 |
Proposal Archive
The following proposal has been discussed and is now marked as resolved. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page.
Date Resolved: October 1, 2021
|
|---|
Instructions
This is a page for creating and resolving concerns on the topic: "Communication policy (revision 8)." At the end of the page, there is a "Create New Concern" button, which you can use to voice your concerns or questions about the proposal. You can use the "Refresh This Discussion" button, which allows you to make sure that all changes have been saved. After 7 days of discussion, the concerns stage will end. All points brought up during that phase will be taken into account and an administrator, assistant, or the proposal's creator can move the discussion to voting, modifying the original proposal with any changes discussed by the community. You can also add your comments to existing concerns. On the other hand, if you have no concerns, then you just wait for the voting stage. Have a happy discussion!
Proposal
I have noticed a couple of things within the which I perceive to be overly lenient and/or convoluted to enforce to the point where it is practically never enforced at all, and as a result there are no consequences for violating the rule. The policy changes which I am proposing are outlined below:
30 15 off topic posts may be created on discussions per day. A day is defined by the time period from each midnight using coordinated universal time (UTC). as the 24 hour period preceding the current time. This restriction does not include games threads. Posts which exceed that limit will be removed, and the user who created the thread will be warned or blocked in line with the .
Off-topic conversations
Off-topic discussions are allowed, but must be kept on the off-topic discussions category. Administrators and discussions moderators reserve the right to remove discussion they deem unnecessary. No more thanAdmin responses
If an administrator requests a response from a user regarding an issue, that user must respond to them. If the user makes a combined total of more than ten (10) one (1) or more edits or posts and twenty-four (24) hours have passed since the time of the administrator's message without the user responding, this will be considered ignoring the user in question will be considered to have ignored the message and they user may be warned and/or blocked at the discretion of the relevant administrator, depending on the nature of the issue.
Drama
Please do not discuss another wiki's issues on this wiki. Those issues belong on the associated wiki, not on ESB. Other wiki issues can be discussed on Community Central with the appropriate users.
You can also notIt is also not permitted to forbid someone to message from messaging you on your message wall. It is any user's right to message another user and attempting to stop this will be is considered to be considered unnecessary drama creation. Likewise, it is forbidden to have "invite only" threads or blogs, with a blanket ban on contributions from most users. This is a public site and users are free to contribute in any thread or blog comments section that they wish.
Where sections have been omitted, I am not proposing any changes.
- Off-topic conversations: Firstly, there are never more than 30 off-topic posts posted in one day, yet there still seem to be far too many, and I don't think I have ever seen the rule be enforced or seen reason for it to be enforced. Tightening the number of off-topic posts that can actually exist, as well as lumping irrelevant games threads into there and improving the way that a day is defined, should help to reduce the problems associated with off-topic posts in discussions.
- Admin responses: The stipulation that 10 edits or posts must have been made before the admin can challenge the user for not replying cannot reasonably be explained when the requirement to give 24 hours to respond is also a stipulation. If a user has edited or made a post since the warning was issued, and a reasonable amount of time has been given for the user to respond, then it is perfectly fair that consequences should ensue for blatantly ignoring the notification behind which are valid concerns from an administrator. The leniency of 10 edits before anything more is done only means that they have 10 more edits in which to repeat their mistakes that led to an admin questioning them, and ultimately makes it extremely unlikely that it will ever be followed up if the user doesn't respond, due to the difficulty of monitoring adherence to the policy with the current definition.
- Drama: I have simply reworded it to remove references to second-person pronouns in as many cases as is reasonably feasible.
If you have a problem with any part of this, please leave a concern. The gamer 987654321 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Concerns
Created concern: The policy is strict enough as it is Preview • Modify • Comment I was never on board with the idea of limiting the number of off-topic posts (though I couldn't vote against it because I was inactive at the time, and if I propose for it to be lifted, it would've most surely be shot down), and 30 is already a small enough number. You might feel like it's still too many, because you're sick of the popularity of off-topic compared to other categories, but be mindful that this can pressure users a lot in what they want to say in discussions. Making sure adding your post doesn't go over 30 is hard enough, especially given timezones, and how a user might consider as "one day passed". Plus, the whole leniency in admin response is actually less strict compared to other parts of ESB Policy, and in any case I have never seen how it is counterproductive or otherwise harmful in any way. This is simply my point of view as someone who would be affected by these rules had they edited or made posts more often. Nathan Pirate (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Nathan Pirate I am proposing limiting the number of off-topic posts that can be posted in a given time further due to how, even with the current limit, the off-topic posts still make up such a large proportion of the posts on discussions, still to the point where it undermines discussion about SpongeBob SquarePants itself. It is hardly as though I am proposing that all off-topic posts be banned, the nuclear option that several other wikis have taken, as I am aware that many people can enjoy those types of posts. Regarding difficulties when it comes to time zones, one of the changes that I am proposing would address that, as it is much easier to look at how long ago an off-topic post was posted compared to looking at how many posts there have been since 00:00 UTC, particularly for users who live at a significant time offset to that time zone. Regarding the admin responses, as it currently stands there are practically no consequences for ignoring an administrator's message, even if it concerns blatantly harmful problems with edits. Considering that non-compliance with the rule would likely just result in the admin asking the user again to respond in the first instance, all the slight tightening of the rule will do is make sure that user's points of view can be properly explained to the administration and to ensure that users are aware of any mistakes that they make. The gamer 987654321 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Resolved concern: This is way too strict and unfair Preview • Modify • Comment There are several problems with your proposal, especially the off-topic conversations part. The reason why I made the proposal to be no more than 30 off-topic posts per day according to FANDOM's UTC in the first place was because 30 was a fair number of posts without being overly restrictive on users and so that the off-topic posts wouldn't clog up the Discussions (also, I like off-topic posts, as 1. We get to share other interests with each other, and 2. we can't only talk about SpongeBob all the time as that would get kind of boring), and the reason why FANDOM's Universal Time Clock (UTC) is used is for convenience for the users and staff since many of us live in different time zones, so the UTC is a common ground timeclock that is used globally. But what the worst part about your proposal is is including game threads in the off-topic conversations part. Games go in their own category, so they are not included as part of off-topic posts. Also, many games such as "Ban the picture above you" use off-topic images as well as SpongeBob-related ones, and I don't think it'd be as fun if we only used SpongeBob images in said games. I seriously hope you reconsider this proposal and realize that what you're proposing is too strict. -Arthur Read fan (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC) As I said in response to the first concern: "I am proposing limiting the number of off-topic posts that can be posted in a given time further due to how, even with the current limit, the off-topic posts still make up such a large proportion of the posts on discussions, still to the point where it undermines discussion about SpongeBob SquarePants itself. It is hardly as though I am proposing that all off-topic posts be banned, the nuclear option that several other wikis have taken, as I am aware that many people can enjoy those types of posts." Regarding your point about time zones, I can assure you that what I am proposing would be more useful than using the UTC clock. For every post in discussions it says how long ago it was posted – how many minutes, seconds, or, if it is more than 24 hours old, how many days. Time zones do not have to come into this at all. It does not matter if 4am on Tuesday for me is 10pm on Monday for you, the 24 hours will pass at exactly the same rate, no UTC time zone needed. I will accept your arguments about what I was proposing with games threads being too strict and unworkable, and I have changes my proposed policy changes back to the status quo for that sentence. The gamer 987654321 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Okay, this is much more workable. Thanks for the compromise. -Arthur Read fan (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Create New Concern • Refresh This Discussion • Monitor This Discussion