November 2021 Recap

Forum » Archive / Staff Discussion Records » November 2021 Recap

Started by:

pr0m37h3um
Date: 29 Dec 2021 04:38
Number of posts: 1

Summary:

YISUN's glory is great, and you may know this by two paths, the sanctioned words, and the sanctioned action. The sanctioned words are YS ATN VARAMA PRESH. The meaning of these words is YISUN and their attainment is Royalty. The sanctioned action is to Recap.

Unfold All Fold All More Options

Fold

November 2021 Recap

pr0m37h3um 29 Dec 2021 04:38

NOTE: Recap is ostensibly a team of people working to keep you updated on current-ish events in staffchat. What you’re going to see are hopefully-comprehensive, hopefully-concise summaries of the medium-to-big conversations and events from November. The recap has been looked over by Administrators, Team Captains, and Staff Chat at large. If we’ve made a mistake, been unclear, or if you’d just plain like a more-detailed explanation, don’t hesitate to let us know. Likewise, any feedback on our presentation is really helpful; we think we’ve improved it a lot since starting this, but there’s always ways to improve!

NOTE 2: Short note to say that we aren’t correcting any typos in direct quotes, but we’re not going to point them out either; it’s a fast-moving online chat, typos happen, no big deal.

+ Open Table of Contents

Topic: Post Signatures and Rating Modules | 2021/11/03

Summary: Staffers discuss forum posts signatures and rating modules, specifically whether they require rulings.

+ Show Recap

(scroll to top)

Topic: Staff Appointment Announcements | 2021/11/07

Summary: Staff discuss the idea of announcing when a staff member joins or leaves a staff team.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: After a staff member’s appointment to a team is brought up as going unnoticed by some staff members, Cyvstvi asks why there are no announcements of such appointments. He recalls Recap team’s Junior Staff additions (such as himself) being discussed in staffchat, but notes that there appears to be no need to announce additions to teams. His suggestion, to improve transparency, is to discuss and communicate appointments between staff. He points to the Junior Staff Appointments thread, but states it is hardly used.

Optimistic Lucio states his belief that this is unimportant, but agrees that it is doable; he proposes a general thread to announce when staff members join teams in staff. Limeyy is in support of this idea, saying it is not the first time such a thing has been suggested.
This part of the discussion takes a minute

The discussion is not followed up on until the next day, when Jerden replies to Cyvstvi’s original message to draw attention to it. He says it would be reasonable to announce when people join or leave teams. Athenodora agrees that this would be a good change, as it would be strange for Monthly Recaps to be the first way users would be made aware of such changes. Jerden suggests creating a channel in the Staff Discord, or thread on O5, for these announcements. GremlinGroup states his belief that Site News are planning on announcing new appointments, saying he was informed of this by another member of the Recap team. Jerden notes that this would be a useful change for the community as a whole, but that he believes Cyvstvi’s comment is more focused on intra-staff announcements. hungrypossum points to the Junior Staff Appointments thread, and stormfallen recalls that Vivarium said there were plans for a similar thread for Operational Staff (and above) announcements. Jerden notes that his addition to the INT ambassador team was not added to the announcement thread.

This discussion takes around forty minutes. It is of note that, as no action was taken at the close of this discussion, it was brought up in December by a member of the recap team.

(scroll to top)

Topic: “How to Contribute” Rewrite | 2021/11/07

Recap: Optimistic Lucio announces a new discussion post; a thread to discuss a rewrite of the How to Contribute page. Before the discussion timer runs out, Lucio has noted that a rewrite of this policy is required.
05 Link: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14266142/
Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14266145/

This announcement took a single message.
(scroll to top)

Topic: Replacing ARC links with INT links | 2021/11/07

Summary: Staff discuss replacing a link on the SCP Series pages from ARC articles to INT articles. Most are in support of doing this, but not yet.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: LemonBee12 suggests that the Archived SCPs link be removed from all SCP Series pages, to be replaced with a link to a page of International SCPs. Optimistic Lucio says that this would make ARC articles almost entirely unlinked on the site. He says he is in favour of doing this, but isn’t sure if any official agreement had been reached about what to do with ARC SCPs. He also notes that the INT Hub on the EN Wiki is “a bit… deserted.” Jerden says it would be better to link to the actual INT site, and Lucio agrees. LemonBee12 says she doesn’t care what the ARC link is replaced with, but feels that it’s silly to have an unimportant page given such a spotlight. Lucio agrees again, saying that once ARCs are removed from the site, he is in favour of replacing the link. Siddartha Alonne mentions a discussion with LadyKatie about adding articles to EN’s INT hub, and Lucio says he believes the project is ongoing, albeit slowly.

LemonBee12 asks Optimistic Lucio if ARCs must be fully purged from the site before the link can be removed from the SCP series page, and Lucio states that the Series pages are the only non-archived pages linking to the hub. He says that removing any form of backlink feels “a bit much”. He is in favour of removing the link, but feels greater consensus is required. Limeyy voices their support, saying “No need to proudly advertise our hall of shame”, a message which garners agreements from Siddartha Alonne, LemonBee12, Cyvstvi, and Gee0765. Furthermore, gee voices support for removing the heritage collection. Limeyy categorizes archived pages; those that exist because they’re linked to elsewhere, and those that exist because staff wanted to keep them around. They say they’re fine with the first category, but that the second category is something they’ll happily see hidden.

Optimistic Lucio requests that a member of staff create a discussion post for this topic on 05. The Pighead voices her support for the suggested change.
This discussion takes around an hour.

21 days later GremlinGroup asks, as a part of Recap duties, whether a discussion post was ever created; LemonBee12 states that this has not yet happened, as she wasn't sure if junior staff were permitted to do so. After being informed by present Staff that it was possible, but a good idea to get permission from her team's captain, LemonBee12 states she will ping GremlinGroup when she creates the thread. This does not occur before the end of November.

This discussion took place across roughly half a day.

(scroll to top)

Topic: Adding crombird to the Wiki | 2021/11/08

Recap: Staff discuss allowing the wikidot account of the Crom bot to join the wiki for improved functionality.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: Crom is a Discord and Reddit bot with a number of features for searching the SCP Wiki, and associated wikis. aismallard ports a request from SMLT, creator of CROM, to allow the bot’s wikidot account to join the SCP wiki. In SMLT’s request, it is clarified that doing so would allow CROM to message users who have disabled PMs from users who are not members of the Wiki. Allowing CROM to message such members would allow these members to link their Discord and Wikidot accounts for additional Crom functionality.

aismallard asks staff whether they believe it would be acceptable for the crombird account to join the wiki. She states her own opinion, which is to accept the request. Limeyy is in favour, stating that “rules were made to be broken”. aismallard corrects them; the rules on sockpuppet accounts are not being broken, as SMLT is going through proper channels to make this request. Both Optimistic Lucio and gee0765 are in favour, gee states that SMLT is trustworthy and that this is an acceptable solution to an existing issue. Limeyy points out that it would be “blindingly obvious” if SMLT used the crombird account as a sockpuppet “for some reason”. aismallard pings Zyn, as she runs site applications. stormfallen notes that Jarvis and ResearcherHelen, two other companion bots for the SCP Wiki, are both members of the wiki. TawnyOwlJones, Hexick, and Edna Granbo also support allowing the bot to join the wiki.
This discussion occurs over half an hour.

The next day, CuteGirl says it would be evident if the crombird account was used as a sockpuppet, and advocates letting it in. Edna jokes that the bot would downvote (and thus bring to deletion) Thread, a page that is required to ensure Wikidot’s Forum functionality is maintained. TawnyOwlJones asks whether Thread can be downvoted; Edna and Hexick clarify that, as a forum page, it cannot.

This discussion occurs over forty minutes.

The next day, Zyn announces that crombird has been accepted to the Wiki, aismallard thanks her.

(scroll to top)

Topic: gee0765 Ports Discussion on AdCap Summaries to General Staff Chat | 2021/11/08

Summary: gee0765 attempts to bring the topic of allowing Junior Staff to see weekly summaries of AdCap into the general staff chat.

+ Show Recap

(scroll to top)

Topic: Newbie Guide Rewrite | 2021/11/09

Summary: Staff discuss ideas for additions or revisions to the Newbie Guide.

+ Show Recap

(scroll to top)

Topic: Concerns with Recap | 2021/11/09-2021/11/10

Summary: TheDeadlyMoose discusses Recap procedure with various team members.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: TheDeadlyMoose has been using a staffchat Discord thread to workshop a post for 05command, and intends to revise one of the posts. GremlinGroup asks that they not, as he is recapping that thread and would like to recap the messages as they were when they were posted. Moose "made it pretty dang clear in the thread that I was porting things to O5 from that thread specifically to avoid the Recap Team needing to struggle through summarizing it," but as these things created discussions, GremlinGroup states that the discussions must be recapped. Moose claims to have received conflicting information from other Recap team members in the thread; GremlinGroup was not around for this, and cannot speak to it. Prometheus takes credit for the error after confirming that he and GremlinGroup had discussed this in Recap's Discord server.

Moose is further concerned that Recap is not "reading and assessing [Moose's] concerns about […] damage being done due to misinformation," citing Recap's policy of allowing expungements for sensitive material. Moose is "deeply disturbed" and has received insufficient response to these questions "when I've repeatedly brought this up, for weeks." Prometheus apologizes and states that Recap is "stretched thin." He notes that this is why Recap's server has been opened to Admins and Captains. Moose isn't having it: "Yours is the only team not subject to normal processes of accountability and oversight (unless admins use Fiat). I'm currently forcing admins to use their established accountability processes, and I haven't taken "we've been stretched thin for years" from them. I hope it's clear why this … disturbs me?" Prometheus apologizes for the communications problem and notes that "nothing has been done that can't be reversed." Moose feels Recap lacks sufficient accountability processes, and also feels Prometheus has been too helpful in alleviating their concerns to take full responsibility. "Please understand that I took all of this pretty sensitive discussion to open staff chat as an act of faith and trust in general staff," Moose stresses. Prometheus asks Moose to work with GremlinGroup to resolve the issue. Moose recommends GremlinGroup read the thread for their concerns, which GremlinGroup is doing; he would prefer to hear the concerns first, as the recap is very long.

Recap staff discuss when the recap will come out; Prometheus thinks in a week or two "at most," with allowance for AdCap review.

Moose asks GremlinGroup if he can't just read the whole discussion first, then recap. GremlinGroup would rather not, due to the extreme length of the discussion. Moose notes that Recap's "team structure is nontraditional in a way where it's wholly unclear how things should be working," which is making this process difficult. GremlinGroup asks for specific statements of concern. Moose shows GremlinGroup where these concerns can be found in the thread. GremlinGroup looks, and replies that Recap can clear up any misinformation in Moose's statements with footnotes and parallel statements, as has been done before. The remainder of the thread is not relevant to Moose's concerns, and should be recapped as per normal. Moose does "not think this would be helpful — and yes, it's very serious. This is also fairly strange because your team members explicitly contradicted you here lol." They are confused why they were preparing statements for O5 to save Recap from doing work, and the preparatory work is now being recapped. Cyvstvi explains that Recap wants things done on O5 which don't need to be done in staffchat, so as to avoid having to recap too many extensive conversations, but since this happened in staffchat it must be recapped. Moose is not satisfied with this approach. Athenodora suggests Moose pinpoint their problems, which they do reluctantly via screenshots. They emphasize the danger of putting potentially inaccurate statements on 05command, and the need to correct it before it is released to the public. They feel Recap, other than Pedagon and Prometheus, have ignored these concerns, and they are not comfortable detailing them further in this venue as that would also be recapped.

LadyKatie repeats her earlier concern that "these extremely drawn out and chaotic staffchat discussions make things too difficult for ND [neurodivergent] staffers to keep up with things going on, and that this hasn't been properly addressed. O5 would be a far better venue for anything going on for too long." [parenthetical statement added by Recap for clarity] Cyvstvi agrees that "this level of sheer discussion" is inappropriate for Discord. Moose is unconvinced that 05command threads would be any better; LadyKatie is convinced, as there is no rapid-fire backscroll problem on a forum.

Moose states that they do not lack confidence in Recap, having joined their server and engaged in profitable discussions on other topics.

GremlinGroup has gone to bed, and HarryBlank asks Moose to reiterate their concerns once again. They do so: "my concerns were ignored and not responded to and several Recap members are behaving as if they did not see them and asking me to provide them with a repeat wall of text to explain lol." HarryBlank apologizes for making Moose repeat themself; Moose reiterates that this is extremely stressful. LadyKatie points to Recap's trouble keeping up with this conversation as evidence that Discord is inappropriate for these conversations; Moose points out that their desire to keep certain sensitive issues off 05 is a more pertinent issue. HarryBlank states that Recap is on Moose's side, and their safety is important to the team; Moose is not convinced, though they do not believe bad faith is involved.

HarryBlank reads the conversations in question and presents his understanding of Moose's concerns to Moose. He clarifies the AdCap and staffchat review process Recap will go through, and how expungements are requested and implemented where necessary. He stresses that Moose will be able to see whether they have been misrepresented before the recaps will go live. He points to the existing recap review thread as evidence of the fact that Recap is willing to make sure all parties are fairly represented. OptimisticLucio agrees. Athenodora asks what level of detail the recaps will have; HarryBlank and Lucio explain that all detail required for context will be presented. Athenodora suspects Moose's concern is that a lack of detail will lead to poor understanding and jumping to conclusions; HarryBlank and Lucio confirm that this will not be the case. HarryBlank and Lucio then high-five for a bit about how great they are at addressing concerns.

Moose's concern is having rough versions of their statements recapped, particularly where errors were involved. They note that this is a common concern among veteran staff members due to the new transparency measures. Moose is unimpressed that HarryBlank has not addressed the apparently incorrect statements of his other team members, stating that "I have the strong impression there are two separate parallel realities and each of you inhabit one side 🙂 and in one reality Recap posts everything no matter what & my harassment concerns are considered overblown, and in another reality Recap posts only what's not already fully on O5 and is happy to write a placeholder upon reasonable request."

At Prometheus' prompting, Moose states they do not believe they have been intentionally ignored. They then leave for the night.

gee would like to know what specific information was incorrect or dangerous.

GremlinGroup returns, and tells Moose the sensitive information has been expunged. Moose posts a statement explaining their rationale, and what information was incorrect. HarryBlank promises that their concerns will be addressed; Moose notes that they already have been, and further notes that they "don't want to set a precedent for carelessly requesting recap expungement!" HarryBlank replies: "I think it would be difficult to characterize this conversation as lacking the appropriate care content lol."

This conversation took place over approximately twelve hours.

(scroll to top)

Topic: Pride Month | 2021/11/10

Recap: Edna Granbo feels more should be done for Pride Month, such as promoting queer authors. GremlinGroup and Pedagon recall earlier suggestions that this provides a list of targets for harassment. Edna suggests making sure the featured authors are okay with the attention; Pedagon counters that "even if the people consent it is still our job to not put people in situations where they can be targetted through a staff list." GremlinGroup suggests instead focusing on featuring LGBT-themed work, and agrees that there is a general consensus that more needs to be done for Pride. Pedagon also suggests featuring "pride-focused articles." Edna does not feel this exposes a significant number of works; GremlinGroup agrees. Pedagon suggests creating an 05command thread to discuss the issue. GremlinGroup agrees. Pedagon wants someone with "clout" to post, since the thread will require some measure of authority due to the sensitivity of the issue historically. GremlinGroup underlines the fact that the interests of the userbase, rather than just staff, must be at the core of any actions taken. Limeyy has in the past suggested a permanent Pride logo on the main page and forums.

stormfallen notes that the Internet Outreach Team must be apprised of all developments, as they will be the ones required to handle any backlash, and says that IO and Community Outreach should be the ones reaching out, as that is their purview. Edna Granbo suggests banning users who complain that Pride hurts their "immersion." Optimistic Lucio suggests that this is part of what made the June 2018 situation worse, and recommends staff/the community instead continue weeding out problem users on a day-to-day basis. Edna considers it a dogwhistle, and Lucio agrees, but notes that users behaving in this fashion are regularly cycled out of the community by the community itself. Edna doesn't like this, as it could look like staff allowing harassment, giving ammunition to the users in question. Limeyy, Pedagon and GremlinGroup workshop the 05 post, and Limeyy posts it. There is also a mainsite mirror thread.

This discussion took four hours.
(scroll to top)

Topic: Content Discovery | 2021/11/10

Summary: Staff discuss problems making on-site material accessible to the users.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: LazarLyusternik notes a perennial issue: "There is also going to some substantial subset of the reader base that wants nothing more than to read their five favorite Series 1 SCPs over and over again, but the problem pretty rapidly becomes less leading the horse to water and more making them drink it." Tales have it particularly hard, though the Collections Team is working on that. Edna Granbo feels tags are a partial solution. Lazar feels navigation is not the problem, but the desire for readers to navigate is. Tags are "much too literal" to fix the issue. Vivarium is philosophical: "This problem is an intrinsic issue that comes from running an entertainment site. At the end of the day it is up to the readers/user base to decide if they want to read something. All we can really do is attempt to show them it and hope they try it." OptimisticLucio notes that GOI formats have it even worse. Lazar notes that Collections is a slow process. Vivarium asks for a percentage update; Lazar says more than 40% of the tales on the site have been catalogued, though assembling actual collections for them still needs to be done. Vivarium pledges to "keep finding new recruits for you" and wants Collections to succeed. Edna Granbo notes that "Collections is without a doubt the most sysiphisian staff work," and Vivarium adds that "It's also the only real means of helping tales" and is therefore a priority. Lazar states that forum crit is worse "In terms of feelings of futility." OptimisticLucio muses: "That’s the biggest problem in Nav - what do we add to make everything findable, but how do we avoid adding too much to the point where it all blends together and it’s all collectively ignored?" He adds that Wikidot and its many issues aren't helping. Edna Granbo suggests tale-specific tags; OptimisticLucio thought tales had the same tagging process as SCPs, which is incorrect. Vivarium clarifies that attribute tags are never applied to tales. "Wow the wiki really is oriented so that “if you’re not a written SCP get out” huh," Lucio muses. "We are the "SCP" Foundation," Vivarium agrees. "It's what we are known for." He agrees the problem needs solving.

Edna Granbo wants genre tags; Lazar notes that the Collections initiative will achieve essentially this. Riemann points out that this #staff-casual discussion is clearly actually a #staff-discussion issue. Edna notes that a tag for LGBTQ+ material would be an easy target for harassment; "That’s another thing we’ve anticipated," Lazar notes. ARandomDay suggests that aggressive policing of users abusing such a tag would be an appropriate solution. "The primary risk is ‘malicious downvoting’, which has always been a gigantic pain to police," Lazar notes. ARD points out that Collections is also a pain in the ass. Lucio feels that "Preemptively tho - if we ever add a “queer” tag, it should only be applied to stories focusing specifically on a queer experience. Putting it everywhere that includes something gay kind of reenforces the viewpoint of “cishet is the norm, and everything else is an exception." Edna and ARD agree; Edna stresses that the site should continue its efforts to better serve LGBTQ+ material. Lucio suggests allowing "more authors to tag their shit" to avoid manpower issues. Vivarium disagrees: "We will always need a dedicated team of taggers because it demands a large understanding of how tags work and what they are assigned to." Lucio thinks that just means we need to "make it easier to understand." Lazar notes that "Collections will ultimately be transitioned to crowdsourcing, but the plan was for staff to kickstart it." Methods of overcoming the tagging problem are floated, but none stick. The conversation turns to the question of whether there are too many tags. Vivarium notes that "There is a tag rework planned in the future" under the purview of the Tech Team. "The amount of reworks planned to the future is roughly equal to the amount of things that exist on the site lol," Lucio notes. The conversation ends.

This conversation took place over approximately one half-hour.

(scroll to top)

Topic: -INT Admins Posting on 05command | 2021/11/11

Summary: Staff discuss whether users from the International Translation Archive with 05command posting permissions should be allowed to post on English branch policy threads. The consensus is that they cannot.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: slashannemoo, an admin on the SCP International wiki, notes in the SCP Declassified Discord server that "Some INT peoples will be posting on the o5 thread sometime soon" in reference to the Pride Month discussions described in the recap above. stormbreath wishes to know whether they have permission to do that, or should post on the mainsite mirror instead, as while some -INT members have 05 permissions they are not staff of the English branch. Siddartha Alonne has asked "the INT people" if they're okay with him posting screenshots of their stance, and passes the following response along: "If it fits with the policies of EN's O5 and if it is made clear that it is one opinion and that has not been up to vote for a consensus and is no collective message, you may do so." gee0765 and Limeyy feel these users should be posting on the mirror thread. Jerden wonders why they have 05 permissions if they cannot post, since it's easy to assume the two things are related.

stormbreath explains that the Master Admins of various -INT branches have this power, as they are considered trustworthy, but he agrees that they should not be weighing in on -EN policy. He does not think posting the screenshots on 05 is a good idea either, but notes that the question of whether these users can post on their own has not yet been settled. stormfallen mentions the precedent of porting relevant comments to 05 from users without access, and asks whether mainsite forum threads have obsolesced this process. gee and stormbreath agree that they should have. stormbreath notes that posting to 05 gives potentially undue authority to comments. stormfallen wonders whether this separation of staff and user conversations might lead to confusion; he assumed "use of 04 was for quick responses and interaction with users, and 04 comments which need heavier staff discussion should be mirrored to 05." Pedagon notes that user concerns should be portable to the mainsite thread for users wishing to remain anonymous; gee thinks this concern is valid. It is agreed that, whatever the merits and demerits of the present setup, it would be too confusing to change the format of the discussion while it is ongoing.

Limeyy has discussed -ES concerns with -ES admins in SCPD's meta-scp-discussion channel, and is not certain a statement from them would resolve matters. Edna feels it is difficult to communicate productively with -ES. stormfallen notes that no matter what else happens, "it needs to be clearer on 05 what the policy is, what -EN users' issues with it are, and what recourses (if any) might be possible." OptimisticLucio feels -ES members have brought up the issue before, and -ES staff are therefore likely aware. stormfallen wasn't talking about -ES users. Siddartha has received a response to the suggestion to post on the mainsite thread by the still-unidentified party he has been communicating with: "I'm not posting it where it doesn't belong. It is an indirect response to Limeyy's idea and the stuff going on on SCPD. Not something I have to say to the general EN community. No posting that in there unless the discussion there goes that way naturally. I can techncially still post on EN-O5 I think, but I don't really want to. Anyone who can post there and feels motivated to participate in that discussion may repost or cite my words." gee0765 feels this is precisely what the mainsite thread is for.

LadyKatie announces that she and Yossipossi are dealing with the issue through -INT channels, and has been doing so since last night. Limeyy is pleased to learn this; GremlinGroup is surprised that Limeyy is only learning it now, and was not told ahead of time, as they are the author of the 05command thread. GremlinGroup feels that knowing work was being done would have helped the situation considerably.

This discussion took approximately one and one-half hours.

(scroll to top)

Topic: IJAMEA Flag Change | 2021/11/11

Summary: Staff discuss the replacement of an offensive motif on the GoI hub page.

+ Show Recap

(scroll to top)

Topic: Untagged Pages Module | 2021/11/13

Summary: Staff discuss the suggestion to remove the "Untagged Pages" module from general use, to a page designed for the Tagging Team. This leads to a proposal to create a new tagging workbench, which has no opposition.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: Optimistic Lucio states that MAST have been discussing a change to the wiki; removing the "untagged pages" module from the newest and lowest-rated pages lists. The proposal is to move this module to a workbench made specifically for the Tagging Team. He asks for any quick thoughts before the discussion is out on 05command.

EstrellaYoshte states that they are against removing the module form the Newest Pages page, as it would make newly-created pages invisible if they are untagged. Lucio says that untagged pages could be added to the “other” category, which pulls from specific top-level tags. Estrella clarifies that this is not possible, as “untagged” is not a tag category.

Dexanote asks whether it would be feasible to move this module to the [05command.wikidot.com Staff Site]. Vivarium agrees that this would be useful, but that he isn’t concerned if the module has to be hosted on the main site. Estrella says that this is not possible without using an “iframe or some shit”.

aismallard notes her agreement with Estrella; untagged pages should remain accessible on the Newest Pages page.

This part of the discussion lasts around 7 hours.

Nearly two weeks later, Vivarium pings Lucio in the thread, stating that an 05 post would be good. After Vivarium creates a draft of the workbench, Lucio asks whether the Tech team will have to be consulted before the proposal is made. DrBleep says Tech must be consulted. aismallard clarifies the intent of the proposal with vivarium, and discusses creating a more efficient page title for the new workbench.
This part of the discussion took four hours.

The next day, Lucio asks Vivarium to let him know when the workbench is ready. Vivarium replies, saying it is, and asking to look over the proposal before it is put on 05.

This part of the discussion took an hour.

Two hours later, Vivarium announces Optimistic Lucio’s thread on 05command.

05command thread: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14351139/
Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14351140/

(scroll to top)

Topic: -ES Incident | 2021/11/13-2021/11/17

Summary: Staff discuss an incident involving English articles translated to the Spanish branch without their Pride CSS elements, and the resultant problematic behaviour of -EN members.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Users on the English branch have been expressing discontent in chat spaces that their works, when translated to other branches, are having Pride elements removed under various CSS policies. Limeyy notes that the Spanish branch, -ES, has reversed their policy. They actually have not. Pedagon posts the full statement, as provided by slashannemoo in the SCP Declassified Discord:

Hello,

The Spanish Branch (ES) has officially decided to withdraw their policy of removing Pride logos from translated articles.

Moreover, they officially state that, in any case whatsoever there is any problem, or trouble with their branch, they are willing to talk to those who actually reach out, and speak cohesively, and respectfully to them. This situation has been incredibly upsetting, and stressful to their staff as a whole, and it should, would, and could have been solved far more easily with proper contact, and communication to avoid drama, and or baseless, senseless accusations of intent, performance, or whatever judgement of reason, especially due to the amount of people who have been involved on this.

As a condition for ES's compromise, cooperation, and engagement, they request an apology from those who labelled them homophobic directly, or indirectly, and a proper acknowledgement that in any future cases in which a problem arises, those who feel affected will first, and foremost, contact ES staff in a respectful manner to clearly voice their problems and/or issues with ES's practices.

ES staff understands that working together as a community is a much better way to solve these problems, and expects that, in the future, these problems are dealt with them directly. ES staff is absolutely open to respectful dialogue.

aismallard opens a thread to discuss further. She asks whether SCPD intends to apologize, as she would "certainly like to have this resolved in a calm way so we can restore good relations." DrBleep informs her that this is not what happened; aismallard asks why. Required context not present in this conversation: International Translation Wiki Admin slashannemoo posted a link to the -INT branches list, where a link to the -ES Discord server can be found, and encouraged individuals in SCPD to go there to apologize. Several users took this offer, primarily to reiterate their own positions and offer non-apologies.

Cyvstvi personally believes the policy is homophobic, and will not be apologizing; they further take issue with -ES describing LGBTQ+ as an "ideology." Pedagon agrees that the policy had "homophobic consequences" and thinks it's inappropriate to ask people to apologize for calling out a legitimate issue. GremlinGroup notes that while the discussion in SCPD was heated, it was nevertheless a discussion, not "some blind rage." EstrellaYoshte feels that "the walkback on logo removal is more a reactionary decision to ease external pressure than a fundamental understanding of the discriminatory consequence of the policy." GremlinGroup notes that he never called -ES staff homophobic, but did point out the "bigoted consequences" of the policy. "People are just rightfully upset at being forced to apologize about stating something that is quite objectively true," Pedagon agrees. stormfallen notes that staff asking for apologies would be "a massive overreach." Pedagon notes that some apologies were made, though stormfallen counter-notes that these are likely not what -ES had in mind. GremlinGroup feels that it's impossible to put apologies in someone's mouth — they say what they feel, or they don't. Pedagon provides screenshots of the apologies that were posted.

EstrellaYoshte suggests that if nobody called -ES staff homophobic, then nobody needs to apologize. Pedagon says that the demand is for apologies from anyone who even indirectly implied homophobia, or homophobic consequences.

GremlinGroup notes that slashannemoo had been "acting as a sort of go-between" for -ES and SCPD, and that he asked how many apologies -ES was expecting but does not believe he received a response. Bleep is "rather stunned" at the apologies, feeling they amount to a raid on the -ES server. "Like, this was so beyond petty, and unnecessarily inflammatory and makes any sort of resolution much more difficult. Cal, Pedagon, Cystvi that was just foolish," she says. Pedagon explains that slashannemoo requested this action.

GremlinGroup notes the statement (mentioned in a prior recap) that LadyKatie and Yossipossi were "handling" the situation, which did not result in an official update. Pedagon notes that proposals have been made to simply un-link translations which authors find offensive, which he feels is a valid alternative to -ES changing their policy if necessary. "I don't believe it is appropriate to implement policies on other branches or force our members to play games of other branches," he says. HarryBlank asks whether requests have been made for specific individuals to apologize; Pedagon and GremlinGroup say they have not. HarryBlank assumes he would be expected to apologize as well, and states that no such apology is forthcoming. Estrella feels that no response would have been better than non-apologies, but Pedagon feels silence is complicity. GremlinGroup notes that the conversation in SCPD has largely died down.

Bleep has "been asked to convey that everyone should cease interacting on the -ES server by the Ambassador team." GremlinGroup asks whether this is a request or a fiat; it is a request.

Calibold notes that his apology was an attempt to "interact genuinely" but he wishes he had "considered the ramifications" first.

DrEverettMann makes a statement: "This is going to make things very difficult to smooth over. While you had some genuine concerns about the pride logo, you've antagonized not only -ES, but other -INT sites. The Russians and the Chinese are worried now about whether they're going to get cut out entirely, since they are legally unable to comply with your requests, and doing so would put their LGBTQ+ members at great risk to their safety." When asked to clarify who "you" are, he replies: "Those of you who went representing SCPD to -ES. I realize that this was at the request of Slash, and they should have known better. But this is going to be a big mess, and it's going to take some work for the ambassador team to sort out. Please work with LadyKatie on any further action here."

Cyvstvi respects the fact that other branches must work within the laws of their host nations, but notes that this does not apply to the -ES case. He also wishes for the Ambassador Team to not claim to represent his wishes, as he has no desire to apologize.

GremlinGroup reminds Mann that LadyKatie was said to be "handling" the situation the previous day, and that as she provided no further updates, "it's been rather difficult to "work with" her." Pedagon recommends that the involved parties familiarize themselves with the SCPD conversations on the matter, which did not revolve around legal issues but the fact that "this was unique to ES because their reasoning was that they "don't need the politics" or just have "cultural differences" for what pride means in their locations. ES made it clear that this was not a matter of danger or legal obligation or anything else and was just about not liking how we express pride." He expresses sympathy with the affected staff but does not wish the concerned users to be painted as "a group of rabid dogs." Cyvstvi agrees, noting that this is not a flashpoint but the culmination of a long discussion. He does not feel -ES are helping resolve the issue by considering all concerned users as an aggregate "mob."

LadyKatie arrives, and makes a statement: "Okay so I've got like… 30 minutes. You're going to let me talk, then I have to go back to work. First of all, nobody actually tried to work with me. Yes, you came to me and said you wanted this policy reversed. But at no point did anyone approach me with anything I could work with. Just "do this for me." Second, I have been absolutely swamped with work on this in the last week, to the point I only have time to look at O5 when I have to respond to something immediately in INT. I'm already not able to act at full capacity, and I've had to spend the last three days trying to keep the other branches from popping off. I've now got some bad faith actors in JP I have to deal with, so that's pretty new and exciting. Third, putting that you're not going after branches where it is legally impossible for them to put the logo on their site without serious reprucussions in SCPD does not help. CN barely has a presence in INT these days after ZH-TR's officilization, and neither CN or RU by and large know about SCPD much less have a presence. Fourth, you have irrevokably broken any chance we ever had at changing policies. I've talked other branches out of revoking their permission for now, but I need you to stop now for that to stick."

stormfallen wishes to know what permissions are in danger of being revoked. LadyKatie clarifies that it is permission for the pride logos to remain on branches which have not removed them, as retaliatory action was considered. GremlinGroup points out that nothing in LadyKatie's earlier statement suggested she needed help. OptimisticLucio points out that several users did attempt to reach out to -ES, and asks LadyKatie what she wants SCPD to do about the situation. Calibold asks if he should quote LadyKatie's comment and bring it to SCPD; she responds "I'd rather you not as I don't know if I can respond to or work with them. But if you can give me a good argument for it I'd appreciate it."

LadyKatie says the other branches have agreed not to remove the logos "for now." She has told them that retaliatory action would only worsen the issue.

Mann believes that "most of newer staff don't really know the history of our relationship with INT or how badly it was damaged prior to this, nor the work it took LadyKatie to bring them back to the table. Historically, the other branches were treated fairly shittily by -EN telling them what they could and couldn't do. We need them to feel like we're treating them as equals. To most of -INT (and it's not just -ES that's upset right now), it feels like a bunch of -EN staffers marched in and told them how to run their site." GremlinGroup acknowledges that this sounds like a problem, but doesn't think it should mean "ensuring policies with bigoted consequences remain unchallenged, particularly when they affect translations of the work of individuals on -EN." Mann believes that the approach taken here has not helped to alleviate said consequences, and is in fact enabling them; "Making a stand isn't heroic if you're making the problem worse."

Prometheus states that "an ES admin(?) literally called being queer an "ideology" in scpd." LadyKatie suggests this could be a language barrier issue. Prometheus speaks Spanish "to an extent." Lucio corrects this, as the statement was about Pride being an ideology. Prometheus agrees and apologizes for the error, then recalls them saying "ES doesn't need that kind of representation." Lucio agrees that LuisGM made that statement.

LadyKatie states: "Also uh… nobody gave two fucks about my work with INT for five years so long as there wasn't a major catastrophy. This sudden interest is extremely new to me, and at times it feels disingenuous."

Limeyy states that they respect -INT and acknowledge the value of efforts made to "repair INT relationships" but cannot stand idly by "while ES calls my existence political. I was caustic about it, and frankly I will continue to be so." LadyKatie does not believe Limeyy's statement of respect is genuine. They state that it is, and that they would be just as angry if the issue was confined to -EN instead of an -INT branch.

Pedagon states that the interest in this issue on -EN is about what -EN can do about it, and that -ES changing their policy was their own decision; "At no point was this about EN members bullying int sites into changing their policies despite what people might tell you." He adds: "Don’t misconstrue the discussion as being SCPD bullying Spanish people. They wanted to be protected from an offensive policy on another branch, ES staff came in defending their policy by calling gay pride “political”, people got upset and pushed harder for an EN action, and ES delivered this horrendous offer." Mann acknowledges that something needed to be done on this issue, just not what was done, and he feels that LGBTQ+ community members will suffer due to what has happened.

Joreth feels the SCPD members did not think through their actions, misrepresenting LGBTQ+ and -EN in the process, but is "too tired to argue against the people in meta since I know I will be yelled at."

OptimisticLucio and LadyKatie note that the non-apologies exacerbated the issue, and take the non-apologizers to task at length. Katie states that -ES "wanted you to recognize that your methods were bad. Not that wanting the logo was bad." GremlinGroup quotes the -ES statement and suggests that, if criticizing methods was the aim, that issue should not have been conflated with criticism of -ES policy. He further notes that the -ES statement should have come through the Ambassador Team.

Mann asks for a pause, and does not receive one until Dexanote demands it.

Mann makes a statement: "This situation has devolved. It did not need to. Part of this I will blame on poor policy and lack of communication on how to work with the Ambassadorial team. Part of this, I think people walked into a situation without thinking about what their actions were likely to actually accomplish. I do not ask that everyone play nice with -ES or respect all of the things they've done or said. I do not agree with their arguments for why they didn't want to show the pride logo. However, in confronting it, people have stepped into something of a minefield, and they have made the situation worse, not better. They have made it less likely that -ES will restore the pride logo on those pages. There were ways to prevent this, and I'm sorry we have not taught them better. I would also like to remind people that they need to keep their various roles clear when they speak. If you're speaking as a private user, then please make that clear. If you're speaking as a member or staff on SCPD, please say so. If you are speaking as staff member on the site, please make sure people understand that. A lot of why people are mad is that when you made statements as members of SCPD or as private users, it came across as you representing the site, when staff had not yet come to any conclusions on how they wanted to deal with this situation. Please also understand that there are other issues at hand. People in Latin America have a lot of issues with Americans (which most of us, though not all of us, are) coming in and telling them how to run their countries. Being morally correct is a prerequisite to making things better, but it is not the only one. You also need to be able to communicate that well and know what actions you can take that will actually improve the situation."

GremlinGroup is not sure it is either fair or helpful to expect users to clarify their roles in this manner. Dexanote believes that if such clarification is not provided, "people" will assume the user is speaking as staff and/or as a staff member going rogue "outside the knowledge of their leadership." He adds: You are a representative of the site by default. "That's what staff is. You have a responsibility to be aware of that."

LadyKatie states that "people" felt staff users were using their staff power to force them to do things. GremlinGroup feels the perception that there is a monolithic staff party line should be dispelled. Pedagon says that "you can't [simply?] remove a hat before you speak." Jerden feels the distinction between user and staffbody opinion is often hard to discern.

Siddartha Allone does not understand why "people" are "continuing to call the policy homophobic when it was voted and decided by the ES community at large, which has a fair share of LGBTQ+ people." Pedagon responds: "Individuals can perpetuate systemic issues unintentionally."

There is a brief discursion on whether users are automatically perceived as acting in staff capacity. The question of whether SCPD perceives users this way is raised, but LadyKatie feels this is beside the point: "But it's not SCPD as a whole that's watching. Fuck, I doubt they cared. The problem is it caused a problem in INT, who's already felt othered by SCPD." She feels users are responsible for the unconscious repercussions of their actions.

Dexanote states that "basically every translation site representative and a chunk of -ES leadership saw" what happened. GremlinGroup responds: "Genuinely, great. I'm glad they were able to follow along with that conversation, glean information about the opinions of each individual user in that conversation, associate them with their on-site identity and role in the staff. I'm not sure how they were able to do that and still felt that the discussion in SCPD and its consequences represented -EN Staff's opinion."

gee0765 feels that it sounds like the -INT observers feel SCPD is both a mob to be afraid of and a forum for official staff statements. LadyKatie agrees: "Not necissarily scared, more like bothered. Y'all aren't nice. But yes. You've got the gist of it."

GremlinGroup has taken issue with LadyKatie characterizing him as having behaved irresponsibly, and has asked her what this refers to. "Gremlin, whatever it was you posted caused the problem. Fuck, participating in the raid was your first bad here." GremlinGroup did neither of these things, and states as much. Others confirm. LadyKatie acknowledges this. GremlinGroup asks her to retract her comment. She does. GremlinGroup stresses the importance of being aware of who participated in the "raid" (parentheses in original) and whether they were acting on Slashannemoo's advice, and also who did not participate. Siddartha Alonne names four users, who appear to be the only ones involved.

Joreth feels that whether staff are a monolith or not, "the entirety of staff, and even non-staff users, will have to stand together sometimes when someone on staff does something that needs to be cleaned up."

Mann states: "Like, I want to be clear here. I don't want to make any of you think I don't want you advocating for important issues or positive change. I don't want you to let us get complacent with letting things slide. This isn't me saying we need to get along to get along. We just need to make sure the approach taken builds positive change."

Vivarium apologized to LuisGM separately via direct messaging.

Calibold states that his apology was in earnest, though he did express his concerns at the same time and requested a reciprocal apology. Vivarium feels "that the public ES discord was not the right place to do that regardless." Calibold further clarifies that he did not take part in a raid, and was responding to an invitation to "speak directly to them about our concerns." Jerden thinks the term "raid" is not helpful.

Cyvstvi does not wish all concerned users to be made a monolith with the users who went to the -ES server to apologize, and makes a statement: "I have said nothing further on this matter because I acknowledge that no matter what, my convictions will likely be construed as inflammatory by -ES. I did not approach the Ambassador team with this issue because I did not wish for them to argue on my behalf nor do I wish for my views to be misrepresented or mollycoddled in the aims of pacifying bigoted and homophobic policies. I made it very clear from the very start that my issue was with the policies of -ES, not with staff members. However, -ES's constant insistence on “compromise”, their labelling of pride as a matter of ideology, and belligerence towards my identity and beliefs leads me to the conclusion that they indirectly house unconscious homophobia. I do not believe that opening negotiations or otherwise with -ES would have resulted in them de-escalating their homophobic policy, rather I fully construe their acts as intended to further the conception that SCPD are a monolith by intentionally agitating members of the community. In my post on -ES, which is available for all to see, I clearly laid out that they would not be receiving the personal apology that they requested of me. Instead, I provided an answer to their question; I specifically singled out their policy, and not their members, as homophobic. Their continual misconstruing of this point frustrates me to no end because it is yet another misrepresentation of myself."

gee says "read the messages before having opinions on them" and reposts screenshots of the apologies/non-apologies, stressing the context that visiting -ES to leave these comments was done under instruction and there was therefore no raid. stormfallen feels that this lingering on terminology is "unnecessarily pedantic." gee replies: "there's a difference between being unnecessary pedantic and defending people who have been accused of taking part in a raid (previously 'taking part in a raid' was used to remove someone from JS wholesale)."

ROUNDERHOUSE wants to know whether there was "some sort of plan or long-term goal from staff, ambassador team, whatever, to get rid of this bigoted policy? i've heard it mentioned that this could've been handled better had it been left to ambassador team - is this actually rooted in any preexisting "yeah we had a plan for this" or what."

Dexanote makes a statement: "You guys also need to understand. We cannot force any other branch to do anything. We were/are having actual discussion to find a middle ground. Like, you guys aren't privy to it because they were in progress. Like, we have a whole network and complex relationship with the -INT people we use to actually discuss things around one anothers schedules, accounting for work and timezones." GremlinGroup restates that this was not the purpose of the discussion, which was about criticizing policy rather than coercing change. Cyvstvi states that "it's completely unhelpful to infantilise and belittle other members of staff." Dexanote apologizes. Cyvstvi agrees that more tact could have been employed, but that the Ambassador Team was remiss in not sharing "their plans and discussions with the rest of staff. Transparency in this matter would have been incredibly useful."

A brief debate ensues on whether the statement that LadyKatie and Yossipossi were "handling it" should have been sufficient to allay concerns. Dexanote stresses: "Things international take time"; he feels the language barrier is the cause of the problem. Siddartha Alonne adds "cultural barrier." Pedagon states that the issue has been brewing for a long time. Dexanote points out that "discussion in SCPD or in conversation here does not mean it's being discussed deeply or within bandwidth of -INT." Pedagon agrees, but feels this is also why SCPD felt they were being ignored.

Jerden says "I would also say that adding this [the unlinking of translations] as a footnote to an official staff proposal made it seem very official, in a way that a separate thread phrased as "how can EN users protest this ES policy" may [not] have."

Calibold feels that users are being criticized for not talking to -ES, and then criticized for talking to -ES. He acknowledges problems with "the manner in which it was conducted" but feels characterizing entering the server as a raid is unfair.

The conversation is now elliptical, returning to the twin issues of users unburdening their frustrations on an entire server and having been told to do this. Further examples will not be recapped unless they provide further insight. It is clarified that the users were not told to contact specific staff members, but merely to go to the -ES server.

"I think the wording is the main issue," says stormfallen. "There's a world of difference between "I won't apologize" and "I'm sorry that y'all are bigots, now apologize to us."" ROUNDERHOUSE wishes the conversation to move on from the question of whether the users should have entered the server at all, "because that's stupid," and focus on the content of the statements.

Jerden emphasizes that -ES were concerned over the proposal to unlink unfaithful translations. Pedagon feels that this should be allowed, if technically feasible, "if ES doesn’t change this policy because as EN staff we stand for EN members." Siddartha Alonne feels staff should instead "stand for what is right, wording in this way makes it sound like you're supporting our users regardless of the situation."

stormfallen asks whether -INT or the host branch has purview over the translation module. Nobody has a precise answer. Calibold is "strongly opposed to letting authors remove links to whatever translations they want" (emphasis in original).

Jerden feels the technological infeasibility of the proposal should have been noted; GremlinGroup points out that it was, shortly after the post. He links "the message that apparently incited -ES's response" and suggests all present read it.

Siddartha Alonne states that "INT's main concern was that ES' logo policy wasn't directly harming EN, while EN's policy of removing spanish from the interwiki module was directly harming ES." Jerden states: "I feel like the framing of it as a minor change to make our site more inclusive raised eyebrows in a way that a more thought out proposal wouldn't have." Cyvstvi responds: "And my main concern was that ES' logo policy was directly impinging upon the identities of EN users. INT does not get to unilaterally declare how we feel." GremlinGroup feels that the fact that "authors have no say in how their articles are translated, and no official way of condemning them, even when the translation is impacted by a policy with bigoted consequences" is not being acknowledged by the stated -INT concerns.

On the topic of translations, Siddartha Alonne says "I'm going to be blunt. You have a say to a certain point, but after that it's branch's matter. If the translation is somehow problematic for a branch, its staff will deal with it." Jerden points out that the Creative Commons license allows for translations to work the way they presently do. Dexanote agrees: no author on EN has ownership of a translation unless they translate it themselves. Because a translation is a transformation." ROUNDERHOUSE feels this is beside the point; what is legal under the license is not the issue, but what is good natured and good faith is. DrBleep also wants to be blunt: "we have no jurisdiction over how other branches handle their language translations. A big part of the reason -INT exists and we have an ambassador team is to relay the concerns of authors in regards to translations and other materials." GremlinGroup agrees with ROUNDERHOUSE: "I totally accept that the CC license we work under on the site gives authors no protections. I don't believe that we should shrug and give up at that point. Giving authors the tool to condemn translations that remove elements of CSS, particularly those that represnt pride in one's identity, wouldn't contravene CC either." Cyvstvi feels that "This is not a matter of legality but ethics and morality."

DrBleep underlines that "We also have no jurisdiction over the language module." GremlinGroup notes that an idea to change this fact has been floated; "Acting as if the status quo will always remain the status quo, with no other justification, isn't helpful." Bleep feels "That would be a gross abuse of staff power." Dexanote stresses the importance of the "very long standing relationships with international translation wikis and how we have earned the ability to approach them at all in good faith."

GremlinGroup continues to discuss whether staff could unlink translations on -EN. Bleep and Dexanote remain fixated on staff's inability to impose upon -INT branches. Siddartha Alonne believes the translation issue "is a problem concerning people from both parts not acknowledging cultural context of the other part," adding "Like, you all can see the problem when an author says "You changed the content by cutting away the logo" when the branch where the translator comes from doesn't count logos and such as content, right?" Dexanote is similarly unimpressed with the proposed solution: "This comes off as a proposal that can allow people who have some level of xenophobic bent (NOT APPLICABLE HERE, NONE OF THE MAJOR CONVERSATION HERE IS XENOPHOBIC) to exclude X or Y sites." [parentheses in original]

On the topic of delisting translations, Jerden sarcastically remarks "delist everything by default just in case it misrepresents my work!" which is decried as a slippery slope fallacy by ROUNDERHOUSE. Jerden states that he is attempting to get ahead of potential policy abuse.

stormfallen asks whether -EN can change the translation module, or whether it falls under -INT's purview. Bleep states that the latter is true.

ROUNDERHOUSE thinks this discussion is a waste of time on theoreticals which could be spent dealing with the issue at hand. Everyone agrees.

Dexanote states this understanding of the present situation: "1. We have no purview over a non -EN wiki. 2. Due to a many years long built up network of understanding and ambassadorship between translation sites through -INT, we have the means to work through various Gordian knots of misunderstanding, language/cultural barriers, and timezones to allow for gradual but certain understanding and conversation between wikis of problems and solutions. 3. Many parts of the world have worse issues with LGBT+ stuff than most of the States, and it's conceivable that a lack of pride flag CSS has reasons outside of bigotry. 4. "LGBT+ is political" has a fundamentally different meaning between different parts of the world. 5. Ambassador Team is/was working to figure out how to fix 3 and 4, since it's a meaningful thing. 6. What I suggest is that non-Ambassador staff don't prod at it any more and await updates that may be slow but are absolutely certain to come as Ambassador team gets back to work on this."

Bleep suggests shelving the unlinking proposal.

gee remarks that "this whole political/cultural argument would hold a lot more water if ES didn't already allow pride logos on author pages or during pride month."

Pedagon asks that the "ambassador team please at the very least keep us in the loop instead of blackboxing us until things boil over again." ROUNDERHOUSE mentions that he only learned said team existed recently; Pedagon agrees, stating "I didn’t know they existed until I was told I fucked up by not using them as a funnel today" and "I had always been told to look to yossi, LK, or go through slash. Which is why I expected LK and yossi to give some information that never came and then listened to slashannemoo when they told me what to do." He notes that transparency and discussion could have prevented the issue.

Athenodora attempts to summarize: "part of what happened is that our Ambassadors took some time to respond, and the userbase took matters into its own hands, right?" Dexanote says no, then says "Well kind of." ROUNDERHOUSE clarifies: "there was never a communication that the issue was being worked on by ambassadors to the people upset." stormfallen asks "Nobody forwarded Katie's message that she and Yossi "were working on it"?" and ROUNDERHOUSE says that no, nobody did, and nobody should have, as the ambassadors should have done that themselves. gee agrees, stating that SCPD has been blamed for a failure of staff to communicate. Siddartha Alonne states that this was the Ambassador Team’s fault, including himself in this.

Dexanote asks whether concerned parties asked staff what was being done; GremlinGroup suggests the concerned parties might not have known the Ambassador Team existed, or is relevant to this situation. gee notes that most staff wouldn't have known if anything was being done either. Dexanote points out that any staff could ask; gee asks why daisy chaining information requests is a good idea "when we could instead not do that."

ROUNDERHOUSE is frustrated that the conversation is now about whether staff could have asked for updates, as this does not address the SCPD users being kept in the dark. Dexanote suggests that ROUNDERHOUSE could have been the go-between; he responds "so it's my job to be an unofficial ambassador serving as a link in the chain but not our actual ambassadors jobs to just go in there and say things." He feels that staff are leaning on stating that they have a communications problem rather than addressing it.

The conversation turns to whether staff need to be an intermediate step between users and the ambassador team. Jerden notes that SCPD is not an official server, and therefore expecting Ambassador staff to add to their workload and liaise with it may be unfair. stormfallen agrees, saying "We can't exactly force anyone on staff to join SCPD, much less #meta." Pedagon suggests staff "put people already in there on the team" while ROUNDERHOUSE characterises the suggestion of using non-Ambassador staff as go-betweens to be “inventing a long chain of secondary communicators so [Ambassadors] don't have to join the server responsible for 60% of wiki content produced in a given month.“

Jerden feels the solution is more staff and more communication. gee feels the solution is staff being in "community spaces" more often. Vivarium notes the apparent lack of knowledge that an Ambassador Team exists.

Dexanote has said that information should be passed onto community members, and suggests the Ambassador team be allowed to “figure that out” alongside the 05 Updating team. Athenodora responds to ROUNDERHOUSE's point about SCPD representing a significant portion of the authorbase; the mainsite mirrors could represent 100% of the authorbase, but are not being used. She states this could be fixed with proper promotion of the mirror threads. Dexanote clarifies his position to Athenodora: "let the team's whose jobs it is to handle it cleanly handle this and find the best and most effective avenue of progress”.

The day ends.

The new day begins with the arrival of TheDeadlyMoose, who makes the following statement: "I started investigating this a while back and I assessed that -ES did not have homophobic intention (and potentially not a homophobic policy) but I tabled this to deal with Dex's censure before I could reach a firm conclusion. I think, based on the testimony I've received so far, that queer staff members of ES and INT are using American anti-queer dogwhistles without the cultural context to understand what's happening, as well as simply bad justifications that are confusing to everyone (but cannot recognize this themselves), and there's so much fighting that neither side can recognize what's actually happening. I also feel that queer EN authors very much have grievances that need addressing regardless, and it's the obligation of EN staff to figure this out." They ask if they should focus on this issue, or the censure. The latter carries the day — literally. That's the day.

On the 16th, Siddartha Alonne reports having had a conversation with -INT: "They would prefer to set a deadline for the Disc cases going on regarding everything that happened. We can choose it, it just needs to be an actual date, even in a month is good enough. Are you guys over at Disc team okay with this? It's really just for trusting reasons." stormfallen asks "There are disc cases from this?" Vivarium says "Yes." LadyKatie says "Yep. I don't think people are aware of just how bad this has gotten." stormfallen replies "If there's info you could share that'd be appreciated." LadyKatie reports that -ES staff are quitting, some users are "upset some of their favorite EN authors hate them so much," and -INT representatives have prepared a denunciatory list of grievances which has not been sent due to the desire of other -INT representatives to remove its denunciatory aspects. This letter has not been released, and the Recap team does not have the authority to distribute it. Vivarium did not actually know all of that. Calibold, one of the individuals who participated in the comments on the -ES server, would also like to know "who's getting disciplined." LadyKatie says it's in the Disciplinary Team's hands. Limeyy asks if this is in private channels, as they saw nothing about it. aismallard explains that the issue is currently being handled at the administrative level, but will move to Disc later. Limeyy "must oppose this happening in the blackboxed bit of disc" though they are more comfortable if it's being handled by administrators.

LadyKatie states that -INT distrusts and hates us right now.

Limeyy and gee take issue with the idea that disciplinary matters might be handled outside the Disciplinary Team, though several users counterargue that the transgressions did not take place on the wiki, and are larger in scope as they involve -INT. Limeyy feels that demotions for the users involved "would be, frankly, a shitshow. Cerastes 2 levels of shitshow. Especially if it comes to a staffwide vote." "And so will not doing anything, if -INT are as angry as we're told," stormfallen counters. Siddartha and LadyKatie restate that yes, in fact, -INT are angry. Vivarium stresses that the appropriate processes will be followed, and the consequences will follow from that, no matter how unpleasant they might be. Limeyy still feels demotions would be "a clusterfuck"; Siddartha counters that the situation already is. gee suggests that preventing the clusterfuck from worsening might be worth trying. aismallard clarifies that an investigation and conclusion must be the natural results of having received an official complaint.

Staff briefly discuss who would get mad in each potential outcome. Siddartha thinks the SCPD users would understand that they were wrong if "like 12 other SCP official communities and their own staff tell them they're in the wrong." stormfallen disagrees, as does Limeyy. gee and Limeyy feel that the outrage would be intelligent, and "wouldn't cause A Thing." LadyKatie replies that "We're literally here because they caused a thing on top of another thing." Vivarium agrees. gee does not: "they caused a thing by having opinions about another branch's policy," "you can't tell people to not have opinions," and "now, if you're saying the Bad Decision was going to ES that's more reasonable." He adds that "the vast majority of people interacting in scpd repeatedly made distinctions between calling the staff members homophobic and saying the policy had possibly unintended homophobic consequences."

LadyKatie asks: "Do you want us to lose the other branches entirely? Because that's what we're looking at."

Siddartha Alonne states "I got confirmed from -INT that Harry [user HarryBlank] never tried to directly contact anyone on -ES about that "Hey guys, the logo is actually in-universe and okay with your policy" (This before everything exploded)." [round parentheses only in original] Limeyy states that the in-universe question has no bearing on the concerns being raised. OptimisticLucio believes HarryBlank attempted to contact the translator of "his article," incorrectly.¹ OptimisticLucio wants to know who will be receiving disciplinary proceedings, and hopes it wouldn't be everyone who was involved in the conversation.

LadyKatie states that -INT does not trust staff very much, but trusts admins slightly more.

When asked, aismallard clarifies that only staff members are being considered for disciplinary action.

Staff briefly discuss the threat that -EN could be shut out of -INT. Limeyy wants to know how this escalated to all of -INT. OptimisticLucio explains that -INT was once regularly bossed around by -EN, and this event had shades of that relationship.

OptimisticLucio states, in what is likely not a response to Limeyy due to the timestamps being so close together: "In general we've just been tossing LK the keys and going "you do what you want in your corner" and ignoring multiple giant portions of SCP which is a bit stupid." Siddartha feels -INT has been similarly neglected: "Like, hey EN, did you know what if you leave a dog starving in a hole for months and you take it back it will attack you."

The question of whether bans should be mirrored universally is raised. Limeyy is uncomfortable with the prospect. stormfallen suggests considering mirroring "Sufficiently-egregious bans." LadyKatie will later note that branches share information on problem users, then the individual branches deal with that information as is appropriate. Only "the worst of the worst AHT bans" are mirrored automatically at present.

Limeyy suggests we "give everyone involved a bloody stern warning and apologize." OptimisticLucio does not feel this is sufficient for all users concerned. He also notes that going forward staff must be more involved in -INT in all respects, and "try to change the outlook of "EN is the one true SCP and the branches are all just side-chicks.""

Jerden feels admins should make a statement to -INT, even if just to say they are looking into the issue.

Lucio suggests that the language barrier was the main flashpoint: "Like, the phrase "i don't like pride because it's political" sends people over the fence in most american/english communities online because 9/10 times it actually just means "I don't like gay people, they need to bugger off." In most of the branches… they just really thought it didn't fit, and that was all. Most of them were queer, they just didn't thing it should be there." He also states that LuisGM calling LGBTQ+ "an ideology" simply meant he was disinterested in the topic. gee wonders why -INT chose "going for blood" over explaining this.

Lucio suggests replacing the present -INT representatives from -EN. gee outlines what appears to be the present consensus for moving forward: "stern warnings to the ppl who said shit in ES, add one or two extra int reps (please add lucio), explain what caused the issues (misunderstandings, nuance etc.)" Lucio wants "more than just stern warnings," meaning disciplinary action. gee does not feel the same, but agrees that "a short censure" would be an appropriate compromise. Lucio agrees, as a censure is a tangible gesture that -EN will "reprimand their users."

LadyKatie states that "Nobody new's coming anywhere near INT." in response to the question of additional staff. Lucio is not pleased with this statement; LadyKatie clarifies that in her experienced judgement, a cooldown period is required before changes are made.

Calibold wants to know if SCPD will be informed about the situation. It is generally agreed that now is not the time, as everything is still vague and up in the air.

The question of whether non-staff users should be warned for their actions is raised; it is speculated that -ES could choose to ban said users from their server or their wiki.

ProcyonLotor's site-wide absence despite taking up one of -EN's "slots" on -INT is discussed. Naepic does not feel this is a matter of immediate concern. Katie restates her refusal to make any changes in the immediate future.

TheDeadlyMoose clarifies that, contrary to Limeyy's earlier statement that only Disc handles disciplinary matters on the wiki, "Administrators have full access to all of the disciplinary matters regarding Staff specifically."

Limeyy notes that the overriding issues prompting the creation of this thread are apparently well in hand.

The following day, aismallard renames the thread "ES Incident Discussion."

This discussion took five days.

(scroll to top)

Topic: Adcap Recap Declassifying | 2021/11/14

Recap: GremlinGroup expresses surprise that, as a member of Junior Staff, he is suddenly able to view Adcap Recap, which DrBleep confirms. GremlinGroup asks whether there was an announcement, to which Jacob Conwell says that he intended to post an announcement when the week's recap was posted, but now offers a simple announcement that JS can now access Adcap Recaps. Athenodora asks whether she can see it, and gee0765 notes he believes chatstaff should be able to see it. After a moment of confusion, it is clarified that chatstaff were supposed to be able to see it, and merely lacked the appropriate channel permission. DrBleep amends this.

This conversation gradually transpired over 10 hours.
(scroll to top)

Topic: Dexanote Recusal Fiat | 2021/11/14

Recap: aismallard announces that she has posted a thread making note of her use of Admin Fiat. This thread formalises Dexanote’s recusal from Staff Censure matters until his Disciplinary case is resolved. aismallard notes that this was done at the recommendation of thedeadlymoose.

This announcement is a single message.
(scroll to top)

Topic: Wanderers’ Library Recruitment | 2021/11/14

Recap: ROUNDERHOUSE announces that the Wanderers’ Library is in the process of recruiting more staff members from their community. He states that he doesn’t expect much discussion, but that he’d rather staff on the SCP Wiki are aware of this action. This announcement is noted as “interesting”, “neat”, and “swag”, and receives six “Wanderers’ Library” reactions.

This announcement was a single message. The response rolled in over the next hour.
(scroll to top)

Topic: Prometheus Steps Back | 2021/11/14

Recap: Prometheus announces they will be taking a break from staff matters once the October Recap is posted, with gee0765 filling in their place. Gee asks whether his role color can be changed from "shit brown." Prometheus says yes. DrBleep says no, "Cause you a shit."

This conversation took less than five minutes.
(scroll to top)

Topic: FAQ Rewrite Discussion | 2021/11/17

Summary: Staff discuss the policy to review and rewrite the Frequently Asked Questions page.

+ Show Recap

(scroll to top)

Topic: October Recap Reaches AdCap Review | 2021/11/18

Recap: GremlinGroup announces that October’s recap has been provided to Captains and Administrators for its first review period.

This announcement was a single message long.
(scroll to top)

Topic: Chat Staff in Staffchat | 2021/11/19

Summary: gee0765 notes that, in a previous discussion, many staff members expressed confusion as to why Chat Staff Half-Ops were not invited to the Staff Discord. A discussion arises about whether this would be appropriate, and whether Chat Staff are wholly separate from Site Staff.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: gee0765 points out that during a previous discussion a number of staff were unsure why Chat Staff Half-Ops (Hops) are not invited into the Staff Discord. He suggests bringing any non-temporary hops to the discord. Optimistic Lucio is in favour of bringing them in. ManyMeats states that this is a relic of the chat/site separation. He points out that because Hops are not required to be Junior Staff for the site, inviting them would be technically inviting non-staff to the server. gee points out that Athenodora is in the staff server, but is not a member of any team besides Chat Staff.

ManyMeats suggests that future attempts at creating community chatrooms be maintained within the Site's staff hierarchy for ease of use. Yossipossi answers that future attempts would likely be a cooperative endeavour between Chat Staff and the Internet Outreach team, making this difficult. gee suggests this could be solved by making Chat Staff an official team. Vivarium states he has always been in favour of making Chat Staff a formal team in the site's hierarchy. He accidentally types "shat staff" instead. gee is excited at the proposition of "poop staff". In the meantime, ManyMeats suggests that non-staff hops join MAST in order to access the server. stormfallen states that there's a single non-temporary hop who is not presently in Staff Chat, and that he isn't sure whether this hop wants to be in chat staff. gee asks whether this hop has been asked. GremlinGroup states it would be better to codify allowing hops in rather than using any temporary measure.

Croquembouche suggests making Chat Staff a team as the simplest option. hungrypossum states they should be made a sub-team of Internet Outreach. Lily believes that Chat Staff, should they be made a formal team, would not fit under Internet Outreach. She also states that chat promotions do not fit the promotions system used by Site Staff. Croquembouche argues that this would not be a problem as integration to this level wouldn't be required. Lily is unsure what benefits making Chat Staff a team would have. YossiPossi says that the problem with making Chat Staff a subteam is that the Chat team is a fully-formed team, not a subteam currently.

Athenodora argues that allowing hops in would only be good if it was for the right reasons. She is in favour of doing so if "it's for the purpose of interacting and communicating with our peers in other staff teams in a cooperative and supportive manner". However, she feels that the previous discussion, in which some Site Staff members believed a ban enacted by Chat Staff was unfair, felt more like Chat Staff were being asked by Site Staff to only listen and follow their suggestions. She remains undecided, and states that she's somewhat uncomfortable being in the Staff Discord if it's just to be told what to do about Chat Staff's decisions.

In response to Lily's point that the Chat Staff team uses a different promotions system, Optimistic Lucio states that MAST has a limited, internal promotion system. Lily says that this system is not separate to the same degree as Chat Staff's.

Limeyy proposes that hops be made Junior Staff, and that Chat Operators be made Operational Staff at a minimum. They say that any further promotions should be decided by Chat Staff alone. They say that this has the advantage of making Chat Staff all site staff, but without requiring any complicated integration of the promotions structure. Pedagon points out that the Recap team was able to create a unique recruitment team (requiring Site Staff and Site Users to nominate recruits, then having Site Staff vote on non-staff nominees). He says that making Chat Staff an official team would empower them and make their appointments more official. gee points to MAST's organisation as a parallel for this proposal. Vivarium says that Pedagon's suggestion has merit and that full integration would not be required. He sees no reason for implementing this. ManyMeats says that, historically, people have been happy to become Chat Staff as it lets them help without being involved in "the shit show that the rest of staff involvement can be". Limeyy suggests that muting Staffchat would allow Chat Staff to do this even if they are site staff. ManyMeats is uncertain that there is any issue with having Chat Staff remain separate. gee states that it would reduce communication issues, and Pedagon says that the conversation yesterday suggest to him that there is an issue. Limeyy says that the current organisation is "needlessly complex".

ManyMeats asks Limeyy to explain what issues Chat Staff are facing in this regard. gee and Limeyy both point to the communication issues contributing to the previous discussion. ManyMeats is unsure that having hops in Staffchat would solve this. He says that he'd prefer to avoid '"symptom policies"', and would prefer to find the root of the issue. Pedagon says he sees it as a useful change to make for future chat community endeavours, for centralising staff discussion, and for empowering Chat Staff while providing them a better avenue for communication with Site Staff. ManyMeats argues that poor communication is a separate issue, unless Pedagon is implying that specific people are poor at communication. Pedagon recommends that Meats read the previous discussion, and says that the communication issue is due to Chat Staff being "in a limbo land" between Staff and Non-Staff. gee links ManyMeats to the discussion. Pedagon clarifies that he doesn't believe Chat Staff are Non-Staff, but that the hierarchy makes this confusing. ManyMeats lists Chat Staff who are present in Staff Chat, then summarises gee's suggestion as "hops are automatically considered JS and invited to staffcord, except in the case of temp hops".

TheDeadlyMoose arrives to discuss the original reasons behind the Chat/Site Staff divide. They state that this was done to ensure Administrators couldn't "consolidate power amongst themselves". When Administrators removed the "Bright position" of a single head admin and offloaded power to Teams, Chat Staff had more power than a regular staff member and so were given less wiki-based power. They say that the creation of a Staff Discord, as well as activity moving off of IRC and to other places, has reduced Chat Staff's power. They explain that, when SkipIRC (the network that hosts the official SCP Wiki IRCs) was made unofficial and handed to Kufat, communication and ties was cut with inactive and historical chat admins like Moose themself. They state this was done without protest, and in some cases with active consent, of these historical administrators. They state that, with IRC now "Kufat's personal thing", they are unhappy with another centralization of chat power. They also state their opinion that, "since IRC is dying… it just matters less." They append the caveat that they have not logged into the IRC in over a year.

Moose continues by explaining that Chat Staff above half-operator have the by-default right to enter Staff Chat, and that this right will have persisted unless specifically addressed. Athenodora was unaware of this, having only been invited into Staff Chat this year. Moose clarifies that this was "universal", predating the creation of the Discord Staff Chat. They say that, were they to propose folding Chat Staff into Site Staff, they would create "IRC Team" with the owner of the network being team captain. They note this would subject Chat Staff to staff oversight, including Administrator oversight and staff-wide policy votes. They say that it would be sensible in this case to make Chatops into Operational Staff but accept that this could conflict with the standard promotions cycle. They ping ProcyonLotor for visibility.

ProcyonLotor misunderstands Moose, thinking they were proposing this as a course of action. He also notes that he has not been keeping up with site goings-on for a few weeks, but says he'd be in support if this were to occur.

TawnyOwlJones suggests that Moose's proposed IRC team get a new name, as #site17 is under Site Staff purview, and #thecritters is under Site Crit purview. Tawny also takes umbrage at the idea that Staff who don't regularly use the IRC would be able to have input on chat policy and goings-on. Moose clarifies that it would be possible to limit the input Site Staff would have on IRC policy. On the other hand, staff would have the ability to propose IRC policy changes which, with a majority vote, IRC team would have to follow.

ProcyonLotor notes his belief that IRC policy is "slowly approaching heat death". TawnyOwlJones accepts this but intends to stay until this occurs. Further, ProcyonLotor states his understanding that the IRC will remain open for as long as its activity sustains it, but believes that the chat is dying. Tawny disagrees. Moose states that they and ProcyonLotor are looking at a "trend lasting many years"; Tawny agrees, noting it has not been around as long. Hexick states that Kufat, owner of the unofficial SkipIRC network, has expressed an interest in using the network for purposes unrelated to the SCP Wiki, and says it's unlikely therefore that the network will disappear. ProcyonLotor states his hope that he is wrong, and expresses that the IRC has meant a lot to him in his tenure onsite.

Tawny is concerned that the incident with the chatban might occur again; it is "genuinely concerned that staff who have never set foot in irc were proposing the removal of a ban on a user they had never interacted with on a chat network they never intend to interact with." Moose believes this would not occur: "it's the same as how non-Disc staff can't vote to unban a person. they can only ask Disc in an advisory discussion / vote."

Moose is disappointed that Kufat "chose to revert the accountability structures i put in place for IRC chat. like "chat admins discuss and vote on policy stuff and have an obligation to be accountable on O5 as well as to chat operators" and "the owner cannot hold any policy power that chat admins don't have too". they weren't as solid as the (ironically mostly forgotten) site staff accountability procedures, but they were a start!"

Athenodora clarifies that "Kufat does not have the power to appoint chatmins. Kufat has the power to appoint network operators" and that "Chatmin and chatop appointments are, as ever, a matter for chat staff." Hexick provides further clarification: "To be specific: a 'network operator' isn't just like a chanop. Such persons, depending on what privs they've been granted in the network config file, can override any action placed on them in a channel (i.e. a ban) and force role changes and channel ownership. Moreover, they essentially also have chanop-like powers but at a network-level; network bans (X-lines), network kicks (KILLs), etc."

Moose and Hexick discuss the fact that these powers are not problematic so long as the IRC server remains compact. Moose notes that Admins may require a Chat Owner to "step down and assign a replacement" "when there is serious danger to the wiki community." "The consequence to a Chat Owner declining such a request is simply Admins cutting off ties with Chat."

The question of whether the powers at Kufat's disposal would be used is raised and debated philosophically. GremlinGroup states: "There is an undeniable fundamental difference between adopting a third-party service as an official chatspace and handing off your official chat netowork to an unaffiliated third party."

GremlinGroup takes issue with Tawny's statement that the previous conversation primarily consisted of "staff who have never set foot in irc." He also hopes that chatstaff are continuing to look into the ban, as was discussed. Tawny notes that GremlinGroup and Pedagon are, so far as it knows, not IRC regulars; "if i started dictating how scpd rules worked, you'd probably tell me to shut up too." gee0765 remarks that "staff not in scpd regularly have takes about scpd lol," and "far more than any of these ppl talk about irc." GremlinGroup notes that he has been in the IRC, though not recently. He goes on to say that he disagrees "with your overall belief that not interacting with the IRC means views are invalidated, particularly when it comes to Disciplinary judgement on an unrelated user."

Moose is working under the assumption that the IRC will eventually cease to be the official communications platform, which reduces the urgency of these concerns. GremlinGroup agrees.

Tawny states: "i have my own private, particularly negative views surrounding both scpd and the recap team. while it may be that others air their views (and reasonably so) i do not because i do not desire to cause any particular harm towards any particular user or group of users. i will not pretend that i have a voice in the goings-on of scpd or recap or who is made staff, and i believe the same should be said for site staff talking about irc chat policy." GremlinGroup responds: "I'm not going to stay silent if I see something posted to 05command that I disagree with," and also notes that he wouldn't tell Tawny to shut up. Tawny believes he would "if i had opinions about unbanning a user banned in scpd," which it believes would be proper; GremlinGroup reiterates that he would not. gee states that "staff not particularly active in scpd have asked scpd to ban people in the past." Tawny asks: "what about unbanning people, which is specifically what this conversation was about?" gee responds that "banning and unbanning are two sides of the same coin," which Tawny disagrees with. gee remarks that "it would be unlikely that staff ask scpd to unban people because staff are typically far more ban-happy than scpd mods."

Moose clarifies: "as long as irc chat is an official space, site staff do have the power to weigh in on O5. they just can't make irc staff do anything." Their power is merely advisory. Furthermore "chat staff retain the power to shut non-chat-staff out of a thread (wiki admins may be asked to override individual cases, and site staff may create policy to override the power altogether… but only for 05, you see)"

Tawny reiterates its belief that "it was wrong of site staff to attempt to coerce chat staff into removing a 6-month ban that was implemented for reasons chat staff had discussed." Moose is surprised to learn that this occurred. GremlinGroup responds to Tawny: "Your ban log is hosted on the site community's staff wiki." Tawny cannot fully recall the conversation, but recalls that "it was very much "chat staff should remove the ban because we say so"." ROUNDERHOUSE feels that "calling that an attempt at coercion is laughably dramatic." GremlinGroup characterizes it as follows: "A number of us took issue with the increase of a 1-week ban for messing with the pronoun bot (justified) to a 6-month ban because of a poorly worded appeal." [parentheses in original] Moose does not see how this could have been considered coercion. ROUNDERHOUSE finds the characterization absurd: "recap team pulling up to someone's house with lead bats to make them unban some rando off 19." Moose tells him off for flippancy. GremlinGroup believes Tawny's summary of the conversation is poor. Tawny still feels chatstaff were being pressured "by people who had no prior involvement in the situation and did not have all the details." It believes the 05 log should be updated but the ban upheld.

Moose asks everyone to be nice and not mock each other.

ROUNDERHOUSE takes issue with the idea that site staff were merely exercising coercion rather than making arguments. GremlinGroup feels that chatstaff "should be ready to recieve input from anyone who can see the ban log. Because it's public." Moose feels pressure is indicated in cases of "potential injustice" and defines "actual coercion" as "a vote to remove, threats to chat staff position or power, personal threats, etc." ProcyonLotor remarks that "I'm unfamiliar with the exact situation but historically having to deal with a staff peanut gallery tends to be a feature, not a bug." GremlinGroup agrees: "Better than listening to three people's interpretations."

Tawny takes issue with ROUNDER's metaphor as "it undermines me and my opinion" and smacks of superiority. It asks GremlinGroup if his concerns are allayed so long as the 05command thread is properly updated. GremlinGroup withholds judgement until he sees said update, but doesn't think it's likely: "it'll depend on whether the user was warned for their previous behaviour, whether that behaviour broke rules, or whether the 6 month ban is due to gut feelings." ROUNDERHOUSE doesn't "really care about your opinion on the ban. i'm talking about the comically bad phrasing of the incident as people trying to coerce chatstaff into something." Tawny responds: "this isn't about the ban, it's about you saying my opinions are shit. you've done it in previous conversations about policy too."

Athenodora feels that other chatstaff appear to feel that the tone/phrasing of site staff has been problematic when addressing them. She says: "I mean, should we be welcoming constructive criticism? Yes, sure, of course. But constructive criticism shouldn't sound like you're just being a jerk." ROUNDERHOUSE replies: "i'm not policing anyone's feelings - this might well be a valid emotional response to the incident that happened. but i wasn't talking about emotional responses - i was talking about what actually, decidedly occurred. which was a long, exhaustive, exhausting argument with valid and invalid points from both sides […] it was essentially the same as a policy argument."

Tawny shows rough notes for the 05 update. GremlinGroup asks whether it will contain mention of warnings have been given to the user, and is dissatisfied with Tawny's response. Tawny shrugs at him. He thanks it. It welcomes him. Athenodora notes that GremlinGroup and Pedagon apologized about their phrasing earlier; GremlinGroup corrects this, as he apologized for the situation, not his phrasing.
Moose notes that people being rude doesn't justify further rudeness, having just made corrections to this issue at the Admin/Captain level. Tawny responds: "gg and pedagon have also been dicks to me, and i to them. i think they are decent staffers but i group them together because they almost consistently have something to say about my opinion. i apologise for my behaviour here but they must also be held to that standard."

Dexanote says that if this must be revisited, it should be scheduled in advance with "an impartial mediator." GremlinGroup is content to wait for the 05 update. CuteGirl states that a formal vote can be held on the ban but does not imagine anything will change. Dexanote reiterates that this should be tabled for later. CuteGirl tells GremlinGroup that chatstaff "clarify if we havent issued warnings or statements." GremlinGroup replies: "Thank you, that's weird." CuteGirl explains that their logs respect a character limit.

CuteGirl updates the 05command thread. Pedagon states: "Thank you for adding that info. The record is complete! You may all go home!"

This conversation took approximately twelve hours.

(scroll to top)

Topic: Guide Hub Rewrite Announcement | 2021/11/21

Recap: TheMightyMcB announces Jerden's new discussion post, proposing a splitting the Essays portion of the Guide Hub into its own page, making it easier for people to add their own essays.
Discussion Thread: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14331795/
Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14331800/

On the 3rd of December, the proposal was implemented, and the Essay Hub was created.

This announcement was a single message.
(scroll to top)

Topic: November 2020 Incident and Fiat Update | 2021/11/22-2021/11/23

Summary: TheDeadlyMoose provides an update on the November 2020 Incident discussion.

+ Show Recap

(scroll to top)

Topic: LadyKatie's Wildlife Report | 2021/11/23

Recap: As requested by HarryBlank, LadyKatie provides the following recap of the animals she has recently encountered: "Lately, I've seen a lot of squirrels running around with acorns, leaves, sticks, and treenuts in their mouths. It's adorable. Chipmunks also exist. They're perfect and cute. I've been seeing so many deer. They're so beautiful. I think I saw 20 over the course of one night about a week ago, and I saw a whole bunch on the side of the road just eating grass the other night. Beautiful young deer, some had their horns. Pepper has a new sweater, because she's 18 and cold. Not as many foxes and rabbits lately. Hopefully there will be more soon. HarryBlank is pleased, and asks with complete sincerity to be "apprised of further developments." Pedagon agrees, as he "[loves] chipmunk activities."]

Katie follows up with "The chipmunks like to scamper around. They're less bold than the squirrels, and a lot smaller so I don't see them in the yard as often. I usually see them while driving somewhere." and "Oh, and raccons have a strange and adorable walk." She then notes that recapping this information is odd, but that it has been presented on HarryBlank's request. HarryBlank does not state that he has no regrets, but he absolutely has no regrets.

This discussion was very brief but very productive.
(scroll to top)

Topic: October Recap Review | 2021/11/23 - 2021/11/27

Summary: Staff review the October Recap prior to posting, and find all their names spelled wrong.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: Prometheus begins the October 2021 Recap Review threads — there are two, with one longer recap requiring its own document and therefore its own thread. Various users comment throughout that Recap has gotten their usernames wrong. Yossipossi asks for a joke which loses significant context in the recap to be expunged; this is done, and a note on the expungement added. There is a brief worry that a statement from Riemann about his tea preferences may also require expungement; he graciously allays these fears, and his preference for Darjeeling becomes canon. stormbreath corrects several paraphrases of his statements, and workshops corrections with GremlinGroup. Siddartha Alonne finds the following: "Siddartha Alonne states “Look mom I’m in a ironic recap” (sic)²" and is amused; this statement is not the only mention of Siddartha Alonne in this recap.

TawnyOwlJones, Optimistic Lucio, gee0765 and aismallard discuss the advisability of discussing in-progress but unannounced staff projects in the recap. Yossipossi requests that the project's mention be redacted. Athenodora wonders whether the note that Recap has been spelling people's names wrong is worth mentioning; GremlinGroup wants to keep it as it provides transparency for Recap's process. Dora agrees, and the topic thereby makes it into November's recap by default. Recursion! HarryBlank notes that he doesn't spell people's usernames wrong, the rest of the team is at fault, and he doesn't "know what their deal is." Athenodora requests edits for clarity to her statements about psuedo-Xenophon's Constitution of the Athenians, and workshops them with GremlinGroup (who requires help, as he is "not a greek scholar"). Athenodora also asks that joke comments be identified as such; GremlinGroup will consider, but doesn't want to take the air out of the jokes. Yossipossi says recaps aren't supposed to be funny, and he's welcome to come and write them himself if he feels that way in this author's opinion, and he won't.

Athenodora continues to provide commentary on phrasing issues, and GremlinGroup continues to workshop alterations. GremlinGroup thanks her, and chatstaff at large, for her diligence and value to the review process. Staff briefly discuss a method of making the recap easier to read that would also almost certainly result in the whole damn thing being leaked, leading to a brief discussion about how to make the recaps easier to read without resulting in the damn things being leaked.

CuteGirl asks if her dogs can go into the next recap; HarryBlank is still sore that LadyKatie made the following statement in a context where Recap does not recap: "I just saw a squirrel running outside with a leaf in his mouth. That's the best." Katie responds: "Well I've seen a few since. Some even have acorns. I also see deer doing deer things." HarryBlank is pleased, and recommends this sort of information be provided more regularly as a counterpoint to the monthly yelling summary. Athenodora asks about using a Table of Contents for the recap, as it will be long; Croquembouche supplies a method of doing so. Athenodora asks about the status of a correction to the October Recap, which has not yet been made. It becomes apparent that GremlinGroup and Athenodora thought they had reached an agreement, but had not. Dora clarifies her meaning in the passage requiring correction, and they workshop until the issue is resolved.
This discussion took five days.

(scroll to top)

Topic: Intrastaff Affirmation and Accountability | 2021/11/23

Summary: Staff discuss how to appreciate each others' work, and ensure accountability.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: Pedagon notes a line in the Admin and Captains chat recap praising the Recap team, and himself specifically. He takes the opportunity to say that "giving praise, acknowledging the work people are doing, and rewarding good work as something we really need to work on to retain people, recruit new staff, and foster a positive environment among staff so that it doesn't always feel like everyone is arguing all the time or that the only attention people get is negative attention when something goes wrong." He suggests that one step would be to communicate moments like this to the relevant parties in person, as "A little comment or message just to let people know that they are appreciated can really go a long way to ward off the burnout and lets people know that they are actually making a difference." Zyn notes that she has recently passed on a positive comment about TawnyOwlJones, and suggests creating "a little post its wall or something like that for nice things people say about staff/their hard work." She also notes that non-staff users aren't necessarily aware of the work staff do, which "site news features for staff teams" can help alleviate.

Zyn and DrBleep note that recognizing "good noodles" has been done in the past, but no longer. aismallard notes that "it has to be someone's job." Bleep makes it a policy to "mention/reward/congratulate anyone who does good work," particularly during promotions votes. OptimisticLucio feels like officializing the process misses the point; GremlinGroup agrees. Zyn suggests a wall of fame: "Someone says a nice thing, put it on the wall." Jerden's recent work is singled out for praise during this conversation. Pedagon is more interested in making sure users consider "the human aspect" and thank people they feel deserve thanks; "Don't let people feel like they are being unnoticed while discussing how good they are in private lol." Pedagon was heartened by this positive mention of him, and suspects there are other staff users who would appreciate the notice and affirmation. gee agrees. Pedagon stresses the need to affirm staff users outside of just the promotion cycle or official initiatives. TheDeadlyMoose praises Pedagon, Lucio, LadyKatie, Yossipossi, GremlinGroup, Prometheum and HarryBlank for their recent work. Pedagon praises their praise. Siddartha Alonne suggests that even just "Hey you're doing good and could get better with this and this" would be valuable.

Moose notes that LadyKatie's -INT work "is largely invisible to many staff, even now, but it is immense and invaluable." They also praise ROUNDERHOUSE and Dexanote for their oppositional perspectives during the censure debates, which have provided "useful insight" from outspoken and affected users. Dexanote thanks Moose and is glad ROUNDERHOUSE is in staff, and notes that 2021 has been a hard year but staff cohesion is improving and newer staff are "all coming into their own," which is cause for optimism. The delay on rewriting the staff charter is briefly discussed, with Moose and Bleep emphasising burnout factor and the need to do things correctly rather than quickly. Dexanote calls for appreciation for aismallard, which arrives in emoji form. Moose praises Cyvstvi and gee0765 for their "contributions to these stressful conversations," and Siddartha and Jerden and Limeyy as well. ROUNDERHOUSE discovers, to his horror, that he has stumbled into "touchy-feely hour." Moose praises stormfallen for his participation "in scary conversations."

Moose also notes that admin chat has frequently been concerned with staff cohesion and collaboration:

the praise is absolutely not irrelevant!
on some level, to fix admin-level issues, WE must be aware of what non-admins are bringing to the table!
and no one who's caused a fuckup, admin or not, did it because they wanted to fuck people over. we've all done it from passion.
and the way to validate that AND figure out how to fix it is to be honest
what old adcap was doing, IMO — speaking for myself here — was fixating only on problems created

They further muse on Pedagon's unique situation: "it must have been baffling to have staff think you were Our Greatest Enemy based on a misplaced joke with no context. that's what you get when you forget how to seek to understand people's strengths. and that created the adcap monster IMO." Pedagon is appreciative:

This is exactly what I like to see after we talked about making admins and administrative role primarily. I really do see this as a major shift from when I first joined staff and these kinds of moments of transparency and breaking down the hierarchy are extremely appreciated. And I'm especially happy to see that people are being acknowledged through the disagreements. […] until I saw that comment in adcap recap I have been functioning fully under the belief that my neck is on the chopping block so I might as well make my time remaining count. And it truly is a skill to be able to see the passion people have when operating under differing opinions and approaches so this is such a breath of air to see

Staff are also now occasionally telling each other whose presentation style or manner of debate pisses them off, leading GremlinGroup to ask: "this is so confusing ar we hugging or insulting each other right now." Moose asks for that line to be recapped; ROUNDERHOUSE says this will be an easy recap for him to do. He then proceeds not to do it.
Pedagon is still musing on Moose's words:

You have no idea how long I've been waiting for the "misplaced joke with no context" to be acknowledged even tangentially. So many things flowed from one comment being misrepresented that I honestly have been walking on glass since I was told about any of that and then not being able to bring it up myself. I know this is an acknowledgement rather than some kind of apology or anything but my god I just got the greatest release of bottled anxiety from seeing this situation be acknowledged for what it was
Also I have never ever said anything aggressively and I am perfect. Please put this in the recap so people know

Bleep notes Pedagon's intelligence and insights, but also that he can "get aggressive and overly carried away in large group settings and discussions," leading to "communication breakdowns."
Moose emphasizes that while Pedagon was involved in the recent and regrettable -INT incident, he was merely in danger of being held accountable; "no one wants your head." They note that his effort, "drive and insight" are "incredibly valuable to staff."
Dexanote muses that "a lot of the newer staff think we'll remove them if they piss us off."

Pedagon is recently attempting to modulate his tone, which was defensive and harsh because of the circumstances of his entering staff, and encourages others to call him out if he misbehaves.
Moose is sorry that Pedagon was taken out of context early on. Pedagon states that his presence in the -INT issue has been magnified by reports, and he wishes to be "part of the solution." He is grateful for the closure this conversation has provided. Bleep and Moose apologize directly to Pedagon, and he thanks them. Dexanote praises staff and their cohesion, and restates his optimism.
stormfallen asks for updates on the -INT incident; LadyKatie says "Right now everyone's waiting for disc procedures."

GremlinGroup wonders how this conversation will be recapped; "I reckon we will summarise this a little to just like "Some nice compliments were shared" or something," he suggests. Haha, yeah. Pedagon thinks this would be easy to recap; GremlinGroup bars him from doing so due to his heavy involvement in the conversation.
Moose praises TawnyOwlJones and Vivarium. Moose then states that they (Moose) do not actually know the state of Pedagon's accountability for the -INT incident.

Moose wishes to add a counterpoint to the above discussion, a musing on the disciplinary process:

I wanted to say that getting Disc'd can be Good Actually, but with many more words.
I've seen a lot of fear of being Disc'd. I don't think this fear is much present with (current) admins, but I've seen it from all other levels of staff — that it's some kind of mark of shame. A scarlet letter.
But it's not — at all.
Obviously it's not fun, and it sucks to end up at that point (especially if — as with me — it was a horrible surprise), but it can absolutely be a good thing for the person being Disc'd.
I specifically have a Disc warning to this day to not treat people badly as an Admin. That thread's fucked up in certain ways, but the part I was actually warned over is spot on.
That warning is partly why I endeavor to go out of my way to listen to people who tell me that I hurt them, and why I do my best to try to avoid that. Sometimes I fail, but let me tell you, I used to fail daily… and wasn't really aware of it. When I was, I thought it was okay, or justified.
Disc threads and sometimes just almost Disc threads have been responsible for driving both personal and sitewide reforms in the past.
This knowledge is why Dex & Mann have been advocating for their own censures for literally an entire year.
Accountability is a good thing, a vital thing — for the person being accountable, too And it's really damn hard for anyone to change. Accountability processes aren't a mark of shame — they're an opportunity to push oneself to change.
Typically getting Disc'd for staff behavior reasons either demoralizes a person to the point where they become a ball of resentment or rage and leave…. or it galvanizes them to do great things.
While the thread may be just or unjust (hopefully the outcome is just!) — the person being Disc'd does ultimately have the power to choose which category they fall into.
(I made this shorter for the Recap Team 😛 )

This conversation took place over nearly eight hours.

(scroll to top)

Topic: Disciplinary Speedup Discussion | 2021/11/24

Recap: aismallard announces that after review by administration and the Disciplinary Team, a policy proposing an exception to normal disciplinary processes has been drafted. She provides a link to the 05command discussion thread.

This announcement was a single message.
(scroll to top)

Topic: Thanks For All the Stress | 2021/11/25

Summary: Looking back on a hard year.
Recap: Yossipossi states that "we as an organization have grown tremendously" over the course of the past year. "There's been a lot of fighting, but wow, if you asked me a year ago if staff could be how it is now, I'd laugh at you." Staff then reminisce on what a dramatic and stressful year it has been, and laugh at each other. Pedagon is crying on the inside, though he does "think that we are currently at a much better place now though than even two months ago." Leveritas notes that inter-community politics is a difficult balancing game.

This conversation took place over less than one hour.
(scroll to top)

Topic: October Recap Post | 2021/11/27

Summary: The October recap is posted. Murphy intervenes.
Recap: Prometheus links the 05command and mainsite threads for the October Recap, which is now live. He announces that his "break from staff begins effective immediately." Applause is immediately interrupted by Wikidot crashing. Pedagon announces: "Recap team did what no other team had the guts to do: take down the wiki." Wikidot comes back, to mixed reviews.

This conversation took place over less than one hour.
(scroll to top)

Topic: Forums/Recap Licensing | Date: 2021/10/28-2021/11/28

Summary: Staff discuss whether Recaps are CC or not.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: GremlinGroup ports a question from the SCP Declassified Discord asking whether forum posts are released under the site's Creative Commons license. Naepic brings up an earlier discussion where it is made clear that forum posts utilizing CC content are themselves CC, but forum posts unrelated to SCP content are likely not. Athenodora and HarryBlank briefly speculate on how the recaps might be utilized in fiction; HarryBlank misidentifies Pseudo-Xenophon as Xenophon, and Athenodora corrects him, therefore introducing the word "Pseudo-Xenophon" to recap for the second month in a row. Prometheus asks who controls the recap license, and whether as Team Captain they can declare the recaps CC. HarryBlank asks why making the recaps CC would be a good idea, as it could logically only be useful for turning them into fiction.

Naepic clarifies that if recaps are not already CC by default, "each section's copyright belongs whoever wrote each section, unless the team agrees to release it under the team as a whole." GremlinGroup notes that he is "fairly certain recaps are released with the intention of obfusticating the role of each individual on the team, without actually reading through logs of our discord" and therefore the team as a whole is likely in charge. LadyKatie asks if this will be recapped. stormfallen doesn't see why it wouldn't. It will be. GremlinGroup "might start a counter for the number of times people ask about things getting [recapped]." Pedagon requests the conversation change to being about the possibility of banging presidents. Dora responds with a recommendation of necromancy (to assist Pedagon with this mission). stormfallen reiterates the question of whether recaps are already CC, and if not, who controls their release. He also asks whether recap is compatible with the General Data Protection Regulation, relevant for European staff. Prometheus briefly muses on the question of copyright notices on material of this sort.

A member of the Recap team reveals they have been recapping this conversation. Pedagon did not expect this, as the suggestion to recap it was a joke. The Recap member responds "Reap what you sow." Prometheus corrects: "Recap what you sow." Prometheus has thereby won the month of November.

stormfallen asks whether staff should be informing new staff members that their words can be paraphrased/quoted/released under public license.

This conversation took approximately one half-hour.

(scroll to top)

Topic: Disciplinary Reforms Question | 2021/11/28

Summary: gee0765 asks for clarification on whether the ongoing Disciplinary reform is a full rewrite of relevant Disc policies, or just an edit to existing ones. aismallard clarifies that the existing policies are being investigated and edited, and that the Disciplinary team is also ensuring that their operation is brought in line with policy.

+ Show Recap

(scroll to top)

Topic: President Bans: Revival | 2021/11/28

Summary: Staff return to the discussion on banning US Presidents, previously covered in the October Recap.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: Yossipossi forwards an anonymous complaint that surfaced following the publishing of the recap of the discussion of AHT and Disciplinary Action on Public Figures. The anonymous user has asked whether Ronald Reagan would be banned from the Wiki, according to the feelings of staff displayed in the discussion. Yossi said they thought Reagan wouldn’t be banned, and the user requested the topic be brought to staffchat. Yossi then opens the discussion:

…What is our policy on banning dead presidents?

Stormbreath replies “oh Jesus Christ” and “we’re not doing this again”. ClaudiaKara is surprised that this was a topic discussed in staffchat. Athenodora posts a link to a relevant book on Greek and Roman Necromancy. Naepic requests that recap cover his wish to have no further discussion on this matter until the US Congress meets again. Pedagon states the recap will only cover the discussion if something worthwhile results from it. He promises that, should no such results arise, his recap will be as follows:

Yossi stumbles upon a bloated and necrotic horse and proceeds to search for a nearby stick

Pedagon did not end up recapping this topic, and will just have to make do with the fact that the recap exists.

DrBleep states they are placing an Admin Fiat, mandating discussion banning presidents. Naepic, who was just explaining that the conversation loses all humour if it comes up every week, is upset to hear about the fiat. A few moments later, GremlinGroup confirms with Bleep that the invoking of Fiat was a joke.

Athenodora has opened a thread to discuss how exactly one might use necromancy and warding to ensure that a dead president could be banned. She notes that American rituals to ward the dead may be required for a US President. Further, she notes that the process of overkilling (layering multiple ritual actions to achieve the same goal³) could be of use. In this thread, ClaudiaKara asks whether George Washington would be banned; LadyKatie says he wouldn’t be, as he would probably want to be banned from the wiki. The thread gets no further use.

LadyKatie recommends that ClaudiaKara read the original conversation for Kara’s entertainment. GremlinGroup recommends Kara read the recap of it. In answer to Kara’s question on which presidents would be banned, LadyKatie provides this list:

Bill Clinton for sexual misconduct, Osama Bin Laden for targeted harrassment, and Andrew Jackson for… gestures vaguely to 1829-1837 Trump.

The discussion ends with LadyKatie noting that she saw a deer in a rosebush.
This discussion took roughly twenty minutes.

(scroll to top)

Topic: Disciplinary Speedup Discussion Extension | 2021/11/30

Summary: Moose suggests slowing down the speeding-up discussion. Hilarity ensues.

+ Show Recap

(scroll to top)

Topic: Site Crit Future | 2021/11/30

Summary: The captaincy and future of the Site Crit team is discussed.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: stormfallen has been updating team hubs on 05command. He notes that "Licensing still has no admin contact," and that there is an unresolved issue with the Site Crit captaincy. "At what point are we allowed to make Meats, Limeyy, and Riemann full (vice) captains?" he asks. gee0765 notes that SoullessSingularity's status as reserve, preventing them from holding a captaincy, is the issue; he believes an explanation was promised by someone, which has not been issued. ManyMeats confirms that Soulless and RockTeethMothEyes, as reserve staff, "should not have any official or active role with any team." stormfallen has removed RTME from all team rosters. ManyMeats clarifies the captaincy situation: "I am, by letter, the Site Crit Captain, however Limeyy is the person at the helm for extended and undefined duration due to Charter. Limeyy could and should, in some fashion, be represented as the acting captain. If you feel the best and most transparent way to do that is to just straight up list Limeyy there and not me, that's fine, or if you want to put me Captain in absentia and Limeyy as (acting) or something, it's all good. It can be changed when circumstances require."

stormfallen wants to know if there's a reason not to make both users full captains. Limeyy notes that "the current structure is funnier," and less humorously they feel this would overstate their own role and suggest that "Meats is currently active in leading the team, which is untrue." ManyMeats agrees, stating "The reality of "today" is that you'd go to Limeyy first if there's something related to that team" and "So long as the page reflects that, we're all better served." stormfallen shows everyone how silly that looks on the roster; Limeyy says "this is sufficiently funny for me to be in support" and expresses interest in making changes to the team structure at a later date.

TawnyOwlJones asks whether the site's expanding presence in different social media platforms will necessitate splitting the Site Crit team; OptimisticLucio feels the IRC will eventually cease to be official, preventing the issue from existing. Tawny has plans for IRC crit: "bring non-staff forum critters into the irc in an attempt to increase communication between them because i believe it is lacking." It wants to use #thecritters on the IRC as "a non-official teaching space for new critters, probably using forum threads as discussion points unless there is still people seeking real-time crit in there." stormfallen is surprised at the assertion that the IRC would be unofficialized if other platforms replace it; Lucio feels this has been established, DrBleep states that it has not and calls Lucio's statement foolish, as chatstaff and the Internet Outreach Team have not reached a decision on the matter. stormbreath states that, so far as he has heard, "the plan is to maintain the IRC as long as feasible." Staff reacquaint themselves with the fact that while the IRC server is unofficial due to the ownership change, the SCP channels within it remain official.

This conversation took place over approximately two hours.

(scroll to top)

Topic: Chat Bans and Chatstaff Accountability

Summary: Staff discuss an IRC ban, and the discussion transitions into a conversation about the accountability of chatstaff in staffchat.

+ Show Recap

- Hide Recap

Recap: A user posts a statement to the site forums to clarify that they are unbiased against forms of sexuality not involving minors or children. Leveritas brings it up in staffchat to ask if this is in reference to an incident in chat media. Dexanote thinks they sound like a Twitter user. Nobody knows what that means. gee0765 says the user was "banned for six months because they worded some stuff badly and got accused of saying pedos and zoophiles are part of the lgbt community" and is "trying to like, clear their name." Leveritas feels the wiki is an odd place to clear one's name for chat-related actions; gee notes that the IRC is still official, and GremlinGroup notes that the ban information is hosted on the community's staff site (05command), which the user can't comment on. gee further clarifies that the user's initial ban was raised during their appeal because of continued poor phrasing; Edna Granbo notes that they have done the same thing today in the IRC's staff help channel, #site17. She provides logs. Limeyy understands where the user is coming from, notes that their wording is terrible but their intentions seem good. They are not sure the ban's length is appropriate.

Leveritas asks if the user should be told to take the issue to private messages. GremlinGroup believes he has "deciphered" Dexanote's Twitter comment as meaning that the user "is really used to discourse-heavy stuff" and "having to specify Do-Not-Interacts." Dexanote agrees that this was his meaning. gee does not feel the ban length is appropriate; Edna does, particularly citing "pronoun fuckery" as poor behaviour ("they added "dumbass" to their pronouns," GremlinGroup clarifies for anyone not following along). Most users in the conversation agree that a weeklong ban is the stated ban length for this offense and therefore more appropriate, though Edna Granbo has not retracted her own concerns. Leveritas asks whether public adjustment of the ban should be made, for transparency and visibility; gee notes that the ban was a chat ban, and staffchat can't do anything about it at the moment. It is agreed that the user's concerns should be noted and the forum thread locked. Pedagon feels leaving the thread makes the user themselves look bad, but moving it to 05command would be an appropriate act of record-keeping. He is also worried that this might form a precedent for users to handle their grievances in this way. LilyFlower says "I'm planning on keeping it 6 [months]," drawing confused reactions from GremlinGroup, Limeyy, gee and Pedagon. "would you mind providing a explanation for the 2400% increase that's more in-depth than "concerns"?" Gremlin group asks. Dexanote feels this wording is "a little leading."

GremlinGroup agrees, and he meant it that way. Lily explains that "It's something the entirety of actually active chatstaff decided upon," and Dexanote adds that a staff member would need to disagree to overturn the decision. gee doesn't feel this is an explanation. Lily is busy, and cannot explain. She also notes that the staff users pressing this issue do not have voting rights on chat decisions. Dexanote suggests a break in the discussion, but also that chatstaff should rediscuss and revise their decision — then clarifies that revision is not necessarily incumbent upon them. CuteGirl further explains who was active in the decision-making process, and notes that past behaviour was taken into account; GremlinGroup notes that the 05 log is therefore incorrect, as it makes no mention of such context. Lily feels that "it's disheartning recieving criticism about chat staff policy and actions from people who actively do not even use the chat." GremlinGroup apologizes, but asks "What's the point of a public log of bans if it's rushed and inaccurate." Pedagon feels the reason chatstaff are in the staff server is to be part of the mutual critique and feedback staff provide to each other. "I don't think someone needs to be active in irc or on chatstaff to be able to give critique or feel something is wrong. If that was the case then chatstaff would just operate outside staffchat and no teams would interact." CuteGirl feels more that staffchat requires instant around-the-clock accountability from chatstaff.

GremlinGroup is still wondering why the circumstances which led to a ban might be omitted from the ban log due to forgetfulness. Lily feels there is a difference between asking for an explanation and demanding a ban be overturned; GremlinGroup notes that the ban log is meant to be the explanation, and therefore isn't sure why anyone would expect further details could be explained. Pedagon notes that the initial ban needed to be logged quickly, but extending the ban to six months could have been properly documented, as there was already a one-week period before it would become relevant. TawnyOwlJones says "i don't see why people who have never used the irc are trying to dictate how chatstaff run it." Dexanote says "Let them do their jobs." Pedagon takes issue with Tawny's statement: "Do you ever comment on the work of teams you are not on?" Tawny cites the separation between site staff and chatstaff. CuteGirl invokes the volunteer nature of the job, non-chatstaff's failure to help do it, and non-chatstaff's insistence on perfection from chatstaff. Dexanote underscores the need to let chatstaff begin to handle the issue themselves. Pedagon doesn't understand why chatstaff are in this server if they are to be treated as isolated and not subject to the same sort of accountability or critique. CuteGirl notes that chatstaff are not isolated when complaints are raised, only when they ask for help, which they do not receive. Pedagon is attempting to argue that if chatstaff are present in staffchat, they are staff, and should therefore be subject to the same questions as site staff. TawnyOwlJones and Dexanote feel his phrasing suggests that he thinks chatstaff are not real staff, which Pedagon and GremlinGroup disagree with. CuteGirl notes that half-ops are not allowed into staffchat; gee0765 says they should be, as do Dexanote and GremlinGroup.

Dexanote presents a statement: "Chat Staff has its own task and it's so far divorced from any other staff work in content and context that the its effectively its own thing. Chat staff are still staff but non-chat-staff are asked to let them do their work because it's a whole ecosystem of context and material that they work with and have proven to know what they're doing." Pedagon also presents one, saying that while "chatstaff and site staff are separate" may be true, this "is not a valid argument against site staff being able to give critique to chatstaff on their record keeping or decisions when things look mishandled or wrong. This is the exact same as any team critiquing the work of another team when something seems off, which we do all the time. By virtue of having chatstaff and sitestaff in the same discussion area, where chatstaff are invited and welcome to critique the work and decisions of sitestaff, it is totally valid for sitestaff to do the same when they feel things are wrong." Dexanote feels the main issue here is that the divide between these two staff bodies has resulted in an undercurrent of frustration. Pedagon notes that critiquing a job does not require you to work that job. Leveritas agrees.

Lily is irritated that the criticism was an attack on the decision, rather than pointing out that the log was incomplete. Pedagon responds: "Because people expected the job was done correctly the first time and, personally, I'd be more upset if someone assumed I only did half of my job rather than that my decision was a bad decision. Of course people criticized the record thinking it was a complete record." Dexanote feels this is condescending. Pedagon assures Dexanote that his (Pedagon's) uncertainty is legitimate, and apologizes for his tone.

Dexanote encourages users to join chatstaff. GremlinGroup apologizes for bringing chatstaff into a conversation where they were criticized, and asks whether they would prefer to be pinged at the outset of such conversations. Dexanote suggests that initial summaries of issues should be "more cohesive." stormfallen feels full-team pings are unwarranted except in emergencies. GremlinGroup asks: "What's the best way of constructively bringing IRC Staff in for a discussion of this sort?" Dexanote wants to work out some advice on "how to talk to other teams," but suggests for starters: "always ask your question first, then tell what your impression is." The conversation then becomes assorted discussions of chatstaff business which are not germane to the subject of this recap.

This discussion took approximately two hours.

(scroll to top)

Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14415092/november-2021-recap

Last edited on 29 Dec 2021 05:20 by pr0m37h3um Show more

Reply Options

Unfold November 2021 Recap by

pr0m37h3um, 29 Dec 2021 04:38

New Post

O5 Command

Administration and Management

Staff Information

Staff Utilities

SCP Wiki Links

05Command

SCP Wiki

Table of Contents

Topic: Post Signatures and Rating Modules | 2021/11/03

Topic: Staff Appointment Announcements | 2021/11/07

Topic: “How to Contribute” Rewrite | 2021/11/07

Topic: Replacing ARC links with INT links | 2021/11/07

Topic: Adding crombird to the Wiki | 2021/11/08

Topic: gee0765 Ports Discussion on AdCap Summaries to General Staff Chat | 2021/11/08

Topic: Newbie Guide Rewrite | 2021/11/09

Topic: Concerns with Recap | 2021/11/09-2021/11/10

Topic: Pride Month | 2021/11/10

Topic: Content Discovery | 2021/11/10

Topic: -INT Admins Posting on 05command | 2021/11/11

Topic: IJAMEA Flag Change | 2021/11/11

Topic: Untagged Pages Module | 2021/11/13

Topic: -ES Incident | 2021/11/13-2021/11/17

Topic: Adcap Recap Declassifying | 2021/11/14

Topic: Dexanote Recusal Fiat | 2021/11/14

Topic: Wanderers’ Library Recruitment | 2021/11/14

Topic: Prometheus Steps Back | 2021/11/14

Topic: FAQ Rewrite Discussion | 2021/11/17

Topic: October Recap Reaches AdCap Review | 2021/11/18

Topic: Chat Staff in Staffchat | 2021/11/19

Topic: Guide Hub Rewrite Announcement | 2021/11/21

Topic: November 2020 Incident and Fiat Update | 2021/11/22-2021/11/23

Topic: LadyKatie's Wildlife Report | 2021/11/23

Topic: October Recap Review | 2021/11/23 - 2021/11/27

Topic: Intrastaff Affirmation and Accountability | 2021/11/23

Topic: Disciplinary Speedup Discussion | 2021/11/24

Topic: Thanks For All the Stress | 2021/11/25

Topic: October Recap Post | 2021/11/27

Topic: Forums/Recap Licensing | Date: 2021/10/28-2021/11/28

Topic: Disciplinary Reforms Question | 2021/11/28

Topic: President Bans: Revival | 2021/11/28

Topic: Disciplinary Speedup Discussion Extension | 2021/11/30

Topic: Site Crit Future | 2021/11/30

Topic: Chat Bans and Chatstaff Accountability