NOTE: Recap Team is a team of people who’ve done their best to keep track of conversations ongoing in Staff Chat. We’ve worked to summarise these conversations as best we can, while still making them useful as a window into staff business. We’ve done our best to check each recap for errors, inaccuracy, and incoherency. The whole report has been handed over to Admins, Captains, and then general staff, for review before it has been posted, and some information has been expunged or reworded as a result of these reviews.
If you need anything clarified or would like to request more information, please let us know and we’ll try our best to help you!
NOTE 2: In accordance with feedback from previous recaps, we’ve made two changes to formatting: first, headers are larger, separating recaps more neatly. Secondly, recaps are now accompanied by a short summary, particularly useful when topics are extensive and recaps are long. Full recaps are available below the summary, within the collapsible. For small recaps (like announcements), there’s no difference between summary and recap, so just the recap is provided.
NOTE 3: StaffChat has an announcements channel, in which only Administrators and Team Captains can speak. Oftentimes, Administrators or Captains will port over announcements of discussions and voting threads to this channel for members of staff who cannot. We recap them so you get a general idea of how policies move from StaffChat to 05command, but please note that those who announce a topic may not be the staff member proposing it.
Table of Contents
- Autumn Promotions
- October Features
- Navigational Redesign
- Guide Hub Changes
- Discussion on djkaktus’ Statement on Staffchat Leaks & AHT Warning
- Comprehensive Guide Hub Refresh
- Swamp Critter Roster Archival
- Tag Request Thread Rework
- Navigational Redesign Thread Goes Live
- Disciplinary Vice-Captain
- Intro Instructions Thread
- Feedback Splash Re-Working
- 001 Proposal Page Rework
- Posting Individual Art Pages
- Promotions Suspension and Communication
- Working Groups
- Staffchat’s September Recap Review
- Commisions / Donations Policy
- Relieving Zyn’s Workload
- Wikidot’s Broken Search Function
- Frequently Asked Questions Remake
- Censure
- SkipIRC Harassment Policy
- No-Team Staff and Promotion Changes
- Plagiarism and Metaphysician Discussion
- Changes to Disciplinary Chat Access
- Deletion Rules
- User-Curated Lists
- Staffwide Jira Board
- Quorum Lowering
- Censure Delay
- Assigning Mod Permissions to JS and OS
- Anti-Harassment and Disciplinary Action on Public Figures
- Tech Recruitment
- Past Administrators
- Volatile Comments on Joint Statement
- SCPD’s Atmosphere
- djkaktus Tweet Concerns
- OS Access to Disciplinary Discord
- Staff Disciplinary Process & Fiat Questions
- Adding New Recap Members
- Staff Approval Question
- SoullessSingularity’s Reserve Status
- Dissolving Site Crit Team
- Locking the Recent Posts Forum Thread
Topic: Autumn Promotions, 2021 | 2021/10/01
Summary: DrBleep announces promotions for Autumn, 2021. A staff member’s nomination for promotion leads to a prolonged incident within staff, recapped in the “Promotions Suspension” recap. On the 20th, all suggested promotions pass.
Recap: DrBleep announces the new staff promotions for October. In lieu of interviews with each staff member, staff are told they have a week to contact the staff who are up for promotion and ask any questions they have directly.
The following Junior Staff were put up for Operational Staff positions:
- Edna Granbo
- FabledTiefling
- Tawnyowljones
- HarryBlank
- Estrella Yoshte
The following Operational Staff were put up for Moderator:
- DrAkimoto1
- Joreth
- Uncertainty Crossing
- Vivarium
- pr0m37h3um
On the 8th, DrBleep announces the promotions thread is live:
05 link: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14219973/
On the 20th of October, all promotions had the required votes and thus were successful.
This announcement was a single message.
(scroll to top)
Topic: October Features | 2021/10/01
Summary: A discussion about October’s featured articles is ported to staff chat, where staff members discuss the motivation behind the features, and approach how to change them. A resolution is reached, which allows the pages featured to remain featured on the front page, while also selecting new featured articles for October.
Recap: A discussion in SCPD's Meta channel about October's featured articles (specifically; User Curated Lists, Curated Tale Series, and the Groups of Interest Hub Page) is ported over to staffchat by Pedagon. Zyn clarifies that these feature selections were done (in the absence of any contest-winners or crit flights) as a way to show an October-related uptick in new SCP readers some lesser-known curation pages of the site, highlighting ways for them to find good articles to read. The discussion then surrounds whether this (agreed-upon as good) target is best served by the feature boxes. It is suggested that the links to the User-Curated Lists, the Curated Tale Series, and the Groups of Interest Hub Page are included in separate locations on the front-page. Zyn agrees with this, and begins the process of selecting articles to feature, noting that the change will take place on Sunday, as she'd like to leave the current links up for the first saturday of "Spoopy month". The features are changed, and the banner is added, on October 4th.
This discussion took place in around 50 minutes.
It is of note that this recap was partially written in staffchat with Zyn's assistance, as it was then ported to SCPD's Meta channel as a statement on the discussion.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Navigational Redesign | 2021/10/03
Summary: Site Staff discuss new layouts for the top- and side-bars of the wiki.
Recap: Optimistic Lucio states that the Navigation team has been working on a redesign for the wiki’s side- and top-bar. He links a mockup of the new design, and opens a thread for complaints, questions, or any other comments. The link to the Groups of Interest (GoI) Hub was originally removed in the redesign, however staff agree that it is important, and Lucio adds it back. LemonBee12 believes that tabs that were included in the “Background” tab, including the MTF Hub and the Object Classes Guide, the Personnel Dossier, and the Secure Facilities Page should not be removed, due to their usefulness as an introduction to the shared setting of the Wiki. Calibold disagrees, stating he finds they give the wrong impression to new readers, who may put too much weight on learning these aspects of the site. However, he thinks that the Universe tab, with its links to the GoI Hub and the Canons Hub, should stay. LemonBee12 points out that these links are still present in the newly-proposed sidebar.
Optimistic Lucio states that he believes that cutting down the number of links in the side- and top-bar reduces the possibility of choice-paralysis for newer users who may be intimidated. He uses the number of INT sites (branches of the SCP Wiki written in other languages) as an example. EstrellaYoshte points out that INT branches are featured predominantly on the front page, where they have “cool logos and stuff”. aismallard notes that having a sidebar with “a gazillion links” is not a normal design, whether users on the wiki are used to it or not. EstrellaYoshte says she will establish the “no-sidebar coalition”, which Optimistic Lucio calls “the only good proposal”.
This discussion took around 3 hours.
Three days later (2021/10/06), Optimistic Lucio posts a link to his proposal for the Navigational Redesign, which is then ported to the #announcements channel of StaffChat. stormfallen notes that the sidebar feels too short, with too much empty space below it. Calibold assumes this empty space will be filled by the translation module, which links users to translations of the article they’re reading. He also postulates the idea that the module could “hover directly in the center of your screen”, an idea which YossiPossi supports. stormfallen suggests that the module should “[burst] out of your screen and [embed] itself directly in your frontal lobe”. stormbreath clarifies that the new translation module will not do this.
Mainsite Mirror of Discussion Thread: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14218286/
This discussion took two hours.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Guide Hub Changes | 2021/10/03
Recap: TheMightyMcB announces a discussion on proposed changes to both the Guide Hub and the Comprehensive Guide hub. The proposal suggests that the Guide Hub be trimmed, and renamed, to “Required Reading”. The Comprehensive Guide Hub will lose the “Comprehensive”, becoming the main guide hub for the site.
05 Discussion: http://015command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14214641
Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14214642/
Timer expires on the 10th of October and, after some feedback is given, McB announces that the changes are being made.
This announcement was a single message.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Discussion on djkaktus' Statement on Staffchat Leaks & AHT Warning | 2021/10/04
Summary: StaffChat discuss a statement made by djkaktus about a recent warning sent to him by the Wiki’s Anti-Harassment Team. In order to dispel confusion, AHT publish a log of the warning.
Recap: A staff member posts a link to a tweet by site author djkaktus, who states he has received a warning from the Wiki's Anti-Harassment Team for posting about "perceived injustices within the staff structure and disciplinary system". Members of AHT claim the statement misrepresents the team's warning to djkaktus, and LadyKatie states she will discuss the possibility of publishing that warning with other AHT members. The topic then turns to the fact that AHT bans are made public, but AHT warnings are not. Eventually, YossiPossi announces that the AHT warning was related only to djkaktus' statements accompanying his Staffchat leaks. Yossi also states that djkaktus is free to release a screenshot of the warning he sent, which he does. LadyKatie and gee agree that Yossi's clarification of djkaktus' warning should be publicised in a more open space than SCPD's #meta-scp-discussion channel, and LadyKatie states that AHT are working on porting it to 05command. This port is completed, and the log of the warning is posted to the AHT Log of Bans.
This discussion takes around an hour to conclude.
A few hours later, a question from SCPD is ported to staffchat. Kufat (the owner of SkipIRC) has made a statement that those leaking private conversations will be banned from the SkipIRC network. The user from SCPD asks what the Wiki's staff's stance on this is. LadyKatie states that Wiki Staff have no ability to prevent Kufat from doing so, as they do not own the IRC network that hosts the official SCP Wiki chat.
While not discussed within Staffchat, it is of note that Kufat released a follow-up statement a few hours later.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Comprehensive Guide Hub Refresh | 2021/10/05
Recap: TheMightyMcB announces a discussion on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Guide Hub, proposed by EstrellaYoshte. The “Refresh” proposes a number of reorganisations to make navigating the page easier for users.
05 Discussion: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14216228
Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14216229
Timer expires on the 12th of October, with no dissent being voiced. The changes are implemented.
This announcement was a single message.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Swamp Critter Roster Archival | 2021/10/05
Recap: TheMightyMcB announces a discussion on a proposal to archive Site Crit Team’s Swamp Critter Roster. The proposal notes that the page is out of date, does not see much use.
05 Discussion: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14216307/
Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14216306/
Timer expires the 12th of October, and no dissent is voiced. The page is archived.
This announcement was in the same message as the previous announcement.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Tag Request Thread Rework | 2021/10/06
Recap: Stormbreath announces the voting thread for the Tag Request Thread Rework. A vote is required for the topic in general, for tale series tags, and to allow or disallow authorial autonomy in tag requests.
The vote timer expires on the 13th of October. The motion passed, ending the authorial veto on tag requests, and with tale series requiring a minimum of 5 tales by 3 authors, or 10 tales by 1 author.
Vote Thread: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14217349
This announcement was a single message.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Navigational Redesign Goes Live | 2021/10/06
Summary: Site Staff discuss the consequences of the navigational redesign, and some possible changes to the redesign.
Recap: The timer for the Navigational Redesign (recapped above) expires on the 13th of October. After the thread expires, OptimisticLucio notes that the feedback given will be incorporated and the team proposing this motion will bring it to the attention of Internet Outreach-run social media accounts. It is predicted this stage will last three days, before a five day vote. Lucio reports "enthusiastic support" from off-site communities, and a vote is created (and announced by Lucio and Vivarium) on the 16th, to end on the 21st.
Voting Thread: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14228526/
On the 21st, the timer ends on MAST's Navigational Redesign and it's published to the wiki. Due to an oversight, the redesign creates visual glitches on mobile devices, and isn't updated at all on some pages of the site. Stormfallen relays these concerns to staffchat, with Limeyy confirming them. Optimistic Lucio shows confusion on how the bugs came to be, while EstrellaYoshte creates a fix which is soon ported to the wiki.
After this fix to the redesign has gone live, Edna Granbo asks where the "recent edits" and "recent changes" links are. She clarifies that these links are important to her work as a staff member, and to the work of other staff and non-staff on the lookout for vandalism and other changes. It is pointed out that the sidebar on the staff site still features these links. Optimistic Lucio suggests merging these two links into one location on the sidebar, making them accessible without taking up space. Edna suggests that the changes to the sidebar should be reverted, and the discussion be reopened. While she believes that the level of discussion between staff members was not sufficient as it took place during promotions, Optimistic Lucio and gee0765 argue that the changes were discussed and popular on 05command, main site, in the official IRC, and in off-site communities like /r/SCP, and /r/SCPD’s discord.
stormfallen suggests providing a place for comments and bug-reports to be posted2. In the meantime, Edna suggests creating a thread in the staff discord to discuss suggested changes to the redesign, which Lucio creates. Edna believes that lists of author and art pages, the IRC, and changes and edits should all be linked in the sidebar. Optimistic Lucio suggests that a number of these suggested features would only ever be used once by each user; those who sign up to the IRC will use their own clients to log in later, and those who join the site will never click that link again. Edna suggests the inclusion of the “Under 30” list, as well as the User Curated Lists, to the sidebar, as a way to suggest newer or under-read articles to readers. Lucio agrees that this could be useful.
The next day, EstrellaYoshte requests that Optimistic Lucio create a list of the pages that are no longer easily-accessible, having been removed from the sidebar. Of these 10 links, Lucio & Estrella agree to bringing back Under-read & Under-rated, and Recent Changes, merging Recent Changes & Edits and Shortest, Newest, & Top pages, as well as large-scale rewrite to the Contact Staff page.
This topic occurred over a couple of days.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Disciplinary Vice-Captain | 2021/10/07
Recap: Dexanote announces that aismallard has accepted the role of Vice-Captain for the Disciplinary team.
This announcement was a single message.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Intro Instructions Thread | 2021/10/07
Summary: stormfallen notes that the Introductions Instructions thread is unlocked, leading to spam. This is briefly discussed, but no action is taken.
Recap: stormfallen asks why the Introductions Instructions Thread is not locked, as it being open only leads to improper use of the thread, meaning Zyn has to correct users and point them in the right direction. Edna Granbo espouses the belief that users were at fault for not reading the post, and that this was not enough to warrant locking the thread. The possibility of an overall change in how Introductions are handled is briefly suggested. Both this and the topic at large are not discussed beyond this point, no conclusion is reached and the thread remains unlocked.
This conversation lasts five minutes.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Feedback Splash Re-Working | 2021/10/09
Summary: MomBun suggests measures for helpfully discouraging coldposts. Suggestions are made, but no action is taken; focusing on streamlining the crit process emerges as a more actionable goal.
Recap: MomBun suggests reworking the "This page doesn't exist yet!" splash which comes up when users attempt to create a new page, as there have been many articles posted recently which have clearly not gone through the critique process. JacobConwell, HarryBlank and Edna Granbo do not believe altered text would be more likely to attract a new user's attention. Croquembouche asks whether the existing coldpost situation is really a problem. Athenodora suggests creating a striking visual, like the "I WANT YOU FOR U.S. ARMY" poster, to grab attention; MomBun notes that the community now has sufficient artistic resources to make this a possibility. Croquembouche notes that any image should not be explicitly American. He also suggests making the instructions more explicit, particularly as the phrasing begins with "This page doesn't exist" which does not prime users to expect advice on getting critique below. HarryBlank suggests changing that text to "Are you trying to create this page?" Croquembouche further suggests that if the image route is taken, it should involve an explicitly SCP character. TheMightyMcB suggests Lord Blackwood. LadyKatie notes that -INT has done something similar, and suggests the idea has merit.
Conwell doesn't think coldposts are a serious enough issue to justify spending time on this issue, minus ensuring that new users are not treated poorly. Pedagon agrees, since experienced authors coldposting will encourage the practice more than any edits to the page will quell; he suggests it's more important to streamline the crit process.
This conversation took place over approximately five hours but with long breaks in between messages.
(scroll to top)
Topic: 001 Proposal Page Rework | 2021/10/09
Summary: ROUNDERHOUSE proposes a change to the 001 page; to display all proposals in a random order, with a spotlight on the most recent one. This suggestion is popular with staff. After solving some technical issues, the Tech team enacts the changes around a week later.
Recap: Rounderhouse presents a rework of the 001 Proposals page, which presents all proposals in a random order, rather than a chronological one. There is a positive response to the idea of a randomized list. Rounderhouse acknowledges that this may make adding new 001 Proposals more difficult. He also notes that it has been suggested that new 001 Proposals be given a separate space on the page, before being added into the general group. There is general agreement that this "spotlight" would be good, but disagreement over whether it would be better to provide this "spotlight" for a set length of time, or just until the next 001 is posted. GremlinGroup is in favour of the former, while Vivarium & Rounderhouse are in favour of the latter.
This discussion took roughly 1.5 hours.
On the 13th of October, Rounderhouse states in StaffChat that discussion of this proposal had been taken back into the Tech Team Discord,3 and that his suggestion would prevent 001 Proposals being summon by their title by bots like Crom. He states he is going to contact SMLT about finding a way around this issue by storing title data in another way.
On the 16th, Rounderhouse returns, stating that the page is finalised and will be up shortly, once SMLT (developer of the Crom discord bot) states that it works. The change is enacted by Tech on the 19th of October.
ROUNDERHOUSE’s announcements were short messages.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Posting Individual Art Pages | 2021/10/11
Summary: A conversation about the wiki’s guide to posting art pages with a single image leads to an edit to the Art-posting guidelines for clarity.
Recap: A user posts a singular piece of art, and responds poorly to the Wiki community downvoting the page. After this user's reaction is Staffposted, the conversation shifts to the recent change to Art-posting guidelines, which allow for the posting of a single image, rather than requiring three high-quality images for an Artist Page. In particular, the focus is on whether the page clearly mandates that all art pages (both artist hubs and solo works) be posted under the "art:" category. While it is recognised that the page already tells users to do this for all such pages, UncertaintyCrossing resolves to edit the guide for clarity.
This conversation takes an hour to resolve. UncertaintyCrossing makes the aforementioned edit on the 26th of October after a reminder by a member of the Recap team.
(scroll to top)
Topic: Promotions Suspension and Communication | 2021/10/11 to 2021/10/12
Preface: This is a recap of all unique points made during two day, multi-pronged discussion occurring in Staffchat. Fun fact: 5% of all messages ever sent in #staff-discussion were sent on the first day. Reader beware. We’re serious.
--
Recap: ROUNDERHOUSE asks for an update on the promotions freeze on 05command. Bleep describes what happened in a statement:
- Admins operate under the impression that Yossi put forth Aki's nomination on his own, due to miscommuncation (addressed later). However, both IO Co-Captains — Yossi and LadyKatie — had put forth Akimoto's nomination.
- Agreement is reached that admins should bring this to Yossi's attention, with the intent of discovering if Yossi knew of or could find context that would mitigate this "red flag" issue.
- No one brings the issue to Yossi's attention. This results in Bleep asking admin chat on the night promotions are supposed to go up if this has been addressed, if Yossi and by proxy, Akimoto, have been talked to about this issue, though a conversation with Akimoto is not directly stated to be needed. Moose chimes in kicking the issue further, and picks Mallard to hold this conversation with Yossi. Admins, including Moose, are unaware that LadyKatie should be contacted as well. Bleep clarifies that promos are ready to go, but that she is willing to hold off.
- Aismallard holds a voice chat discussion with Yossi. Feeling time pressured, Aismallard conveys the concerns to Yossi in a way that implies the admins want their promo removed. Yossi interprets this as the admins collectively vetoing the nomination, and assents. No conversation is had with Akimoto before assenting.
- Aismallard relays the assent to admins, who interpret the screenshot as Yossi withdrawing Akimoto's candidacy, and Bleep removes their segment from the promotions thread. She posts the promotion thread believing that this is the course of action that all parties assented to.
- Akimoto messages Yossi asking why his promo has been removed from the promo thread. Yossi, believing Akimoto's candidacy to have been vetoed outright by the admins, relays as much to Akimoto. Akimoto then states their intent to resign.
- Yossi relays these facts to Aismallard, who relays them to admin chat. Admins' initial impression is that Akimoto chose to resign rather than address admin concerns. Admins neglect to request full logs, and are unaware that Akimoto was not given any chance to address admin concerns. Yossi is unaware that admins wished Akimoto to have this opportunity.
- Several admins state that they would have rather this be resolved by vote, with the issues out in the open, running in contrast to the language used in the initial discussions. Bleep expresses frustration at the lack of communication of what the Admins wanted to occur, and the lack of communication in general.
- The next morning, Lily brings the issue to a head. It becomes patently clear that Akimoto's behavior had been well and truly aboveboard from multiple testaments of staffers who worked with them. It becomes even more clear that there was a complete breakdown in communication, from failing to talk to Akimoto, to miscommunications about what the admins wanted to do, to a complete lack of follow through.
To clarify my entire stance, I had, and still am, in many ways very frustrated with how this happened.
- Admins are unable to outright veto/pull a promotion candidate. Even as captain of MAST, I do not have the ability to outright reject a promotion candidate. Only a captain is able to do so, and only by withdrawing the nomination.
- Speaking as an individual, the initial conversation brought up concerns that I thought should be addressed. I wanted a conversation in private between Akimoto's captains an Admin as well as Akimoto himself to discuss this issue, how he had improved, and whether our concerns were unfounded or not. None of this happened, leading to a perceived time crunch for promos to move forward.
- I was willing to delay promos as long as needed in order for proper conversation to occur, but no desire to hold off other than my own was expressed.
- I have stopped promos completely as I recognize how dirty Akimoto was done. For them to continue I wish for a direct conversation with Akimoto to happen, in which discussion about their previous work occurs, and Admins extend a full apology, and I personally will add them to promos.
- Lady Katie was at no point informed of what was happening. This is partially as she wasn't listed in the google form as having submitted Akimoto's promotion advocation, and partially due to Moose being under the impression that Yossi was the only captain of IO, but it is clear she should have been addressed in this process as she is Yossi's co-captain. She was not consulted at any point on the night promotions were posted, and she did not find out about the withdrawal and Akimoto's resignation until the next day. This was wrong on multiple levels, as LadyKatie is the co-captain of IO.
- No admin was assigned responsibility to follow through with Akimoto and his captains. In some ways, this responsibility might have fallen to me, but given my IRL activity, and the fact that this was the third time that Akimoto's promotion was blocked, with no evaluation of whether or not those pieces in the past were representative of current Akimoto, I feel like this was a systemic and communication issue. Admins are actively discussing how we can address this systemic issue, and suggestions are welcome.
Stormfallen questions why “Admin A”’s identity is redacted. Bleep clarifies that this was done to not attract any possible negative attention towards this admin for making the initial complaint.
OptimisticLucio initiates a conversation about communication between staff. ROUNDERHOUSE questions whether administrators are cognizant of these communication issues. Lucio states that staff communication issues will not be solved through closed-door discussion. Dexanote clarifies that he was not involved in the Akimoto situation, and states that it would be best to let LadyKatie, Akimoto’s captain, speak to the latter before the chat moves on to the wider topic of miscommunication. This is disregarded, as Lucio asserts that conversations about both topics can be held simultaneously. Dexanote disagrees. LadyKatie agrees with Dexanote’s disagreement, as Akimoto being hurt takes precedence.
ROUNDERHOUSE suggests moving this discussion to 05command, then criticizes Bleep’s statement further. He claims it paints a picture of administrators passing blame from one another without acknowledgement of systemic communication issues within the staff structure. He feels the statement does not properly accept blame. gee0765 asks why the statement was brought to staffchat if discussion cannot be held. Katie states that discussion is not being forbidden, but that "more pressing issues" must be addressed before moving into a policy discussion. GremlinGroup feels that the statement should not have been brought to staffchat if Akimoto had not been talked to first. He also feels that it is unreasonable to post a large summary statement and then ask for the chat to not discuss it.
ROUNDERHOUSE adds that Akimoto should have been spoken to before the promotions thread went online. Katie acknowledges that this didn’t happen, and is now attempting to fix the issue (which she was unaware of before it was directly presented to her). Rounder reclarifies, saying that Akimoto should have been spoken to when Modern_Erasmus blocked him. Dexanote is aware of this. Stormfallen evokes the proverb that “the best time to plant a tree is always yesterday. The second best time is now.” Lucio states that he feels delaying this conversation to address other issues that should have already been addressed is unnecessary.
While the above is occuring, Yossipossi appears and accepts partial blame for the situation, as they were not as resistant to what happened as they should have been. Lucio states that Yossi is not the only one at fault. aismallard agrees with Yossi, stating she should have also pushed back instead of going forward. Dexanote asks that the people responsible for this situation have time to resolve it before discussion continues. ROUNDERHOUSE objects, stating that the mentality of pushing things aside with the assumption that others will take care of them is what got staff into this situation in the first place. He points out that discussing the issue is not preventing someone from talking to Akimoto. LadyKatie states that the discussion will be picked up, and that she was ignored, as Akimoto was on her team and Katie was not informed of these events as they were happening.
Dexanote states that AdCap has been discussing the problem for the past three days. gee0765 states that is reflective of a larger issue, where discussion does not leave admin chat until the "last minute." Dexanote states that the conversation is out of adminchat now, and that he wants Katie to be able to do her job before discussion is picked up. Rounder asks Dexanote if the situation was unable to be discussed in adminchat over the past three days, or if the conversation had been ongoing over the weekend, which would indicate that all conversation in adminchat concluded the situation was decided and ready for staffchat. Dexanote states that it was ongoing over the weekend, and the conclusion was to let team captains speak to Akimoto and then focus on action going forward.
Dexanote feels that continuing the conversation before LadyKatie is done would not be useful, as active discussion tends to leave things and people "behind." He clarifies that he will not be stopping the conversation. Lucio and Dexanote briefly argue about whether Dexanote had already attempted to do so. Dexanote states that at this time the conversation can only consist of discussion related to how people "dropped the ball," as he feels policy discussion should not continue at this time. ROUNDERHOUSE states that to get results out of the communications conversation, it must be held in staffchat and not in adminchat. Dexanote agrees, stating that he wants to hold the conversation the right way.
EstrellaYoshte appears and personally requests that everyone involved in this discussion refrain from continuing for a period of time, as keeping up with the conversation at this point is becoming daunting, as multiple users are talking at the same time. Six hours of uninterrupted conversation would follow this message.
ROUNDERHOUSE expresses the concern that while discussion is stopped in staffchat, it is continuing in AdCap. He adds that Bleep's statement should be posted to 05command as soon as Akimoto responds. aismallard admits that she did go to AdCap, but should not have, and ports a message originally posted there stating that she feels staff should be allowed to discuss the statement. Furthermore, aismallard wishes that staff as a whole should contribute feedback to the statement. Zyn agrees. gee specifically agrees that statement-crafting should take place in staffchat. Limeyy feels the statement, being a timeline of events without opinion, is already complete and ready to be ported.
DrBleep is hesitant to port the statement this soon, as she believes rushing is what got staff into this situation in the first place. Riemann asks ROUNDERHOUSE if his issue is with the statement, the events that transpired, or both. Rounder clarifies he takes issue with the entirety of the situation, and that the statement deflects individual blame. aismallard asks ROUNDERHOUSE who should accept blame and apologize. He states that the situation was rushed, as Akimoto was never communicated with during the three weeks between when issues were first raised and October 11th. aismallard acknowledges that there were miscommunication issues on the administrator side, and that the lack of followup with Akimoto was a major issue. Lucio and ROUNDERHOUSE express discontent that the conversation was moved to AdCap, and feels that discussion should have taken place on 05command. gee asks why staffers retreat to AdCap, and not the sensitive staff discussion channel. aismallard answers that it is possibly because AdCap has been around longer, and staffers have a certain familiarity with it. ROUNDERHOUSE agrees that AdCap users may not ask themselves whether a conversation belongs there, and he questions why reforms have not changed this behavior. LilyFlower appears and states that she was the first to bring the situation to AdCap, and did so because she feels it is the fastest way to get the attention of captains and admins.
ROUNDERHOUSE states that admin and captain attention being restricted to AdCap is part of the problem. Limeyy agrees, and has personally experienced having to resort to adcap as a means of getting attention. Zyn feels that re-establishing the purposes of the various channels may be needed, allowing staffers to assign availability accordingly. gee suggests that moving AdCap’s position in the server channel listing would help, as its position may encourage this behavior out of convenience. ROUNDERHOUSE and Lucio disagree. aismallard reveals the server’s channel structure, which is as follows:
[Business channels]
[Casual channels]
[Adcap channels]
(business, then casual)
[Admin channels]
(business, then casual)
ROUNDERHOUSE feels the existence of an adcap-casual channel is unnecessary. CuteGirl agrees with Rounder’s point, but not his tone, as it would make people automatically defensive. aismallard asks Cutegirl how she would propose the topic be talked about. ROUNDERHOUSE, in response to aismallard, states he would like 05command to be used. ManyMeats states that channels can be difficult to keep up with, which may result in miscommunication. ROUNDERHOUSE restates that if the statement was ready to be ported to staffchat, it should be ready to be ported to 05. Meats and Lily agree. Lily would prefer if it were ported sooner rather than later. She states that ideally, the statement will be posted on 05 as soon as Katie speaks with Akimoto. Rounder asks aismallard if there was discussion in AdCap between the statement being posted in staffchat and aismallard’s earlier statement that she had posted in AdCap. aismallard states there was discussion about the heated tone of the conversation, followed by Limeyy saying that the statement will need to go on 05command soon.
ManyMeats shows a draft of new rules for AdCap. The channel should be used "First to inform other members of AdCap about matters requiring their attention, but that generally do not require general staff discussion. Second, to coordinate planned actions between teams, administration, or a combination of both. And third, to coordinate and plan for regular AdCap meetings." Once issues are determined to need discussion, they will then be ported to "public" staffchat channels. ROUNDERHOUSE feels this will not prevent the members of AdCap from conducting all their business there; gee also doesn't think it helps, since it means only Adcap members can move topics from the AdCap channel. Meats feels it's an improvement, and that when a conversation is being held in AdCap which should not be held there, the users involved should be "called out." The proper venue for said callouts is determined to be the #staff-discussion channel.
gee immediately invokes this suggestion by stating that the conversation presently occurring in AdCap should be occuring in #staff-questions. ROUNDERHOUSE wagers his final donut that someone in AdCap has been complaining about this very discussion within the past hour. Members of AdCap briefly dispute, investigate, then confirm this.
ROUNDERHOUSE feels the statement about miscommunication merely lays blame on aismallard and YossiPossi for other people's communications problems. He forcefully proposes that once LadyKatie has spoken to Akimoto, staff hold themselves accountable on 05command in a visible discussion. Zyn notes that she finds forum conversations more comfortable. ROUNDERHOUSE notes that he'd prefer to move ahead on this immedately, since the issue has progressed far beyond the topic of Akimoto's promotion, but he will accede to the wishes of the majority. Limeyy agrees, stating "akimoto is the symptom, not the cause." ROUNDERHOUSE expands on this, stating that AdCap have almost certainly made many more mistakes which have not received this level of visibility.
gee reiterates that AdCap is holding a conversation which should be occurring in the "public" channels. Limeyy notes that said conversation regards "the formation of a communications team to give one or more admins the responsibility personally of preventing something like this happening again." They note that one contributory factor to these issues is apparently admin overwork; they have recommended relieving admins of some duties to combat this.
TheDeadlyMoose notes that they are heading the proposal for the "intrastaff issues team" and did not expect to see it discussed until it was ready for discussion. They nevertheless prepare to answer questions and present the proposal to staffchat.
ROUNDERHOUSE opines that spreading the workload across more people will reduce the possibility of one person's problems causing problems for the entire site, particularly if things aren't automatically sequestered into the least-public channels where most staff can't help with them.
aismallard and Prometheus have now moved the AdCap conversation to staffchat. The issue of effectively contacting staff members and determining who has what responsibility is raised; ROUNDERHOUSE suggests using the Jira task management software. aismallard supports this idea, particularly if it can prevent the creation of more bureaucracy. stormfallen points out that many people avoid staffchat proper because of the volume of messages. gee and ROUNDERHOUSE note that this is a reason, but not a justification; ROUNDERHOUSE suggests the proper solution is to move most discussions to 05command. There is a brief discussion about the manpower required to use Jira for this purpose.
ROUNDERHOUSE feels like Moose's team proposal "adds bloat." Moose feels ROUNDER is speaking with authority on a topic he can't know anything about yet, as the proposal has not been revealed; they feel their proposal is the best way forward, as nobody else has suggested anything, but welcome other suggestions. They ask whether ROUNDERHOUSE would rather wait until the proposal is ready to discuss it, or get answers to questions now and receive the proposal later. gee would prefer to discuss the finished proposal. ROUNDERHOUSE wants his questions to affect the proposal as it is drafted. He also opines that the proposal will be dead on arrival. Moose notes that ROUNDERHOUSE lacks the context to provide pertinent feedback at this point. They also suggest that he is "trying to — in bad faith — convince this chat that a proposal is DOA with no context and before seeing it" in order to force people to engage with him outside of AdCap, which ironically is an argument in favour of AdCap, since such behaviour would not be possible there. ROUNDERHOUSE notes that Limeyy had to ping Moose to get the proposal conversation out of AdCap; Moose says it wasn't in AdCap at all, but personal messages. Corvus confirms. ROUNDERHOUSE points out that miscommunications of this sort are emblematic of the existing problem.
aismallard has been setting the Jira board up. Its functionality is discussed briefly.
Moose refuses to characterize the previous incident as "miscommunication," telling ROUNDERHOUSE that he has been scuttling a proposal, acting in bad faith with users who are acting in good faith, and "saying dickish things about other staff members." ROUNDERHOUSE rejects these assertions and notes he has been merely voicing his opinions: "I'm not breaking down doors. I'm talking." Moose notes they are being blunt with ROUNDERHOUSE out of respect (he later returns the sentiment), and emphasizes that his approach is harming the viability of the proposal whether he means it to or not. Riemann suggests this is a good time to pause discussion of the proposal until there is something solid to discuss. gee agrees that the proposal conversation should be left for later, but the staff restructuring one should not.
ROUNDERHOUSE feels his approach has contributed to more substantive staff action, and represents a move away from an earlier climate where junior staff were discouraged from discussing things with their superiors. Moose is not sure this climate ever prevailed, but is pleased it does not currently exist. They emphasize that mistreating others in these conversations, however, is a problem. They also think approaches like the one ROUNDERHOUSE takes have caused serious problems in the past, preventing the sort of action he sees them enabling. Furthermore, Moose feels that while the admins have adjusted their behaviour (or left), ROUNDERHOUSE remains combative. ROUNDERHOUSE does not feel he has been mean, and claims that he has been treated in a similar manner and that everyone must step up if they want a higher standard of behaviour; Moose counters that other staff members "experiencing misery" due to ROUNDERHOUSE's approach is obvious to anyone looking, and he is either not looking or justifying it. Stormfallen feels that ROUNDERHOUSE cannot be the judge of the effects of his actions. YossiPossi notes the tenor of the room and suggests a break, and EdnaGranbo characterizes the conversation as an argument which should be taken elsewhere. Moose, ROUNDERHOUSE, gee, Limeyy and Bleep disagree, feeling it is an on-topic discussion and a productive one.
Moose notes that the prevailing sentiment that staff are allowed to be rude to each other is a problem. Limeyy and ROUNDERHOUSE agree, though ROUNDERHOUSE feels that "most of the staff who were dicks aren't around anymore." Moose has been emphasizing that much of this difficulty must be fixed by the admins; gee is not happy with admins dealing with the issue themselves. Pedagon notes that, to date, the job has not been done; he also notes that admin-level self-policing will likely not resolve the issue, and that reform attempts from below that level are in danger of being halted by said admins. ROUNDERHOUSE does not trust the promotions process to generate trustworthy admins, or members of the Disciplinary Team. Moose feels admins will do the relevant work, and admins who won't should be subject to no-confidence votes. Pedagon states that if admins wish to enact change, they should be discussing it in "public" or even actually public locations like 05command.
A message required for context, replied to by Moose and gee, was deleted.
ROUNDERHOUSE feels admins naturally tend to conduct self-policing behind closed doors "so as to not project an outward image of a divided house. this is effective, but is catastrophic for accountability." Again he feels the solution is more intensive use of 05command.
By this point TheDeadlyMoose is responding to comments made in the upscroll. They will continue to do this for the rest of the night, on an increasingly-long delay.
Moose responds to gee’s statement that inter-staff interactions cannot be adjudicated as acceptable or not by a small, specific group of staff with agreement and adds that decisions like this should be based on a set of specific behavioural standards. Moose then explains that they have relevant experience to write up a proposal of these standards and invites others to help on a voluntary basis, adding that they believe it is the job of admins to propose these standards but staff should not rely on only admins to put them together. Bleep and gee both react positively to this proposal by giving it a thumbs up. gee then adds that he would not join this initiative because his thoughts “don't go into any detail beyond 'stop the disc blackbox making all decisions'.” ROUNDERHOUSE agrees with gee and states that this is because “we can't fairly make suggestions because people won't even tell us what's broken” and that any solution coming from outside disc team is missing context and results in the solutions being shot down with no further information. gee states that this is part of the problem of addressing the current process where "'you make a report and it disappears'." Moose confirms that gee is specifically saying this is a problem with Disc and proposes that a new, admin-run body would need to be created to deal with the argument that Disc shouldn’t determining appropriate interstaff behaviour beyond censure. ROUNDERHOUSE argues that it isn’t possible to tackle Disc/Admin/Anti-Harassment Team problems independently because these groups are composed of largely the same people. gee states that he does not believe a new, distinct body should be formed for this purpose.
ROUNDERHOUSE states that people tend to prefer using Discord to 05command because Discord is easier, but argues that staff should not be choosing the easier option over the better option. stormfallen states that returning staffchat to IRC would get people to use 05 more often. Moose states that they choose not to use 05 because they don’t want to receive harassment and they don’t have anything new to post on 05 as a new proposal/discussion. Moose then also points out the speed of the present conversations in Discord as being difficult to keep up with. Moose explains to stormfallen that they stopped using IRC due to the lack of a reply feature, and stormfallen clarifies that they were mostly joking but do believe that the move to use Discord instead of 05 was due to the former being more conducive to long discussions.
Moose responds to ROUNDERHOUSE’s statement that it is difficult for initiatives limiting the power of higher staff to pass; they point to their experience that proposals attempting this have been of low quality and poorly thought through.
Moose responds to Pedagon comment that if higher staff wanted to actually change they would be discussing issues in view of all staff or on 05 with agreement, but adds that this is presently difficult for multiple reasons. They then state that their proposal is presently missing a solution for this and invite staff to provide suggestions. They add that they believe it is the job of admins to handle this problem, and that the planned IntraStaff Issues Team will assign an admin to take responsibility for ensuring conversations move appropriately. Pedagon agrees with Moose that this should be the job of admins but he does not currently trust the admins to do it (citing admin not truly being an administrative role, admins needing to choose to give themselves more work when acting in this way, and high-level staff being friends with one another). He then points to prior discussions where he had proposed automatic Non-Discplinary Record threads for reports of moderator staff and above, and making promotions above moderator based on doing administrative duties primarily. He argues that adjudication of staff should not be solely arbitrated by peers and left off 05. Moose later responds to Pedagon’s statement — that he agrees that it should be the job of admins to bring conversations to semipublic spaces — by stating that it is the job of admins, whether they are trusted to do it or not. Moose then invites people to give suggestions to fix this problem because they had not heard the prior suggestions before.
aismallard asks if it would be possible for discussing interstaff issues to be a full staff responsibility where a complaint is made, a statement is made by the accuser, the accused gives a defence, and a thread is made for people to discuss whether it was problematic or not. ROUNDERHOUSE feels that this is the same thing as a Vote of No Confidence. aismallard disagrees with this because Votes of No Confidence are big actions which will happen infrequently. stormfallen states that they were under the impression that the Rule 0 guidelines put in place would have staff make interstaff complaints semi-publicly (within staffchat) and is surprised that this hasn’t been the case. aismallard clarifies that their process would be for when someone gets heated and acts dickishly, and then a conversation occurs afterwards to resolve it through an apology or whatever else is deemed necessary. aismallard responds to stormfallen that they feel the enforcement of Rule 0 has been inconsistent, and gee agrees. ROUNDERHOUSE expresses that he would feel uncomfortable making a public complaint because of fear of retribution and the complaint being discussed improperly in AdCap. Because of this, he states that he prefers to take complaints to individual members. Limeyy outlines two issues with making Rule 0 complaints semipublic: 1) it is not possible to submit a disciplinary complaint anonymously, and 2) complaints including restricted information above a certain level of staff cannot be made in the semipublic spaces. stormfallen responds with the hope that situations brought up semipublicly could be dealt with internally before requiring the Disciplinary Team's involvement. Then, if this does not occur, Disc could do a writeup of whatever can be shared, get it approved by the accuser, and post the complaint on 05. ROUNDERHOUSE argues that internal resolutions are inappropriate because they lead anyone who was not directly involved to feel that the report was buried; he points to a complaint he himself made as evidence of being left in the dark even with multiple requests for updates, eventually assuming the complaint had been dismissed. Limeyy argues similarly based on knowledge of "at least 3 other people" who submitted overlapping complaints of the same issue.
Moose responds to gee’s statement that nobody can be unbiased and that, because of this, we reduce bias by not having "a small group of old staff" deciding the acceptability of language by expressing agreement with the idea but not that it is what is currently happening. Moose argues that Disc is essentially taking Rule 0 cues from staff as a body, that Rule 0 should have never needed to be applied to staff, that Disc was never equipped to adjudicate staff violations of Rule 0, and that Disc should be for censure of staff. ROUNDERHOUSE points out that the last censures never occurred. Bleep questions if this refers to gee’s censures and ROUNDERHOUSE and stormfallen clarify that ROUNDERHOUSE meant Dexanote and DrEverettMann’s censures (even though gee’s censure was technically after). gee challenges Moose’s statement that Rule 0 is being treated appropriately by Disc by pointing out how staff outside of disc know little about its inner workings and that Disc is composed of a small group of like-minded individuals who are making interpretations together. gee then summarizes his stance as being that disc should not be the ones making decisions surrounding interstaff interactions. Moose later responds to gee’s assertion by noting that it is an unfair and inaccurate assumption of bad faith. gee responds that it is not an assumption of bad faith, and that any group of largely like-minded staff would end up with similar problems.
Moose responds to Pedagon’s statement that there is a gap in the trust of admins to make calls limiting their own power and that admins should call for changes publicly on 05 for the whole staff body to discuss so that nothing is ignored or gamed, by stating that it is not currently possible for admins to call for changes in public. Moose also adds that admin-level changes require an admin to be assigned as the project lead but opens up the possibility of creating a system that has admins generate proposals on high-priority topics which are then brought up for staff discussion. Moose then responds to Pedagon’s statement that discussions should all be on 05 by arguing that this still relies on an assignment of responsibility and often involves too much text for people to engage with.
ROUNDERHOUSE returns to the earlier conversation around how reforming Disc and Admin is challenging because those outside of Disc/Admin are not able to make changes, and once inside it is difficult to see the problems from the outside. Limeyy agrees that it is difficult to make suggestions to disc or admins because the "blackbox" keeps those on the outside from knowing what goes on inside and adds that they choose not to make suggestions to these groups because they aren’t aware of what is going on inside them. Moose later responds to ROUNDERHOUSE by stating that it is an assessment based on an assumption of facts not in evidence. Moose then states that this phenomenon, however, is why they were convinced to use AdCap less. ROUNDERHOUSE explains that his perspective is formed by his own experiences and what he has seen of other staff getting stonewalled and that this is going to be his perspective until shown evidence otherwise.
Moose responds to gee stating that he would not join this initiative because his thoughts "don't go into any detail beyond 'stop the disc blackbox making all decisions'" by suggesting gee make suggestions of how to address the blackbox, ask for more full reports on Disc reasoning, and create a venue to express concerns with the process. gee states that he has had bad experiences when asking for more transparency in the past.
Moose responds to ROUNDERHOUSE’s complaint that addressing Disc is hindered by missing context by stating that they have provided information about Disc’s process and this context has been met with mockery and dismissal. ROUNDERHOUSE responds by stating that he has never seen a Disc log or admin chat and that he has never met any logs with dismissal and mockery. He then points out that it is coming up on a year since the November 2020 incident and that the resulting censures have yet to be applied, despite the admin team’s size doubling. He points out that this fact has coloured many peoples’ views on how Disc handles interstaff conflict, without anything being done to change that view – and later adds that other events have worked to further prove it.
ROUNDERHOUSE returns to this later as the first priority in addressing the issues of Disc and admins because the open wound of the censures is a major source of damage to staff's public image. Pedagon agrees and adds that the incomplete censures are pointed to as evidence of staff being untrustworthy.
stormfallen expresses confusion over StaffChat Rule 04 violation complaints not being reported semi-publicly. Moose responds to this point with exasperation, arguing that StaffChat's Rule 0 should be replaced by ‘be excellent to each other’ with a body other than Disc enforcing it. stormfallen asks if someone could put a proposal for this together and MomBun adds that the rules in general should be reworked.Moose explains that this would fall under the purview of the in-the-works InterStaff Issues Team eventually. stormfallen asks for clarification on whether this would entail a rework of Rule 0 to be affirmative rather than restrictive, or if it would be a full rework of Rule 0, which has apparently not been working.
Moose responds to ROUNDERHOUSE’s statement about being uncomfortable making semipublic complaints about interstaff issues by expressing confusion due to ROUNDERHOUSE previously being very vocal with complaints. ROUNDERHOUSE explains that the difference now is that, as JS, he can be demoted without a thread. gee adds that there is a difference between disagreeing with peers in staffchat and submitting a report to a team which often contains the person being reported. aismallard clarifies to Moose that an earlier statement by ROUNDERHOUSE that reports "disappear" refers to reports being looked over and declined pursuit of further action without being made public – making them seem to have disappeared. gee and ROUNDERHOUSE confirm this is what they mean. aismallard adds that they understand why people are upset with this process and agree that it should probably change, possibly as Moose suggested by moving the issue away from Disc.
Moose responds to ROUNDERHOUSE’s complaint that the censures of Dexanote and Mann never occurred by pointing to Dexanote’s public statement and the fact that nothing has changed as a result of this statement. ROUNDERHOUSE explains that the public explanation was insufficient and that nothing changing is a part of the problem.
ManyMeats states that they would rather reports not need to be made privately and that there should be an anonymous place for complaints to be submitted by staff which would then become an incident for Disc to see, acknowledge, reply to, and close. gee says the issue with this approach is that it is still handled by Disc.
Moose leaves the discussion temporarily and a brief discussion of the September Recap occurs. During this time, ROUNDERHOUSE posts an image of an “ideal staffchat” where #admins, #adcap, #sensitive-staff-discussion, and #staff-discussion all filter into one common #staff-casual. Limeyy calls this "based" and gee confirms that this "ideal staffchat" is the same as current staffchat but with fewer casual channels. Moose later asks if this was a joke.
Moose returns and begins replying to earlier messages again. They respond to gee’s statement that he has had bad experiences with asking for more transparency by noting that, in their experience, conversations around transparency have been borderline cruel with neither party offering solutions – choosing instead to defend their original positions.
Moose responds to ROUNDERHOUSE’s complaint that the censures resulting from the November 2020 incident never occurred by asking if any other censures have occurred recently at all. gee responds that he was censured in either June or July. Moose also expresses suspicion that there is confusion around Disc, AHT and admins being a single group, leading to issues in this conversation, and expresses belief that the censures of Dexanote and Mann are nothing more than an extra public acknowledgement of and apology for fucking up. Moose believes that accelerating the censure process would solve no problems beyond sating calls for blood, and further that all arguments for this have been personal. They then clarify that they believe there should be resolution to this issue and invite arguments for why this is the root cause of many issues beyond just being anger towards Dexanote. ROUNDERHOUSE clarifies that the three groups are not the same but have a large overlap, that the censure is not just an acknowledgement of fucking up but is an acknowledgement of allowing an admin/Disc member to abuse their power for a personal grudge, and that a desire for accountability and accepting mistakes being equated with looking for blood is what has led to staff’s unwillingness to enact certain changes. Moose later responds to ROUNDERHOUSE by arguing that Dexanote has already him made an “acknowledgement that Admins and Disc fucked up and allowed an admin/disc member to abuse their power for a personal grudge” which counts as making an accountability and apology approach. Moose therefore accuses ROUNDERHOUSE of acting in bad faith. ROUNDERHOUSE later replies to explain that statements of accountability and saying sorry are not sufficient for the scale of the November 2020 incident, and that action is required for people to have faith that the acknowledgement of wrongdoing is genuine. He adds that censure is just a gesture, but one that should be made because the ones experiencing that gesture are the ones who committed wrongdoing. Calibold adds that people are looking for more than just an acknowledgement and apology because they want to know that Disc isn’t willing to let things slide and that action will be taken in situations like this one.
Moose responds to Pedagon’s comment that the open censures are the source of much distrust in staff by stating they have not seen this; they ask for him to elaborate. Pedagon elaborates by explaining how the open censures are often the first point brought up when someone asks why people don’t trust staff, and adds the anecdotal experience that it was the first thing he was told about when first getting involved in site politics as an explanation of why people were angry towards staff and why upper staff were painted as abusive of power and unaccountable to anyone. He then adds that, in his experience, the fact that nothing actionable has come from the censures has undercut every improvement to staff’s image due to showing how “no matter what has improved there is still no way to hold certain people accountable or enforce rules on certain positions.” Limeyy, Cyvstvi, and ROUNDERHOUSE all support this comment by reacting to it positively. Moose later replies to Pedagon, expressing appreciation for the clarification and confusion for why the incident has coloured staff in this way. Moose outlines how, from their perspective, admins demanded accountability from Magnus, Magnus immediately left administration, and Dexanote and Mann offered to fall on their swords for not doing due diligence (which was a censure, as the only viable disciplinary action towards staff). These censures were then delayed because they were both required for staff projects, only Magnus' was a clear case of abuse of power, Dexanote posted a massive apology and that the censure would be “toothless because of [REDACTED AS I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THIS EVEN THOUGH I WANT TO]”5. Pedagon states his belief that open censures “show how no matter what has improved there is still no way to hold certain people accountable or enforce rules on certain positions”. Moose suggests that this is the case for all positions on staff, save for removing them from staff.
CuteGirl states her belief that Magnus did not act maliciously at all and that it is frustrating to see Magnus painted as an SCP bogeyman for screwing up during a point of high stress. Calibold expresses difficulty with seeing Magnus’ actions as not malicious or, at the very least, willfully negligent considering the context and his behaviour before, during, and since the event. CuteGirl questions what Calibold means by current behaviour which leads him to believe that Magnus’ actions were malicious, and later explains that she believes Magnus genuinely believed there was a valid case for plagiarism.
Moose replies to ROUNDERHOUSE’s criticism of Disc, AHT, and admins being an oval of overlap by pointing out that all admins are on Disc unless they choose not to be, AHT is not a default like Disc is, and that team overlap is not a bad thing. ROUNDERHOUSE responds to this by questioning whether Moose doesn’t see the problem of having the people with power acting as the ones adjudicating whether or not said power has been abused. Moose later responds by asking for ROUNDERHOUSE to provide evidence that the people adjudicating were actually the ones who carried out the abuse of power.
Moose responds to stormfallen’s inquiry about the purpose of changing Rule 0 by stating their belief that the Rule 0 wording is ineffective without defining what is “dickish,” making it reasonable, and enforcing it evenly – each of which has not been done according to Moose. They also add that they view Rule 0 as being a result of being ban-happy towards new people when they do the same things a veteran user does.
Moose explains that they believe Disc was never intended to moderate conversations, and that making them enforce Rule 0 puts them in the role of chat moderation.
Moose responds to ManyMeats’ suggestion for an anonymous process of submitting complaints to Disc by expressing confusion why there isn’t already such a process of anonymous as there is for AHT. Dexanote explains that this is because reports rely on PMs and people not saying who they are to be considered anonymous. ManyMeats adds that AHT doesn’t truly take anonymous reports because people on AHT take reports and then report them to the team as anonymized, so the initial report is not anonymous. Cyvstvi argues that AHT and Disc should have similar levels of transparency in order to resolve the issues brought up by Pedagon around trust in staff. Gee, ROUNDERHOUSE, and Pedagon each disagree because AHT has a reason for being in a blackbox due to user safety. Cyvstvi clarifies that they meant that users should be able to similarly report issues to Disc and AHT anonymously. Yossi adds that AHT has made steps towards being as transparent as possible while still being reasonable. Limeyy expresses being impressed by the strides made by AHT to correct past wrongs.
Moose responds to Gee’s assertion that his censure was after Dex and Mann’s by stating that his censure came before discussions of the others. gee clarifies that the discussion of his censure came before but his actual censure occurred after, due to the Harmony situation. Gee then points out that the censures being proposed led to Magnus’ resignation, which also came before his censure. CuteGirl later states that it is possible that Magnus just retired anyway, and that the possibility of censure may have not been related. Moose responds to gee by clarifying that they were meant to be discussed before gee’s censure but the discussion did not reach a conclusion before gee’s censure, and that Dexanote and Mann were the primary advocates for their own censures. Moose then explains how, as someone who does not participate in Disc and whose role is to advise admins overall, they advised Dexanote to recuse himself, not self-censure, and allow for Disc to assess the situation for him. Disc then assessed that they could not censure due to general confusion, and because Dexanote was receiving personal abuse.
Cyvstvi responds to an earlier message from Moose that admins are automatically members of Disc and can choose to opt out by stating that Disc should not be opt-out for the highest levels of staff and should instead act as a tribunal. He then adds that Disc members should have limited terms, and that the highest levels of staff should not have complete control over acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. He then clarifies that this is not because this has been abused, but is because it could be abused.
Gee summarizes his perspective on adjudicating interstaff issues as being against the creation of a new formal team (because formal teams can lead to bias in favour of whatever is the dominant opinion of the members), transparency is essential (Discord can be useful for very minor things, but discussions should otherwise be done on 05), and staff should have a way to report issues anonymously (to avoid discomfort with reporting staff ranked higher than themselves).
Moose adds to an earlier statement by ROUNDERHOUSE that the Vice-Captain of Disc believes the current Disc process is flawed by adding that Dexanote has said similar things in the past. ROUNDERHOUSE asks where this has been said, and Dexanote later states that it was not in staffchat because he has taken lots of complaints and issues out of his own initiative. He then adds that it is apparent that Disc cant be responsible for non-disciplinary stuff, and interstaff issues are not a disciplinary issue.
Moose asks for clarification of an earlier statement from Cyvstvi about treating "both groups" equally. Cyvstvi clarifies that they meant staff and users, because there is an assumption that staff receive privileges due to their positions and, whether this is true or not, the fact that this belief exists is an issue. Moose later responds to a message from Cyvstvi about concerns with Disc having the highest power on the site and determining what is and is not acceptable by stating that Disc has never had this ability. Moose then states that “Disc has specifically the power to determine whether rules established by the community have been broken, how, and why” and states that this is why a rotating tribunal would not work. GremlinGroup points out that Disc also has the power to determine whether an appeal appears apologetic enough or not.
Moose feels that "Formal teams do not automatically lead to bias in favour of whatever the prevailing staff opinion is on the team." While they agree on the need for transparency and anonymous reporting to the Disciplinary Team, they ask for a further explanation of gee's overall position. gee explains that the issue pertains solely to the Disciplinary Team due to the subjectivity of the rules involved, and their vagueness; he believes that Disc is a small closed group which is largely on the same page, which does not reflect how all staff might interpret the same rules. Dexanote argues that "some appeals need to be denied" and that Disc is required to follow the site's rules strictly. GremlinGroup notes that his sole point was that Disc is able to subjectively judge the sincerity of appeals. Croquembouche adds that the lack of formalized delegation chains can cause issues like the recent problem with DrAkimoto's promotion. gee feels that the fact that a small, closed discussion failed to handle an issue properly is an argument for having such discussions on a larger scale.
GremlinGroup remains fixated on appeals as the most pertinent issue, feeling the tone and approach is typically negative and puts far too much unfair onus on the appealer. Dexanote offers a breakdown of how the Disciplinary server works. Cyvstvi wants greater transparency from Disc, noting that it has been proven that the existing system is vulnerable to abuse. gee suggests that staff "pull [intra] staff issues out of disc somehow" and make Disc's Discord server visible to all staff. Moose agrees that Disc should reform to reduce their blackbox nature, but rhetorically asks "why would [Disc] want to be less blackbox, when they have been approached in massively shitty ways'' which is answered when gee0765 opines: "because they shouldn't be acting to protect themselves, they should be acting to make the site a better place." Moose feels the Anti-Harrassment Team is not at issue since it has made steps toward transparency. gee agrees. DrBleep wants to know what reforms gee wants specifically. gee doesn't know, as he lacks context to to the lack of transparency with the Disciplinary Team. LadyKatie explains that disciplinary matters happen at two speeds: extremely fast for obvious issues, and extremely slowly for things which need careful consideration. Cyvstvi would like a clear justification for the Disciplinary Team being kept separate from the rest of staff.
Due to TheDeadlyMoose's habit of responding to every substantive post on a significant delay, a parellel conversation has been taking place about the November 2020. Moose regrets that DrMagnus left staff instead of "choosing to hear admins out on why it was wrong of him to do what he did," but notes that since this nevertheless occurred, it would be out of line to press him on the issue. Moose also does not make much distinction between accepting censure and issuing a statement of accountability, though they agree that taking the censure would be a good gesture — for Dexanote. They feel Mann being censured "would hold Mann to an unreasonable standard." ROUNDERHOUSE feels the distinction is very large from an optics standpoint; it makes it clear the issue has been taken seriously. He also takes issue with Moose's statement that evidence needs to be presented for why the Disciplinary Team needs to make amends, as he does not feel personal dissatisfaction requires evidence, being inherently subjective.
CuteGirl feels that Magnus has been aggressive in his defense because of the long-term nature of his experience, what she calls being "low-key harassed." ROUNDERHOUSE feels no harassment has taken place, merely calling-out. CuteGirl also feels that if Magnus was facing censure and resigned, that does not constitute avoiding responsibility, but suggests that if the censure is that important, it should be performed. JackalRelated feels the retirement was definitely an evasion of responsibility. CuteGirl wants to know if the interested parties think Magnus should be banned. gee does not, but he also doesn't want constant protestations of Magnus' innocence in staffchat. The question of whether stress in one's personal life, or believing oneself to be in the right, justify one's actions is bandied about briefly.
Moose expresses frustration that they have not received evidence that censuring Dexanote is a high priority outside of the views of "a few JS and non-staff." They say they haven't seen evidence that censure would actually resolve the issues these users have with the Wiki's staff. Furthermore, they suggest that this group of "people who feel severe grievances towards staff" would not be satisfied moving onto another complaint. This statement is accompanied with recognition that such complaints will also be valid.
Moose does not presently see speedily censuring Dex as a top priority, and asks why ROUNDERHOUSE believes it's a top priority. ROUNDERHOUSE states that Moose is assuming bad faith that people are looking for things to get mad over. Further, ROUNDERHOUSE feels that Moose not seeing this as a top priority is because Moose is out of touch with the present authorbase, and that this authorbase sees the censure as a priority.
Moose takes issue with the idea that Magnus was not harassed; they say that he has been harassed, and called out for misjudgements during his tenure on Site Staff. They also state their belief that he was not "harassed in the sense that AHT would step in". CuteGirl claims that Magnus is afraid of being downvote brigaded if he posts. ROUNDERHOUSE points out that this is not evidence of anything; JackalRelated notes that the importance of evidence appears to vary from topic to topic in staffchat. Dexanote asks whether djkaktus complaining about Magnus "by name for months" is not considered harassment. Moose notes that censuring a non-staff member, as Magnus is now, would be overreach. Croquembouche asks whether the Magnus topic is advancing this conversation; though most parties feel engaged on the topic, it is generally admitted that it is not. gee suggests that it is only useful as an entrée to discussing what reforms would prevent a similar issue from again arising.
LadyKatie announces that DrAkimoto has rejoined staff. stormfallen asks if promotions will be resumed and an O5 post made. DrBleep says she will reopen promotions tomorrow.
Moose feels that ROUNDERHOUSE has not addressed their points properly. ROUNDERHOUSE feels that Moose is reluctant to admit that these issues might be larger than they presently appear. He suggests that a poll of SCPD would set this right. Athenodora offers to do the same in #site19, and ROUNDERHOUSE says he doesn’t care if she does. Later, Athenodora notes, anecdotally, that she has seen no such sentiment of wanting Magnus censured during regular discussion in the IRC. She further states that, as far as she can tell, the recent IRC network ownership changeover has not significantly affected the composition of #site19's membership and would not compromise the validity of a poll of #site19's members.
Cyvstvi wants the Anti-Harassment Policy added to the Site Rules page.
Calibold notes the perception that the staff leak charge was added to the November 2020 thread to "pad it out" when the plagiarism charge fell through. Moose takes extreme exception to this assertion.
GremlinGroup obliquely suggests moving the conversation to 05command. LadyKatie agrees, but wants a statement prepared in advance to give the community proper context.
ROUNDERHOUSE feels like participating in this conversation has already secretly earmarked him for demotion. gee agrees that this is a worry, which again would be eased if Disc was viewable. MomBun agrees as well, adding that such viewership should be limited to staff at the Operator level and above. gee feels all staff should be present but would settle for OS+. (Moose will much later note that they are opposed to demoting staff members for bringing up issues.)
ROUNDERHOUSE feels that DrAkimoto's return to staff means the topic should be moved to 05command now. Dexanote says that moving the conversation there to slow it down was his intention with the November 2020 case, and "Look at where that ended up." ROUNDERHOUSE disagrees: "No, the Cerastes thread was a series of fuckups by Disc members and doubling down on them." LadyKatie proposes "we move all major discussions like this to O5. If we'd done that sooner, we'd have a statement. And it'd be easier to keep logs of everything."
It is generally agreed that the conversation has been a fast-paced impenetrable mass of confusion thus far. Many of the recappers agree, in private. "I think this exemplifies why I don't like bringing a lot of things in here," DrBleep says. GremlinGroup takes issue, assuming this statement refers to the diversity of staff opinions as a negative. Bleep clarifies that she doesn't like bringing up topics in staffchat because of the multitude of overlapping conversations. GremlinGroup feels that these long and complex discussions are rather the result of not bringing things to staffchat when they should be. ROUNDERHOUSE asserts that AdCap being easier is not an excuse for "Avoiding hard conversations because they will result in long, drawn-out and admittedly confusing discussions."
The topic of harassment in SCPD has been broached occasionally throughout these conversational threads. J Dune notes that these issues are typically raised in reference to the meta-scp-discussion channel, which is now under stricter moderation. He encourages approaching the moderation team.
gee intends to make a formal query to Disc about why all staff cannot view their proceedings.
GremlinGroup says that using AdCap to make final decisions, rather than initial deliberations, "ends up with a façade of transparency."
Athenodora asks for a break, and Dexanote orders a ten-minute pause. It doesn't work out, particularly as Moose is still time-travelling. They suggest asking Disc to explain the blackbox situation on 05command. A moment later they rejoin everyone else in the present, and apologize for violating the stop order. When the pause ends, Dune agrees with Moose's idea. GremlinGroup reminds staff that the September recap is up for review; reminded of the Recap team, DrBleep expresses her sympathies and presciently notes "This is going to be hell." The conversation briefly turns to how much it probably sucks to be on Recap.
Moose catches up with GremlinGroup's comment on Bleep's desire to avoid the use of staffchat, and ROUNDERHOUSE's characterization of it as "noxious," and terms it "deeply fucked up." GremlinGroup takes issue with this.
stormfallen summarizes the action items from this difficult day:
1. Get an 05 statement about the whole Akimoto clusterfuck
2. Restart promos
3. Discussion about why Disc chat should or shouldn't be visible to general staff
4. Discussion about staff-wide Jira
5. Resuming discussion about censure for Dex and Mann
6. Discussion about who should handle inter/intra-staff issues, and how they should be reported.
He later adds:
7. Discuss how to better format these long conversations so that people who aren't around/can't follow along as easily can still know what happened
8. Draft proposal to reword Rule Zero
He volunteers for the last item.
GremlinGroup clarifies the comments Moose took issue with: "Staff users at every level were sharing their thoughts on multiple issues that had come to head, or had been otherwise brought up, during the discussion. Within this context, Bleep’s message read as one regretting the fact that the conversation was happening at all. Their later statement, that they don’t bring up “unpolished topics” didn’t exactly help in this regard." This perception was only altered by additional context given after he made his comments. (Moose eventually reaches this point and apologizes for the distress caused.) Calibold also wishes to clarify: he does not think Disc engaged in a conspiracy against Cerastes, but he does think they mishandled the issue very badly and kept it going past the point where it should have ended.
LadyKatie points out that it can be difficult to follow these long, detailed, fast conversations — particularly for neurodivergent staff members. Athenodora agrees. Cyvstvi suggests introducing slowmode. HarryBlank reiterates the value of switching to 05command for more deliberate conversation without so much repetition and "increasing volume." LadyKatie agrees that the repetition is unproductive and near-deafening. Dexanote believes the biggest problem is remaining on topic. Cyvstvi suggests that the tone of these debates represents genuinely-held feelings, but could stand improvement. LadyKatie underlines the harmful mental effects of said tone and the difficulties inherent in changing it. Prometheus thinks much of the adversarial nature of the conversation results from staff having nearly-completed discussions suddenly dropped on them.
Dexanote suggests limiting these discussions "to those most essential, plus some extra. Generally for policy stuff Everyone™️ doesn't need to be consulted. Things like tonight need to Stay On Topic to actually get stuff done, otherwise you have people struck by the emotional weight and not meaning."
The conversation has largely abated, leaving TheDeadlyMoose to respond to posts made over one hour ago. They call out ROUNDERHOUSE for insulting and inappropriate tone; he responds that he's become frustrated with never getting "a straight response." Speaking to stormfallen one hour in the past, Moose feels that their (Moose's) willingness to remain in the conversation indefinitely contributed to its length. This continued presence was an expression of their willingess to hear issues and work through them, in response to the needs expressed by staff and the userbase.
Moose responds to something HarryBlank said while he was engaged in recapping "events from seven hours ago," and he nearly dies in fright.
Cyvstvi outlines what they believe to be the merits of 05command and Discord: "Discord, like the name implies, allows us to air our grievances between one another in a more private setting. We can debate one another and argue like the ordinary humans we are. O5 allows us to post our thoughts clearly and cohesively as a team, whilst debates might occur and tensions may flare, we're far more likely to be civil in the public eye."
The remainder of the conversation consists of minor business and reminiscences.
stormfallen responds to Dexanote's suggestion to limit the number of discussion participants. He believes focus groups are a good approach, and suggests a schema for putting them in place. Croquembouche makes some suggestions for making sure such an approach works well, and suggests that a thread be opened to discuss it. This leads into the Focus Groups recap.
(scroll to top)