Alright. Recap: July 2012, Mann posted the following thread, which changed how we dealt with criticism: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-516551/criticism:a-change-in-policy
I'll quote for the lazy.
So, let's talk about criticism.
We've had some issues with that recently. Even Staff. The Staff have been talked to, but now I want to talk to you guys. We're… not changing the rules, but we're going to be enforcing the rules a bit differently, and you have a right to know what we're expecting from you. So here are some guidelines. I'm starting out general and working my way to specifics. Keep in mind that pretty much all of us have been guilty of some or all of these at some point or another. I'm not calling anyone out. This is just a clarification of what we want to see.
1. Don't be an asshole. This is the big one. You don't need to be nice, but don't go full out asshole. Don't tell someone they're an idiot, or their idea is worthless. If it's just a mediocre idea, don't start, well, flaming them. This isn't 4chan. The point is to deliver effective criticism, not to show how cleverly you can call someone a moron. That being said…
2. If you can't say something nice, say it anyway. If an article is pretty bad, you don't have to say nice things to make up for your criticisms. Again, the point is for your criticism to be effective, not to fluff someone's ego. If you can find good things to talk about (and most articles have at least something that was done right), it's great to let the author know, so you can help them build a good mental picture of what they need to work on. But you don't have to. If most of the article's bad, you don't need to search for something good to say.
3. You don't have to say anything! If you don't really want to do an in-depth critique on an article, you can let your downvote speak for itself. No one's paying any of us to correct other people's mistakes. We're all volunteers, and no one expects you to criticize every article that gets posted. If you have the time and inclination, that's wonderful, and we appreciate that you're taking the time to help make the site better. But you don't have to.
4. You don't need to post a lot. Sometimes, all you can say is an article didn't grab you. "I didn't care for it," or even just "Meh" are valid criticisms. Maybe you can't articulate exactly why it didn't grab you. That's fair. Not every article flies, and sometimes there's nothing outstandingly good or bad about the article.
5. When you do write criticism, make sure the criticism is helpful. Think about how this is going to be read by the author, and how it will help him avoid the mistake in the future. This encompasses a lot of rules. For example…
6. Criticize the article, not the author. Pretend the article just popped out of the aether, fully formed. Don't even think about the person who write it, except in an abstract sense. Talk about what is actually in the article that does or doesn't work, and go from there. Tell the author, "This needs work, the idea's fine except X, and you need to cut out the addenda." Don't say, "You're a terrible writer. Why did you post this?" EDIT: The exception to this rule is that you should feel free to compare the article to previous works by the author in line with identifying reoccurring issues and themes that may help them improve. However, you're still criticizing the works of the author, just as a whole rather than piecemeal.
7. Don't post things like, "The problems with this article should be obvious." If they were obvious to the author, he or she wouldn't have made them. If you say something like that, you may as well not have posted. All you've accomplished is to obliquely call the author an idiot for not having seen the flaws. Keep in mind that a lot of authors haven't been here long. They've read a fair number of articles, but they haven't been through all the failures. They haven't had a chance to see the mechanics of making an SCP article. What's obvious to you is probably not obvious to an outsider.
8. Now, if someone else has pointed out the problems? You can say "This is bad for the reasons so-and-so posted." You don't have to reinvent the wheel if you don't want to. If you just want to piggy-back on someone else, that's fine. You're giving more weight to their post with your agreement. You can also reiterate it if you want to approach it from a different tack. But don't feel you have to be silent just because someone's said what you want to say. Let your voice be heard.
9. Avoid saying "don't." You can say "I downvoted because you did X," or you can say "it was a bad idea to do X." If you say "don't do this" you're implying it's a rule (unless there is, in fact, a rule they're breaking). For example, "Don't post without using a sandbox." There's no rule saying someone has to use a sandbox. They probably should, certainly. But they don't have to.
10. Okay, so, some of you have been saving bad SCPs. I'm not going to tell you not to do it. This can be valuable from a learning standpoint, and hey, sometimes it's okay to laugh at a bad SCP. We all do it. But don't rub the author's face in the fact that you're keeping a copy of their mistakes around. That's just a dick move.11. Try to avoid just dogpiling on an article. If it's at -50 and dropping, and twenty people have already said it's terrible, you don't need to drop in just to let people know that you think it's terrible too. If you have real criticism for it, that's fine. But you don't need to talk just to make yourself heard.
Now, another fairly minor issue is understanding what Senior Staff are and what they do. I don't think this is a huge one, but let's clarify.
Senior Staff (that is, those listed in the Guide to Newbies as Senior Staff) are not moderators. They cannot tell you what you can and cannot do. If Senior Staff tells you you're wrong, you don't have to change whatever it is you've done. That being said, they're Senior Staff because we respect their opinions. If a Staff member says, "Hey, you're being a douche," you should at least pause and ask yourself, "Was that douchey? Was I, in fact, being a douche?" If on reflection, you feel you weren't, you can argue so. The arbiters for the rules are the moderators and admins. Senior Staff are trusted members. Their purpose is to help guide you. They give advice. Especially on articles, but in general as well. But they don't enforce anything. Do you see the difference?
So, that's what we expect from you guys, and a bit more guidance on what you can expect from us. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to make the site work.
Now, some of us have talked about this in light of recent events, and agreed that it merited further discussion. ("Some of us" includes administration too, including Mann - don't worry, I'm not a moderator going off the reservation. :P) Notably:
- It needs to be part of the required reading if we're gonna expect people to follow it.
- It needs to be shorter and more readable if it's gonna be part of the required reading.
- We ought to have discussion about this - especially from administrators (I'm going to be sending out a PM to all administrators about this shortly; my fellow moderators, you'll just have to be reading O5!) - about how we think this policy has been working and any changes that could or should be made to it.