[Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

Summary:

werh

page 1 of 212next »

[Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

Joreth 30 Jun 2021 15:33

Recently discussion has come up about JS posting on 05command, which generally requires captain approval to post in discussion threads. While a lot of times JS don't really post in discussion threads, it might be because it's annoying to ask for approval - the captain can't be online 24/7 and it's just another annoying hoop to jump through, and I don't think I've ever heard of captains denying JS their ability to post in discussion threads. Having more opinions in the room really makes the discussion more well-rounded.

There's only been one case of egregious case of misconduct I could think of, and the person was fired for very obvious reasons. Obviously this isn't opening up every single thread, like stuff that requires Mod/Admin access (for instance, the AHT ban log or Announcements). This discussion is only about JS no longer needing to ask captains for permission to post on general policy discussions. JS are still welcome to ask their captains for advice on their post, but we probably don't need to make it a requirement; people are mature enough to know what's good posting conduct on the forums.

A second question: typically people would add something like "disclaimer: not [x team]" or "disclaimer: JS" on posts. It's good for bookkeeping purposes (and for the non-staff people reading 05), but should they be required, or is this just a general thing that people can choose to do if they want to?

This discussion is open to Junior Staff and above.

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

Yossipossi 30 Jun 2021 15:45

I don't really see how this policy would change anything since usually discussion threads are JS+, and when they're not there's usually a good reason. A more effectively policy, in my opinion, would simply be codifying that discussions should be JS+ unless otherwise neccessary.

As for the second part, I don't see much issue with having disclaimers. It helps with bookkeeping.

Otherwise, I guess I am in favor? Supporting.

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

Hexick 30 Jun 2021 20:20

Seconding this.

---

Hexick, SCP Wiki Moderator
Personal site: http://hexhouse.wikidot.com/
Feel free to forward any concerns or inquiries to my Wikidot inbox.

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

LilyFlower 30 Jun 2021 15:49

Agreeing with yossi in that discussion threads should nearly always be JS+ by default, which would allow us to not worry about the problems with getting permission. I feel as much as disclaimers are good, enforcement would maybe be difficult so I'd leave it to personal choice, but I don't feel to strongly either way.

---

~🌸~Flower Power~🌸~

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

ManyMeats 30 Jun 2021 16:10

Ideas can and always should be filtered by their stand-alone merits and not the rank and resume of the person saying them. A good idea is equally as valuable regardless of who it comes from. The people who read those ideas are free to filter them through the lens of the experience and qualifications of the speaker, but that's not even sort of a good reason to bar them a voice in discussion.

I don't really like disclaimers of any sort in policy discussion unless it's something clearly connected to interpretation. Bookkeeping for what? I don't have a problem with such a policy but I also see it as unnecessary.

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

The_Spider_Queen 30 Jun 2021 17:42

I beyond agree with this. I've been told no a few times when wanting to post on things that are like "Not unless you have captain permission". Its something that has bugged me a lot. As for the disclaimer thing just leave it up to the person. I don't see a need for us to be dictating that.

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

cybersqyd 30 Jun 2021 19:52

I think as long as it's clear that junior staff shouldn't be creating e.g. non-disc threads without permission (not necessarily from captains), then it's fine to allow them to post freely in policy threads.

My uh, one concern is that who can post in policy threads — and how they work in general — is not well defined within the site charter, so it feels like we may need a larger rewrite of that section to make the inclusion of a note about who can post in what kind of threads clearer. It may be worth more clearly defining what kinda things should be e.g. open to all staff or limited to just mods+ etc. (if we decide that this is a thing we want to continue: it's, probably a good idea to consider at this juncture whether having every policy thread be open to all staff levels would be a good idea?)

Speaking as one of the people who suggested the use of staff level/group disclaimers, I am uh, not sure if they're actually handy? Most policy threads don't really get brought up again in future, so the added context of this isn't necessarily that useful then; and it's generally pretty easy to figure out who staffers are (if folk aren't already aware). My inclination is to keep them non-mandatory but highly suggested in team specific threads (e.g. a general policy one like this, it probably doesn't matter in; whereas they'd be more useful in a thread about e.g. changing the greenlighting policy).

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

Limeyy 30 Jun 2021 20:12

Fully agree with this. Being JS is still fresh in my mind and I felt very much discouraged by the current process - feeling that I'd have to have something really, really important to add to be valuable enough to go through someone else, and I think we can see this is a pretty common viewpoint from the lack of JS input on JS-level discussions onsite. With the introduction of JS to SSSC, the main difference between OS and JS is the ability to introduce and vote on policy. What better judge for this than getting rid of the barriers and allowing them easier access to do that at a JS level? This really seems like a net benefit for both JS and the rest of staff, and I'm in full support.

Agreed with the consensus that the second should be encouraged, but not necessary.

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

stormfallen 30 Jun 2021 23:23

(note: am JS)

It feels like most policy threads nowadays are open to all levels of staff anyway, and I don't see much reason not to codify this. Mod+ or admin-only threads should (hopefully) be a rarity. Normal rules for posting (non-)disc threads and chat threads should remain. Agreeing with sqyd that this is probably worth defining in the charter.

Don't see any real reason to enforce disclaimers of staff level/team, but it sounds like something that'd be nice to encourage, especially for policies that specifically impact one team.

Last edited on 01 Jul 2021 15:04 by stormfallen Show more

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

Joreth 30 Jun 2021 23:32

I think it's more of formalizing JS interaction with the rest of staff to bridge the gap, and keep Admin/Mod only discussions to a minimum.

Agree with the rest of the points.

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

WhiteGuard 01 Jul 2021 00:00

This all seems to make sense to me. I like the general idea that discussion threads include JS unless otherwise noted by the usual notice.

As for the disclaimers, I don't think they are particularly necessary for us as staff members, but I do believe they are useful for users who keep up with 05command or future readers who return to read up on what has transpired in the past. I believe this was part of the book-keeping Yossi referenced earlier.

As for the charter talk, this will hopefully be addressed when we get back to it. I'll note this down as a section needing to be addressed.

Last edited on 01 Jul 2021 00:02 by WhiteGuard Show more

Re: [Discussion] Junior Staff posting on 05Command

Calibold 01 Jul 2021 00:14

I think this is a great idea. Not only would it encourage new JS to share their own thoughts and become more familiar with staff process, but it would also allow other staff members the opportunity to better know them. Both of these are things it seems we've been trying to introduce to staff culture lately, particularly with allowing JS into staff chat, and I think this is another small but important way to enhance that.

Naturally, many threads would need to be limited to certain ranks (e.g. disciplinary threads), but I assume that certain categories would be universally restricted in that way. This is also why I support what other folks have suggested above, which is simply the codifying of threads being JS+ by default, and rank restrictions on certain threads requiring specification.

Lastly, I agree with Yossi's and WG's points about the JS and team disclaimers. While it's not the biggest deal in the world, I think noting which teams one is on, as well as whether or not certain members are JS, would help provide further context and make clear in which capacity certain members are acting.

---

Smells like success.

page 1 of 212next »