UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Recruitment

This was discussion about the policy before Whitehouse changed it. The old policy can be found here.

Yeah, so because of all the talk over at arbitration, the back and forwards discussion going nowhere, and no one being willing to write a policy, I decided I'd write a draft and put it up here. Please help make this a workable policy so we can avoid the tedious amounts of drama that the Recruitment page is currently causing. - User:Whitehouse 16:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

God I'm Tired. So using an example. BSLS/Recruit been up for a while. What changes to existing guidelines are being proposed? Would example template (If timestamped) be acceptable? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Apart from lacking the category for group subpages, that ad would be fine while timestamped. There are not that many changes that would affect the ads currently on the page. What this attempts to do is make all the current rules plus a few minor changes into a policy. Apparently as it currently stands, we have no way of changing the rules unless everyone agrees to it. Once it becomes a policy, changing rules will become the will of the majority, and wont be hindered by just a few people stubbornly refusing to cooperate (although I hope we wont have to make changes for a long time). One of the changes to the current rules is that alliances (this is where the trouble started) can have their member groups recruit separately, instead of being limited to one single ad. Another change which I feel somewhat unsure about is that I have not included the rules for editing out via <!--/--> instead of just removing ads entirely. Editing out has always felt somewhat pointless as it leaves a link to the groups page, allowing them to semi advertise even though their ad didn't follow the rules. - User:Whitehouse 17:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've explained a few time now -- this isn't official policy material. We don't need a policy for a non-Admin page like Recruitment. We just need some fucking common sense, is all. On top of that..... TL;DNR. --WanYao 17:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We have policies for historical groups and historical events, why not Recruitment too if it's causing such a problem. - User:Whitehouse 17:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your plan will add a whack of red tape and complication to what really out to be a simple process, making change a lot harder -- not easier. Instead, you should write a concise version of the organisation/alliance rule... Post it to Talk: Recruitment for discussion... NOT make a policy on a non-policy issue.

Frankly, I am of the opinion that the page is useless spam, anyway, and I think the whole thing should just be deleted. --WanYao 17:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, please refer to this edit. WanYao 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

How does this further complicate an issue which currently can not be resolved because one or two users refuse to agree? All this will do is enforce that the majority decides. And do you have a definition we can refer to for what is and is not a policy issue? - User:Whitehouse 18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Suggestions vs Vandal Banning should be all the example you need. Recruitment is closer to Talk:Suggestions than Vandal Banning, it's meant to be a player resource not another route for banning people for not following it's rules. If you don't intend it to be referable to A/VB it shouldn't be a policy.--Karek^maps?! 18:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What karek said. And then some! :) --WanYao 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of things that need addressing;

• The organizational alteration that places the advertisements in alphabetical order is counter intuitive and probably not the best idea for the page. Separating advertisements by group type first and alphabetical last makes more sense but, shouldn't be subject to a policy in and of itself. It's something that may need to be semi-annually altered as the need arises or better means appear. Cementing it in policy makes it that much more difficult to fix as necessary.
• Drop the advertisement size limits. They're extremely restrictive and don't actually serve any real valid purpose other than to try and prevent inclusion limit breaking. That can be managed by other means, possibly even by placing the advertisements on the page itself like they were originally.
• Completely remove the 600 pixel limit and any reference to a similar limit. It has absolutely no purpose that proper maintenance of the page wouldn't itself provide.
• Drop the headlines rule. Again it is an issue of page maintenance, doesn't need to be worded in a policy if someone is making sure the page works right, we don't expressly prohibit errant spaces in danger reports but we do remove them because they break formatting. It's unnecessary.
• Alter date removal for groups, the current way it is enforced is overly constant and, quite frankly, a hassle that makes the page not worth bothering with. Groups on the stats page shouldn't need to re-verify that they are active every 14 days, you already know the answer to that. Groups that aren't on the stats page, however. . .
• Remove the Maintenance section. If you feel the need to outline who maintenance should be done on the page replace it with a simple paragraph in the manner of the following;

said:

Any advertisements that do not meet then minimum standard of requirements outlined on this page above can be removed by any user at any time so long as due notice is provided to the group in question and the user who placed the advertisement if so possible. To not give fair notice of removal or need for alteration is vandalism and should be reported to A/VB.

That's just a few points I feel are necessary. The advertisements should encourage cleverness on the part of the advertiser and should be largely free of limits beyond those absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the page.--Karek^maps?! 18:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Karek has a point. It would be a TREMENDOUS hassle to re-timestamp every 2 weeks.--Brian Eetar ^DTD|CFT|GMG 20:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also agreeing with Karek here, a lot of the stuff outlined in the proposal seems either arbitrarily restrictive or common sense. I haven't been around long enough to know but it seems like the only thing here desperately needed to be set in stone is whether members of alliances can advertise as individual groups. I am wondering, though, why is it that the ads shouldn't use templates? --aClashInRedSnow 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Timestamps have to be kept-it's the only way that we can tell a group is active, and recruiting. It's to prevent the page from getting clogged with old groups. Quite frankly, if you can't spend a minute typing five tides onto a page every two weeks (and where is the hassle in that?,) then you shouldn't have an ad.

I also don't like Karek's idea of dragging a user to A/VB for helping maintain the page. Maybe with due warning, but there are very few page maintainers anyway, and that could scare off newer ones. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've had time to do some thinking. And while I could improve all those areas that Karek has suggested, I think there might be a better idea. Instead of outlining a set of rules for what goes on at the Recruitment page, I was thinking this policy could outline simply rules for how to change rules. Basically the policy would enforce the right to call for and start a vote (vote could take place on the Recruitment talk page) for changes. That would not restrict rule changes to voting on a policy, it would leave everything as it is now, but it would set clear guidelines for how to decide upon suitable rules and change them. Does anyone think that would be a better direction to go in? - User:Whitehouse 23:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Category:Suggestions has a system like that at the moment, so that policies don't have to go through here every time someone wants to change a word. Perhaps use a subpage of Talk:Recruitment to vote? Linkthewindow  Talk  00:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a new idea actually, it's just an addition of what is considered good faith practice in altering such a page. Deleting it without notice is something that can very easily still be ruled vandalism now if less than amiable behavior towards the group can be shown. It's more to let the people editing the page know what is expected of them than to punish them.--Karek^maps?! 08:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. If this passes (in it's current form,) then I'll make a "Notice of impending removal" template-given at half a week's notice (to do with timestamps,) or "Removed-please fix the formatting," template. I still don't completly agree-if newbies are warned first then given a formal warning, then I'll agree. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So.. which way do we want to take this? As a set of rules for the page, or as set of rules for deciding upon rules? - User:Whitehouse 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, I'll rather the latter. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Because anyone can edit it, you do need guidelines. However, it's a lot to read, and no one likes there ads removed because they've miscounted pixels. Rather than increase the amount to read on the page, why doesn't someone write a guide to creating a recruitment ad? Come on link you know you want to! It can be linked to the page. Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I will once this policy passes (or doesn't pass.) I do agree that we need guidelines, but just not too restrictive-for both page maintainers and people adding adverts. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

said:

it's the only way that we can tell a group is active

If it gets over crowded we can just make another great massacre--Brian Eetar ^DTD|CFT|GMG 17:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

New draft

Right, since it seems awkward to try and decide all the rules here at once, I've changed the policy to simply allow user to vote on changes that they feel should be implemented. This will allow for votes locally on a sub-page of the recruitment page. Again, please help make this workable, I based most of this off the guidelines for voting on policies in place for Category:Suggestions. If people feel we should go back to the previous version then say so, but I'd rather use the current version. - User:Whitehouse 19:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking good :). Just a minor thing that you missed-people can't be allowed to edit a motion once voting has started, for obvious reasons. I would also rather more discussion time (two days is awfully short,) and an Abstain vote option, but they are well, totally optional (and this policy would work without them.) Linkthewindow  Talk  23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Restricted editing to during the discussion time. Time was extended to 4 days, although it might be better to set an unlimited discussion time with a minimum of X days. Abstain option added. - User:Whitehouse 00:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, an unlimited discussion time would be a lot better, but with a minimum time (a week would be best, TBH.) Linkthewindow  Talk  03:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

graaaagh! We don't need this. We especially don't need to set up a policy to set up votes on guidelines for community pages. For chrissake, you want more red tape??? A little while ago, karek compared Recruitment to Talk:Suggestions -- not to the voting on actually suggestions. And on Talk:Suggestions, the guidelines needed fixing... so we talked about it for a bit... then we just did it. All that's needed is some common sense, and for people not to be asshats. Simple. PLEASE stop overcomplicating this! --WanYao 02:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this annoys you WanYao, I would have been happy to see this done locally on the Recruitment page, but after three months and a change that was requested has yet to be agreed on, I feel that common sense failed. Changes for Suggestions seem to be based on voting guidelines, seems like a logical solution for Recruitment. Yes those voting guidelines would seem to have been made via agreement and not policy, but as I said, I would have been happy to see something like this worked out on the Recruitment page, but I really don't see it working if people couldn't agree on one single rule change. - User:Whitehouse 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not that this "annoys" me: it's that it's using a tommy gun to kill a mosquito. Fact is that the problems on Recruitment aren't the result of a lack of community consensus -- in fact, a community consensus seems to exist. The problem is that one user is resisting that consensus. The solution is that someone has to rewrites the rules to fit the community consensus, and if that one user tries to change it contrary to the consensus, then it needs to go to Arbitration. It's like 'dat...

So aomeone has to just write a new version of the Organisation/Alliance rule... one that's acceptable to most of the community...THAT is where the effort needs to be put, not on implementing an overkill voting policy. --WanYao 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This policy is vague, inaccurate and more open to meat puppetry than any other voting proposal than any other process on the wiki. Unfortunately this is where it's going to have to end up, in policy, as Kristi cannot accept anything other than her "DEM is always right" view. Stuff like this is going to politicise the recruitment page, something I was desperately trying to avoid. This draft is certainly better than the last but does nothing to address the fundamental flaws with the page and will lead to those maintaining it being driven off by meat puppeteering figures trying to demonise them. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)