FANDOM


  • I honestly thing our jobs as Chat Moderators are pointless if no one's using the chat in the first place. Also, I agree that Facebook Messenger is a strange choice even though it is still relatively active. We should push for the use of Discord. Also, the council system you brought up too. I'm for it, I guess...

      Loading editor
    • Awesome, a 3 for 1 deal on things I want. A Discord, Councils, and someone that agrees with me. What more could I want for Christmas? XD

      Councils would be best dealt with first.

      The biggest issue I see with creating councils using YS Wiki's as an example is the amount of ranks. The YS Wiki has more ranks than most wikis.

      All the ranks include; Bureaucrat, Admin, Mini-Admin, Content Mod, Discussion Mod, Rollback, Chat Mod, Helper, and Intern. And each rank (except Intern) has a "Head" that the other rank members pick.

      I happen to have an illustration on how this looks in practice, can't fully remember why I made it though.
      YSWGov
        Loading editor
    • Jackboog21 wrote: The biggest issue I see with creating councils using YS Wiki's as an example is the amount of ranks. The YS Wiki has more ranks than most wikis.

      All the ranks include; Bureaucrat, Admin, Mini-Admin, Content Mod, Discussion Mod, Rollback, Chat Mod, Helper, and Intern. And each rank (except Intern) has a "Head" that the other rank members pick.

      I happen to have an illustration on how this looks in practice, can't fully remember why I made it though.
      YSWGov

      Right. I feel like this has to be stripped a bit to be appropriate for this Wiki. I do like the idea of more organization of the staff, and checks and balances as to avoid conflicts between the staff and the users. How will this Council deal with these, and the pros and cons?

        Loading editor
    • Well, I don't see a reason more ranks couldn't be created.

      As for how the checks and balances work. The COA meets once a month for a long meeting (anywhere from 1 to 2ish weeks). Each COA member is allowed to vote, and only the Head Bureaucrat has any unique abilities within the council.

      The Head Bureaucrat is responsible for hosting the meeting and can propose policies to the COA, but that's pretty much it. It still needs a majority to become official.

      Some pros:

      • More comprehensive policies.
      • More staff agreement.
      • No-one has all the power.
      • The system is very flexible, as a vote can expand or retract what the councils have the authority to do.

      Some cons:

      • A bit of a delay for new policy.
      • Lots of debating (I personally see this more as "Neutral")

      As for staff and users. That's where the COTP comes in. Their job is to talk with the users and get feedback. They then take the feedback, create policies, and these policies go directly to the COA to be voted on in the following meeting.

        Loading editor
    • Jackboog21 wrote: Well, I don't see a reason more ranks couldn't be created.

      As for how the checks and balances work. The COA meets once a month for a long meeting (anywhere from 1 to 2ish weeks). Each COA member is allowed to vote, and only the Head Bureaucrat has any unique abilities within the council.

      The Head Bureaucrat is responsible for hosting the meeting and can propose policies to the COA, but that's pretty much it. It still needs a majority to become official.

      Some pros:

      • More comprehensive policies.
      • More staff agreement.
      • No-one has all the power.
      • The system is very flexible, as a vote can expand or retract what the councils have the authority to do.

      Some cons:

      • A bit of a delay for new policy.
      • Lots of debating (I personally see this more as "Neutral")

      As for staff and users. That's where the COTP comes in. Their job is to talk with the users and get feedback. They then take the feedback, create policies, and these policies go directly to the COA to be voted on in the following meeting.

      I think that's... quite a bit too intricate for this Wiki. It's really up to the staff here if we could implement a smaller version here, and if they might be willing to appoint new members for this, I guess... It would be a big overhaul. But I'm down to push it with you if we could discuss it with them.

        Loading editor
    • The system looks far more intimidating and complicated than it actually is in action. Here's some useful pages that can tell you all you need to actually know about how the system works. Some things would need changing, yeah, but I think about 90% of it could be ported directly over.

      This page details about 99% of the council system on the YS wiki. https://yandere-simulator.wikia.com/wiki/Yandere_Simulator_Wiki:Councils

      This page details info about the additional ranks. https://yandere-simulator.wikia.com/wiki/Yandere_Simulator_Wiki:Staff

      And here's the last COA meeting. https://yandere-simulator.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:284826

      As you can see, while it looks complicated, the meetings are actually quite simple. In my opinion, if staff can't handle something like this then that's a problem that should also be looked into.

        Loading editor
    • JohnJD1302 wrote:
      I honestly thing our jobs as Chat Moderators are pointless if no one's using the chat in the first place. Also, I agree that Facebook Messenger is a strange choice even though it is still relatively active. We should push for the use of Discord. Also, the council system you brought up too. I'm for it, I guess...

      We used to have a Discord channel but no one uses it anymore. However, I think a Discord channel would be better because people don't have to reveal their face and their personal information.

        Loading editor
    • Also, part of the reason why a Discord server would be better is because it's possible to make multiple different hashtag sections on the server for different types of conversation. For example, a Just Dance related section, an off-topic related section, and a wiki-related section. This is what we do on the Pokémon Wiki discord, where we also have different channels for the anime, games, and fan art and our wiki Discord chat is 12450192341290% more calm, peaceful, and undramatic than this wiki's Facebook group chat (for example, not allowing humor or entertainment to be used as an excuse for raiding, stirring trouble, and violations of policies against me or others, and there is never any hypocrisy or argument on the Pokémon Wiki discord chat regarding how rules are enforced)*. One of the reasons the Facebook group chat is unorganized is because 90% of it is off-topic, cluttered with the remaining 10% that is on-topic as far as discussing Just Dance and this wiki goes. That's why not too many people are active on it nor care about what's discussed there almost 24/7. We can also use the wiki discussion section as a replacement for the group's page on Facebook. Switching to Discord will also allow people to search for posts in the past more easily in the search bar assuming they haven't been manually deleted rather than having to scroll up.

      As for restricting the community to people who have an account on this wiki (if it's even needed for the entirety of the server, which even I'm quite doubtful of), we can restrict certain hashtag sections (primarily the wiki discussion one) to people with a wiki editor right that they can request from moderators.

        Loading editor
    • I've created a draft for a new Staff page that includes new ranks and a draft for a councils page.

      Nothing was added between these versions and the Yandere Sim Wiki versions, but several things were removed. Most of what was removed I think should be implemented post-council creation by way of council votes.

        Loading editor
    • Should I take this lack of commenting as my drafts are good enough to put to vote?

        Loading editor
    • i mean it really doesnt make sense to put this through to a community vote; admin vote will suffice here

        Loading editor
    • If this'll pass by an admin vote, I'm game. An admin vote would be faster.

      If it doesn't pass, a community vote could still be done. So I guess no harm.

        Loading editor
    • it doesn't work like that lmao; in the event that a proposal fails because of the admins, why would the admins let something they wouldn't want to pass move into a scenario where it could pass i mean that doesnt make any sense kfskskgskgksg

        Loading editor
    • So correct me if I'm wrong. So we currently live in an oligarchy then? The people aren't allowed to have any say?

      Personally, I'm more in favor of this going to community vote. Staff are unchecked, and this fixes that.

        Loading editor
    • Jackboog21 wrote:
      So correct me if I'm wrong. So we currently live in an oligarchy then? The people aren't allowed to have any say?

      When it comes to important decisions like this, yea. You're making us sound like a dictatorship when really there are some decisions that need to be kept to just the higher-ups, and some decisions that can be left for the community to agree upon. It's all about context.

        Loading editor
    • I'm all for staff making decisions, that's literally what the Council of Administration is for. However; if staff were to refuse this system there's 2 possible reasons.

      They think there's an issue with it. Or they don't want checks and balances. And there's no way of truly knowing which.

      If it were to pass by staff, there's no ill reason staff would want it.

      So if it failed by staff, the community should instead decide how they are governed.

        Loading editor
    • Master Hydraffe wrote:
      Jackboog21 wrote:
      So correct me if I'm wrong. So we currently live in an oligarchy then? The people aren't allowed to have any say?
      When it comes to important decisions like this, yea. You're making us sound like a dictatorship when really there are some decisions that need to be kept to just the higher-ups, and some decisions that can be left for the community to agree upon. It's all about context.

      I don't know if I can keep up with such a difficult ruling scheme, but I'd be interested in hearing the community's opinion on it.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly I am completely fine with the status quo. This system is unnecessarily complicated (like, why is there a need for a mini-admin, why is there a need for interns on stand every time). I mean the idea of interns was already used during the previous admin nomination cycle when we had probation admins, and I thought that was an alright idea. However, this system has too many roles and I am against giving powers to every person that would gain a staff position based on this system. I would only give powers to staff members who fall under the usual six roles (i.e. bureaucrat, admin, content/chat/discussions mod, rollback) and to the probation admins.

        Loading editor
    • What I think we do need is more active admins that are able to be present for important discussions. There has been a terrible lack of communication for a long period now.

        Loading editor
    • The status quo has shown many problems. The biggest being no checks and balances. And, honestly, this is not that complicated. COA meets once a month to decide thing. COTP meets 3 times a month, once for community feedback, then to use the feedback, and then to pick the next Intern.

      Mini-Admins exist to merge the powers of a Content Mod and Discussion Mod, before someone should become admin.

      Meanwhile, Helpers are a rank that's treated as more of a "training" rank. They are put on the COTP because, in concept, they are closer to a regular. Being on the COTP also gets them familiar with the system and can show users and higher staff if they aren't cut out for it.

      The Intern exists for 2 reasons. It's to honor a normal user (sort of like an "User of the Month"), and provides a solution to ties on the COTP.

      And what you say about more active admins for discussions. That is literally solved by this system.

      I did cut a part about "Global Staff Meetings" that's meant to keep track of active staff and results in inactive staff being demoted if they don't attend for 2 months. It can be added back easily.

      Here's a proposal; A trial period.

      Over on the YS Wiki, I basically had 100% of the power and could of done whatever I want. Instead, I decided to consult to next 2 highest ranked staff, the Content Mod and Discussion Mod. We debated for over a week and came to this system.

      But, they insisted on a "trial period" and I proposed the COA could vote on it's own fate after 3 months. We all agreed on this, and when the 3rd COA meeting occurred, we voted. The system stayed, having shown it works and is very flexible.

      We could do the same thing here, a required COA vote would have to take place after a certain amount of time on whether or not to keep the system.

        Loading editor
    • TheChibiKing wrote:

      Master Hydraffe wrote:
      Jackboog21 wrote:
      So correct me if I'm wrong. So we currently live in an oligarchy then? The people aren't allowed to have any say?
      When it comes to important decisions like this, yea. You're making us sound like a dictatorship when really there are some decisions that need to be kept to just the higher-ups, and some decisions that can be left for the community to agree upon. It's all about context.

      I don't know if I can keep up with such a difficult ruling scheme, but I'd be interested in hearing the community's opinion on it.

      My exact thinking too. I need to read this over again to really understand it fully, but I don’t think it hurts in any way to see what the community thinks of it.

      If I’m gonna be 100% honest though I’m not sure if the wikia’s users are really mature enough for something like this to work/even be necessary. The truth is we still have a lot of (or least a few vocal) immature users that I’m not sure could even comprehend an advanced council system like this, let alone use it correctly. That being said there IS a mature group on this wikia and those people deserve to have a system that works for them.

      The other thing of course that I recognize is that a large weakeness of the status quo is that many admins are not active/hard to communicate with, and I know I’m a part of that problem. Discord may be a solution to that, but I’m not really familiar with the platform so I’d have to learn more. For me at least, I will attempt to be more active and respond quicker to administrate issues.

        Loading editor
    • Some more thoughts after reading over this: I agree that admins have no check. I think a large part on why it's been so difficult to give the community a say is the aforementioned immature users. I think if we really wanted to give the community a bigger say we would need to crack down more on immature users. I've felt for a long time that we are just too lenient on these users and I feel we need to be stricter, but I don't really know how to set a line/rule because immaturity is in some ways subjective. I think a stripped down version of this may work (I still don't think we need whole new positions, promotions would be better) but there is a lot of work to be done. We really need a platform where ALL ACTIVE STAFF can talk.

        Loading editor
    • Bunnylove14 wrote:
      Some more thoughts after reading over this: I agree that admins have no check. I think a large part on why it's been so difficult to give the community a say is the aforementioned immature users. I think if we really wanted to give the community a bigger say we would need to crack down more on immature users. I've felt for a long time that we are just too lenient on these users and I feel we need to be stricter, but I don't really know how to set a line/rule because immaturity is in some ways subjective. I think a stripped down version of this may work (I still don't think we need whole new positions, promotions would be better) but there is a lot of work to be done. We really need a platform where ALL ACTIVE STAFF can talk.

      Say, would it make us look too authoritative if we were to judge others based on maturity? A fine idea in theory, but like you said, maturity is subjective. Furthermore, many of the users here are under the age of sixteen, so observing maturity would be a tricky task considering the bulk of this wiki's user-base.

        Loading editor
    • Kittygirl7878 wrote:
      Bunnylove14 wrote:
      Some more thoughts after reading over this: I agree that admins have no check. I think a large part on why it's been so difficult to give the community a say is the aforementioned immature users. I think if we really wanted to give the community a bigger say we would need to crack down more on immature users. I've felt for a long time that we are just too lenient on these users and I feel we need to be stricter, but I don't really know how to set a line/rule because immaturity is in some ways subjective. I think a stripped down version of this may work (I still don't think we need whole new positions, promotions would be better) but there is a lot of work to be done. We really need a platform where ALL ACTIVE STAFF can talk.
      Say, would it make us look too authoritative if we were to judge others based on maturity? A fine idea in theory, but like you said, maturity is subjective. Furthermore, many of the users here are under the age of sixteen, so observing maturity would be a tricky task considering the bulk of this wiki's user-base.

      Exactly what I was thinking. I definitely don't want to be authoritarian, and considering the subjectivity about it I highly doubt there's any realistic way to be objective about it/enforce it.

        Loading editor
    • The system does sorta deal with immature users and giving a voice. The COTP's job is to take feedback from users, craft policy, and then send it to the COA.

      If the policy is passed and is ludicrous, well, shame on the COTP for even proposing it. But a bigger shame on the COA for passing it into law.

      As for the ranks, look at it this way. When someone becomes admin+, they've already gained a lot of experience being staff by going through the ranks.

      They start as Helper, get promoted to Chat Mod/Rollback, then to Content Mod/Discussion Mod, then to Mini-Admin. When they finally become Admin, they should know what their job entails and how to do it.

      The extra ranks helps prevent inexperienced staff. And if we also add the "Global Staff Meetings" and "2 missed meetings in a row, and you're demoted", we'd also have active staff on top of that.

        Loading editor
    • The Yandere Sim's Council of Administration has just started it's monthly meeting.

      Seeing a meeting happen live might be informative. https://yandere-simulator.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:289041

      I'll also link to the COTP's upcoming meeting when it goes live, but currently waiting on the Head Helper to start it.

      Edit: COTP's meeting started. https://yandere-simulator.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:289095

        Loading editor
    • ok not to be an ass, but why are you always only active when it is to talk about staff positions and the faults of it

        Loading editor
    • What the heck? Either you deliberately chose to ignore my contributions page or you decided to make up a straight up lie. I've been active for more than a year, and I've actually never NOT been active.

      And are you suggesting people shouldn't criticize and point out flaws relating to staff? The current conversation is focused around issues even some of the admins are agreeing exist. It's healthy for the community.

        Loading editor
    • Over the last year or so that I've seen you active on here, it is always you either complaining about the wiki's staff positions (specifically admins), or just complaining about the JD community as a whole (see: the fall-out between you, MegaTino and JDisbae).

      There's nothing wrong with having an opinion regarding the admins on this wiki, but when it comes to discussions, the only thing I've almost ever seen you talk about is the state of the wiki and how it can change. Didn't you also get upset about not getting voted in as an admin, despite not being active enough?

      It's like you only come onto the wiki to pitch an idea that benefits you, and when it backfires, you end up leaving for another period of time. Sorry, but that's how I view things.

        Loading editor
    • Tino and I had a falling out years ago. The argument you saw was over copyright. It has nothing to do with the community.

      And sure, I wasn't excited I wasn't made admin, who would be? But I wouldn't say "upset". What I would say I was upset about is how broken the system was. And I helped do some voting reform afterwards. The older rules silenced many user's votes and was very unfair to the users. I don't see how not wanting people silenced is me upset I lost.

      And I don't fully see how the Councils quite benefit me in any way it doesn't benefit everyone. How does making a council benefit me specifically? Heck, if this system were to pass, it'd be HARDER for me to be admin. I would have to climb the ranks, the current system would just need me to win a vote only.

      Lastly, I've NEVER left this wiki. I don't edit daily, but I rarely see anything needing editing. I can't do my Chat Mod job because Live! Chat is dead and has not been replaced with something like Discord. But I still keep an eye on the wiki everyday, even with a 24/7 tab of WikiActivity.

      Compared to everything else you said, this part did upset me. Many times I have written blogs I never posted detailing how important this wiki was for me when I joined. If it wasn't for this wiki, I don't know where I'd be emotionally. I don't want to go into a lot of detail, but I think you can get the general idea of what I'm saying.

      The reason I criticize staff or propose ideas is because I want the best for the wiki, not because of some childish personal fulfillment to be admin. Maybe one day I'll be admin, maybe I won't. Being admin would be nice, but it's not required to make change. All that is required is the will to speak up.

      I'm sorry if this is long (especially the ending part). I'm used to some wikis where if you don't counter EVERY personal argument in a debate, they'll say "GUILTY!"

        Loading editor
    • I apologize if what I said about you never being active had hurt your feelings. It was not my intention to hurt you or anyone else. I just don't see you on the wiki as much as I used to (since I believe we both joined around early 2014), so that was just my own ignorance playing into what I said. I'm also sorry if the thing about you only promoting ideas for your benefit hurt you as well. I was just p***ed at how I only see you on the wiki in these instances, and not really doing anything else.

      But now that I've seen your point of view, again, I would like to apologise if anything I said was mean-spirited and not necessarily true. It wasn't my motive, and I hope you understand that.

      (Edited by an admin)

        Loading editor
    • I understand. All's forgiven.

      Anyway, the thread should probably get back on track...second thought, I think a new thread might be needed. Perhaps off my wall.

      I'm not saying any sort of vote yet. Debate is still to be done, maybe compromise on some things or better elaborate on others. A lot can still be discussed, just this thread has become cluttered.

        Loading editor
    • Due to a lack of a proper place for this kind of discussion on the wiki. I think perhaps a Discord server would work best.

      For anyone interested in joining the discussion, I've created the server already.

      https://discord.gg/5j2NWh2 (this link has unlimited uses and doesn't expire, and verified email is not required)

      I've made the server very simple, with only a few channels and an overview section. Hopefully with how simple it is, it wouldn't be hard for anyone not used to Discord.

      I implore admins to join and be active in the discussion/debating process.

      If some think a Discord is not the place, I'm open to alternative suggestions.

        Loading editor
    • Master Hydraffe
      Master Hydraffe removed this reply because:
      07:04, June 17, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.