have been guilty of some or all of these at some point or another. I'm not calling anyone out. This is just a clarification of what we want to see.

1. Don't be an asshole. This is the big one. You don't need to be nice, but don't go full out asshole. Don't tell someone they're an idiot, or their idea is worthless. If it's just a mediocre idea, don't start, well, flaming them. This isn't 4chan. The point is to deliver effective criticism, not to show how cleverly you can call someone a moron. That being said…

2. If you can't say something nice, say it anyway. If an article is pretty bad, you don't have to say nice things to make up for your criticisms. Again, the point is for your criticism to be effective, not to fluff someone's ego. If you can find good things to talk about (and most articles have at least something that was done right), it's great to let the author know, so you can help them build a good mental picture of what they need to work on. But you don't have to. If most of the article's bad, you don't need to search for something good to say.

3. You don't have to say anything! If you don't really want to do an in-depth critique on an article, you can let your downvote speak for itself. No one's paying any of us to correct other people's mistakes. We're all volunteers, and no one expects you to criticize every article that gets posted. If you have the time and inclination, that's wonderful, and we appreciate that you're taking the time to help make the site better. But you don't have to.

4. You don't need to post a lot. Sometimes, all you can say is an article didn't grab you. "I didn't care for it," or even just "Meh" are valid criticisms. Maybe you can't articulate exactly why it didn't grab you. That's fair. Not every article flies, and sometimes there's nothing outstandingly good or bad about the article.

5. When you do write criticism, make sure the criticism is helpful. Think about how this is going to be read by the author, and how it will help him avoid the mistake in the future. This encompasses a lot of rules. For example…

6. Criticize the article, not the author. Pretend the article just popped out of the aether, fully formed. Don't even think about the person who write it, except in an abstract sense. Talk about what is actually in the article that does or doesn't work, and go from there. Tell the author, "This needs work, the idea's fine except X, and you need to cut out the addenda." Don't say, "You're a terrible writer. Why did you post this?" EDIT: The exception to this rule is that you should feel free to compare the article to previous works by the author in line with identifying reoccurring issues and themes that may help them improve. However, you're still criticizing the works of the author, just as a whole rather than piecemeal.

7. Don't post things like, "The problems with this article should be obvious." If they were obvious to the author, he or she wouldn't have made them. If you say something like that, you may as well not have posted. All you've accomplished is to obliquely call the author an idiot for not having seen the flaws. Keep in mind that a lot of authors haven't been here long. They've read a fair number of articles, but they haven't been through all the failures. They haven't had a chance to see the mechanics of making an SCP article. What's obvious to you is probably not obvious to an outsider.

8. Now, if someone else has pointed out the problems? You can say "This is bad for the reasons so-and-so posted." You don't have to reinvent the wheel if you don't want to. If you just want to piggy-back on someone else, that's fine. You're giving more weight to their post with your agreement. You can also reiterate it if you want to approach it from a different tack. But don't feel you have to be silent just because someone's said what you want to say. Let your voice be heard.

9. Avoid saying "don't." You can say "I downvoted because you did X," or you can say "it was a bad idea to do X." 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." There's no rule saying someone has to use a sandbox. They probably should, certainly. But they don't have to.
10. Okay, so, some of you have been saving bad SCPs. I'm not going to tell you not to do it. This can be valuable from a learning standpoint, and hey, sometimes it's okay to laugh at a bad SCP. We all do it. But don't rub the author's face in the fact that you're keeping a copy of their mistakes around. That's just a dick move.

11. Try to avoid just dogpiling on an article. If it's at -50 and dropping, and twenty people have already said it's terrible, you don't need to drop in just to let people know that you think it's terrible too. If you have real criticism for it, that's fine. But you don't need to talk just to make yourself heard.

Now, another fairly minor issue is understanding what Senior Staff are and what they do. I don't think this is a huge one, but let's clarify.

Senior Staff (that is, those listed in the Guide to Newbies as Senior Staff) are not moderators. They cannot tell you what you can and cannot do. If Senior Staff tells you you're wrong, you don't have to change whatever it is you've done. That being said, they're Senior Staff because we respect their opinions. If a Staff member says, "Hey, you're being a douche," you should at least pause and ask yourself, "Was that douchey? Was I, in fact, being a douche?" If on reflection, you feel you weren't, you can argue so. The arbiters for the rules are the moderators and admins. Senior Staff are trusted members. Their purpose is to help guide you. They give advice. Especially on articles, but in general as well. But they don't enforce anything. Do you see the difference?

So, that's what we expect from you guys, and a bit more guidance on what you can expect from us. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to make the site work.

Now, some of us have talked about this in light of recent events, and agreed that it merited further discussion. ("Some of us" includes administration too, including Mann - don't worry, I'm not a moderator going off the reservation. :P) Notably:

• It needs to be part of the required reading if we're gonna expect people to follow it.
• It needs to be shorter and more readable if it's gonna be part of the required reading.
• We ought to have discussion about this - especially from administrators (I'm going to be sending out a PM to all administrators about this shortly; my fellow moderators, you'll just have to be reading O5!) - about how we think this policy has been working and any changes that could or should be made to it.