[DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

Summary:

Putting names to names

page 1 of 212next »

[DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

torcsandantlers 05 Jul 2023 15:40

Mainsite Mirror

First discussion

During the first round of discussion a few concerns were brought up. First, those that were incorporated into this updated proposal: That the list be numbered, that there be a listed requirement for being contactable, to reword the site requirement, and to control for the exemption of Adjunct Staff. Second, a concern that was not incorporated: that membership to the staff site and main-site not be required. We feel that the barrier of joining the site is exceedingly low and that the very minor inconvenience of having to register is outweighed by the utility of organization and trackability.

+ Background

As it currently stands, there are no formal, documented requirements for joining staff. Because of this, people under the age of 18 can become staff, as well as users banned from the site. Allowing minors to join staff holds complications and risks for several reasons, both to staff themselves and potential applicants. People under 18 are inherently more vulnerable to abuse and may be at a higher risk when in a staff position. There is also a variety of situations that a staff member may face that minors should not be involved in. Secondary to this, people under 18 are not even eligible to join the site they would be gaining authority over. Combined, these make giving them a position in staff, as well as giving them the authority that comes with such, irresponsible at best.
There is also the issue of users banned from the wiki being able to join site staff. Banned users are, as the name implies, banned from contributing to the wiki. Joining staff and voting on policy or participating in most, if not all, staff activities is essentially contributing to the SCP Wiki. Although in practice, this is not a likely issue, it is still possible and should be addressed.

Proposal

We propose the following be added in the Site Charter under section 4:

A. Eligibility Requirements

To be a member of staff at Junior Staff level or higher, a user must:

1. Be over the age of 18.
2. Be a member of the main site of the SCP Wiki.
3. If eligible, be a member of the staff site of the SCP Wiki while serving as staff.
4. Be immediately contactable by other staff members.

Other subsections will be shifted down one letter, including the current subsection A. In addition to the charter changes, any underage staffers will be removed from their positions, and any staff members who are not members of the SCP Wiki will be sent a message by their team captain(s) informing them that they must apply for membership within two weeks. Staff who are inactive at the time of this policy passing will not be required to join the main site until they come out of inactivity, after which they will have two weeks to apply for site membership.

---

Changelog

- Changed formatting to be a numbered list
- Added a contact requirement
- Reworded requirement 3

Contributors of this proposal: EmotionalEntropy, torcsandantlers, JjEd

---

This discussion will be open for one week, after which it will go to voting should there be no objections. This discussion is open to all staff.

When this proposal goes to vote, as it will require an edit to a charter, the vote will require 60% yes votes with at least half of active staff members voting.

Last edited on 05 Jul 2023 17:35 by torcsandantlers Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

AriadnesThread 05 Jul 2023 15:47

I don't see any issue with the spirit of the proposed list, as I think they're good ideas overall, but I have some questions of expectation and enforcement. Will proof be required of age? I would think that could get fraught myself, but if we're going by the honor's system of age it may be worthwhile to examine that directly.

Also, 'immediate contact' by other staff is another thing that we should delineate a little more clearly. Is the expectation that staff check their DMs on wikidot daily, have an active discord or IRC (or both), provide email information, etc., or all of the above?

To be clear, I don't think the spirit of the list is wrong at all, but outlining the expectations of these articles would save us headaches down the road.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

AriadnesThread 05 Jul 2023 16:06

I think to clarify these, I might go with the following:

1. Must be a member of the Mainsite Wiki in good standing.
2. Able to be active on the Staff Wiki as well as the Mainsite Wiki.
3. Must be able to respond to other staff members via preferred communication method quickly in order to facilitate staff functions.

The first rule, phrased this way, would imply the over 18 rule without needing to make it into its own rule, and thus raising the question of 'proving' it.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

torcsandantlers 05 Jul 2023 18:30

Sorry, I started responding to Prime first before I saw your second comment. Please see response below for an outline of points.

Specifically, I don't think there's anything implied in the "Be over the age of 18." that would require any further proof than site membership. Applying for site membership right now is a tacit agreement that you are over the age of 18.

Last edited on 11 Jul 2023 14:46 by torcsandantlers Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

Prime Girl 05 Jul 2023 15:57

I find this to be a bit suboptimal. 1 is currently unnecessary due to 2. One must be 18+ to be eligible to join the SCP Wiki thus 2 already requires 1. In and of itself this isn't necessarily a problem but I thought it bore mentioning

Additionally, I believe it was mentionned in the prior thread, but why should it necessarily be a requirement for one to be a member on the wiki if one is on IO or the Discord Team? I would suggest that 2 instead only require one to meet the eligibility requirement for joining the Wiki. I don't necessarily disagree with this requirement if there's a decent justification, it's not a huge hurdle but it is a hurdle so I think it should have some for requiring the actual account rather than just the eligibility.

For 3, in what situations would a staff member meeting the other requirements be ineligible to join O5? Also, I think it is necessary to specify that it is O5 as multiple staff wikis such as the MAST and CO sandboxes exist.

4 this is much too vague. If I gave my phone number to 2, and only two staff members, but have no other means of contact I am technically "immediately contactable by other staff members" , but not in a practical way.

I know these are nitpicky, and I thank you for doing this, I do think it bears consideration to have this be a bit more streamlined and ironclad

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

torcsandantlers 05 Jul 2023 18:27

On point 1 remaining its own point:

As Lord has pointed out below, there is the possibility that the site could one day be opened up to membership under the age of 18. This has been proposed multiple times. The idea here is laid out in the Background section above.

People under 18 are inherently more vulnerable to abuse and may be at a higher risk when in a staff position. There is also a variety of situations that a staff member may face that minors should not be involved in.

This is pre-empting that possibility to make these requirements more ironclad. Bringing minors into the staff structure with captainship and those who could hold power over them is asking for problems.

On point 2:

I think that the utility of staff being listed clearly by a consistent identifier has enough utility to trump the inconvenience of registering. A wikidot user ID lets us list staff for us to know internally who is a member of staff and on what teams as well as letting the userbase as a whole know who these members of staff are.

The idea of checking for eligibility is a slippery one, because what really makes you eligible other than submitting the application? And what's the best way to ensure that you meet that single eligibility criteria, other than having someone do it? We could ask them directly if they're 18, but there's already implied agreement to that when submitting the application.

On point 3:

As to the inclusion of "if eligible". gonna quote myself from staffchat here: "That was originally ais's recommendation, but I saw it as allowing for a potential tier of staff who don't have access to the staff site. I also have a hard time envisioning who it might include and why we'd have such a tier, but it doesn't hurt the enforce-ability so we left it." If consensus is against that inclusion, I have no attachment to it.

I don't like calling out 05 by name since we'd run into problems if we ever moved our staff forum or just changed its name, but I do agree that it should be clearer. I like Lord's suggestion below of "the primary staff website of the SCP Wiki." I think that addresses your concern and mine.

On point 4:

I can see where you (and a lot of others) are coming from here. In my interpretation there's a distinction between "Immediately contactable" and "Immediately responsive", but it should be changed to better match how we would interpret it as a staff body.

How ais clarified it in staffchat is basically how we meant it. "Be present in staffchat spaces." We could build that out as "Be present in the primary locations of staff communication and the locations of any relevant staff functions." to accommodate for the fact that we might stop calling it staffchat and to add a requirement to be part of team conversation.

response on the nature of policy

a bit more streamlined and ironclad

I don't really think we can have both of these. Ironclad is going to make it hard to have a streamlined policy, and I think ironclad makes it hard to adapt to changing needs. I'm only addressing this particular bit because this is usually where we diverge on policy.

I'm aiming for "Clear, interpretable, and not locked into present circumstances." There's nothing worse (imo) than being shackled by past policy that only actually applies to that past reality - like using terminology of that period. I think especially with the charter that we should be focused on creating principles that can be applied to any changing circumstance. In this case it's that "Staff should be adult members of their community space."

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

ParallelPotatoes 05 Jul 2023 15:58

For points 1-3 I agree wholeheartedly. I don’t see any reason that someone not on the site should be eligible for staff, especially when the requirements to join the site are so lax in my opinion.

For point 4 I agree with the spirit but not the wording. Id like some definition on “immediately” contactable, as in my mind that could be interpreted as very strict. I agree that someone who regularly can’t be contacted in over a week shouldn’t be available for staff, as staff duties require communication between staff members and site users. But if “immediately” means within an hour or even within a day, that could be too strict to require. We are all volunteers with our own schedules, and sometimes those schedules can’t be bent around staffwork.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

torcsandantlers 05 Jul 2023 18:32

I agree that point 4 needs clarification. Quoting from my response to Prime:

I can see where you (and a lot of others) are coming from here. In my interpretation there's a distinction between "Immediately contactable" and "Immediately responsive", but it should be changed to better match how we would interpret it as a staff body.

How ais clarified it in staffchat is basically how we meant it. "Be present in staffchat spaces." We could build that out as "Be present in the primary locations of staff communication and the locations of any relevant staff functions." to accommodate for the fact that we might stop calling it staffchat and to add a requirement to be part of team conversation.

Last edited on 11 Jul 2023 14:46 by torcsandantlers Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

Guaire 05 Jul 2023 16:08

I'm confused about the wording in point 3. In which situations would someone meet the other points but not be eligible?

Point 4 should also be clarified further, as "inmediately" feels quite vague.

Point 1 feels pointless, as it is presumed that if someone already belongs to the SCP wiki they are already 18 years of age or older by current site requisites.

I agree with Cassandra's arguments for point 2

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

torcsandantlers 05 Jul 2023 18:33

I think you're basically making the same points as Prime (which is good! Reiterating agreed points is awesome), but since my response will be the same I'm just going to point you to my response to Prime above.

Last edited on 11 Jul 2023 14:47 by torcsandantlers Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

divinephobia 05 Jul 2023 16:43

1 and 2 make each other redundant, so I would go with one or the other. Additionally, since being staff is a bit more of a serious matter than simply joining the wiki, is the age verification based on word only, or more?

Ease of contact is important, of course, but as others bring up, what is defined as immediately? Hours? That isn't entirely viable in my opinion, as many staff members are busy with their own lives, i.e. employment.
It also may not account for things such as staffers taking a break due to emergencies or any other reason. If either of these things is meant to be implied, I would make them explicit.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

torcsandantlers 05 Jul 2023 18:43

I hate just quoting myself, but I also hate leaving comments unanswered so I'm going to quote from my responses above.

On point 1 remaining its own point:

As Lord has pointed out below, there is the possibility that the site could one day be opened up to membership under the age of 18. This has been proposed multiple times. The idea here is laid out in the Background section above.

People under 18 are inherently more vulnerable to abuse and may be at a higher risk when in a staff position. There is also a variety of situations that a staff member may face that minors should not be involved in.

This is pre-empting that possibility to make these requirements more ironclad. Bringing minors into the staff structure with captainship and those who could hold power over them is asking for problems.

If we ever decided to start verifying ages in the future would be a whole other thing. This policy doesn't open up that possibility any more than the site age requirement does, and even if we set the requirement as "eligible to join the SCP Wiki" that possibility would remain just as open. We could litigate against this with some other policy that "The SCP Wiki staff may never ask for or require any form of personally identifying information" or something, but I think that's an issue for another discussion - regardless of whether I feel that would have utility.

On point 4:

I can see where you (and a lot of others) are coming from here. In my interpretation there's a distinction between "Immediately contactable" and "Immediately responsive", but it should be changed to better match how we would interpret it as a staff body.

How ais clarified it in staffchat is basically how we meant it. "Be present in staffchat spaces." We could build that out as "Be present in the primary locations of staff communication and the locations of any relevant staff functions." to accommodate for the fact that we might stop calling it staffchat and to add a requirement to be part of team conversation.

This would obviously still leave what level of responsiveness qualifies as "present" open, but we're never going to be able to settle on a firm definition of that that works for all users all the time. It would just have to remain up to the interpretation of current staff culture - which ultimately every interpretation of these policies is.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

divinephobia 06 Jul 2023 02:44

Thanks for the response, I do appreciate the clarification given :)

I see what you mean. Age verification was just the first thing that came to mind when I read that, so I wanted to inquire, but it does make sense that it'd obviously be a separate thing. Thanks again.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

LORDXVNV 05 Jul 2023 17:09

1 is fine. There is the possibility, however unlikely it may seem, that the membership criteria for the main SCP Wiki will drop below being 18 years old. I think futureproofing is a good idea, and also I don't think the SCP Wiki has enough justification on any grounds for extracting volunteer labor from minors.

2 is fine. The barrier to entry to the wiki is low enough that it's reasonable to expect staff to meet it. Someone pointed out in the previous thread it takes 10 minutes on the user end to actually join the wiki. My arguments for requiring that staff actually join the wiki are largely the same as for having a passcode at all — if the passcode is enough to keep you from being able to join the wiki…

3 could use a wording tweak to specify "the primary staff website of the SCP Wiki." I also think if there are tweaks to point 4 to explicate it, it's valuable to make it clear that a standard expectation of being staff is that you are on the staff discussion forum.

It was clarified in chat that 4 is meant in spirit to be "be present in staff chat spaces". I think that needs to be explicit — "Be present in whatever the currently-agreed-upon medium for primary 'Staffchat' is".

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

torcsandantlers 05 Jul 2023 18:44

Pretty much agreed on all points. See response to Prime for how I incorporated these.

Last edited on 11 Jul 2023 14:47 by torcsandantlers Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

FlyPurgatorio 06 Jul 2023 00:17

Most of my points are already brought up, apart from one specific question about point 4: your clarification refers to 'staff spaces', but would it also include specific timeframes? Within 3-5 days unless stated otherwise, for example?

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

torcsandantlers 09 Jul 2023 23:22

I don't think we could really include specific timeframes and have them work. Right now we have some teams where responses are expected in a matter of hours, but others where the conversation could start and stop over a week. These are shaped by the cultures of the team and the culture of staff as a whole. This would be nightmarish to try to write some sort of comprehensive coverage of.

I think leaving "be present" open to staff/captain interpretation is the easiest and cleanest answer here. If staff as a whole start thinking that responses should be faster, then we'll let the culture drift that way. The same as if it's slower.

But if I'm wrong, then we can always add requirements for the timeliness of responses at a later date. I just don't want to force us into a straight-jacket if we don't have to.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

Mooagain 06 Jul 2023 03:21

Having one of the eligibility requirements include the phrase "If eligible" caused me to have to reread it twice. I'm also confused by the way one of these requirements specifies that it's relevant as long as they are serving as staff while the others do not. It was already stated they have to meet all of these requirements to serve as staff, I'd change requirement three to "Be a member of the staff site of the SCP Wiki." and nothing more.

In terms of the previously mentioned ambiguity around what the staff site is, I suggest a footnote with a link when it mentions the main site and the staff site so the policy itself is future proofed, but still clear in what it refers to.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

torcsandantlers 11 Jul 2023 13:52

A footnote is a workable solution, but I don't know how much it adds over "primary staff website"

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

Ethagon 07 Jul 2023 10:02

I think having the "If eligible" on Point 3 makes sense. The fact that it's a soft requirement also works better for my concern in the last discussion that sometimes joining O5command just slips through.

Otherwise echoing what everyone else said about Point 4.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Staff Eligibility Requirements Part II

torcsandantlers 11 Jul 2023 13:49

Yeah, on Point 3 - I also see that utility. But I also don't see that it's necessary. Right now consensus is against having "if eligible", so we'll likely remove it for discussion part III

page 1 of 212next »