UDWiki:Open Discussion/Implementation of UDWiki Discord rules: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "==Background and Intent== This is an unusual Open Discussion seeing as it's a meta-wiki issue, but we've had some problems in the past 24 hours on the Urban Dead Wiki Discord...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Background | ==Background== | ||
This is an unusual Open Discussion seeing as it's a meta-wiki issue, but we've had some problems in the past 24 hours on the Urban Dead Wiki Discord channel. | This is an unusual Open Discussion seeing as it's a meta-wiki issue, but we've had some problems in the past 24 hours on the Urban Dead Wiki Discord channel. | ||
Revision as of 11:34, 16 August 2018
Background
This is an unusual Open Discussion seeing as it's a meta-wiki issue, but we've had some problems in the past 24 hours on the Urban Dead Wiki Discord channel.
Drama caused by an UDWiki-permabanned trouble user coming to Discord has caused a problem with what the community expects of a sysop's responsibilities on Discord. Because the user wasn't banned once the conversation went downhill, users engaged in hostile discussion and eventually sabotaged the discord channel with inane discussion and @everyone spam. As it stands, the following discord (lol) caused more ruckus than Corn's initial arrival. If 'chat disruption' was a banworthy offence, many rightfully angry people would be banned right now.
I understand why the community was frustrated, while also understanding why the sysop team didn't feel able to satisfactorily resolve the issue as it unfolded. On one hand, the community expects fair and decent decision to be meted out efficiently. But on the other hand, sysops don't usually make up rules on the fly. They interpret rules that are decided upon by the community.
Well, I think this is a good chance for us all to discuss whether we should make some ground rules for Discord that the sysops feel more comfortable enforcing. They need to be fair, quickly enforceable, and hopefully not require a drastic increase in oversight. I think it needs to reflect the principles of the wiki, ie. no civility policy. But focus more on avoiding derailment of discussion that temporarily ruins the Discord channel for its regular uses.
Things I think we should avoid is a system as onerous on discussion as UDWiki's vandal system. It needs to be something sysops can quickly act on.
For other users of Discord channels with functioning rules systems, please share them. I'm familiar with IRC systems, not so much Discord, as it stands. Any examples are helpful.
And if anyone wants to discuss the actual drama that unfolded in the past two days, please hash it out on the talk page if necessary. Bring it up if relevant here, but let's focus on the rules at hand please. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 11:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
General Discussion and Thoughts
Other thoughts I had were- Having model non-sysop users given ops on the channel for coverage might be good. We have an opportunity here to avoid red tape associated with the wiki and do things that work for Discord that don't work on the wiki. I'm cool with keeping this chill and not policy-dictated. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 11:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
