Timeline for How is the community doing? [2021]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 21, 2022 at 20:51 | comment | added | Akixkisu | @ThomasMarkov Yes, I think the majority of people took a lot of care to address the problems that we faced here. | |
| Jan 21, 2022 at 20:49 | comment | added | Thomas Markov | Do you find the handling of the most recent iteration of DGtS to have been more agreeable than the one you wrote about here? | |
| Oct 25, 2021 at 14:35 | history | edited | Akixkisu | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
adjusted language
|
| Apr 17, 2021 at 12:35 | comment | added | Akixkisu | The dismissal of stated concerns and the combative continuation of excuses suggests that the issue is more encompassing. Once you start that meta-discussion, I encourage you to do so from a perspective that doesn't trivialise criticism about failure in meta processes. | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 18:06 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | @Someone_Evil or, we could stop picking at that scab .. but you knew I'd say that, I suspect. 😁 | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 13:40 | comment | added | Someone_Evil Mod | As for what this answer is actually about; I think there is a full discussion to be had about these events, but this is not a useful starting perspective for it. Specifically the unprecedented event is lingering votes changeing the top score on a policy-type meta. That's happened twice and both relating to DGtS. The only reason I haven't started that meta is that I'm not exactly sure how would be best way, I'll welcome someone else to give it a shot if they have a good idea of how, but otherwise I think we'll leave workshopping of it to chat. | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 13:33 | comment | added | Someone_Evil Mod | @Akixkisu Please avoid (mis)using that kind of bludgeon. It isn't helping anyone. If you have concerns about the comment thread going too long, you can point that out respectfully and we use the appropriate tools. There's a lot of judgement that goes into what is appropriate response and what is long discussion (and in general, the line for meta is a lot longer). | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 4:15 | comment | added | linksassin Mod | @doppelgreener My perspective is that the FAQ tag is recognition that a post is widely accepted to be the best post on a topic. Rather than the tag making the post widely accepted. It is there to increase visibility/findability of valuable information, not to make information valuable by adding the tag. That's what I meant when I say it doesn't add authority. | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 21:35 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | Akixkisu: Have you been reading KRyan's back catalogue from our old RAW-tag flame war days? Have not seen this kind of anti-mod sentiment for a while. | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 17:33 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @linksassin Just regarding the FAQ tag adding authority: I think it is fair to say that being FAQ lends some appearance of an official seal of approval, and I don't think it's by accident. It's there to guide people toward the Definitive Edition on a topic, so to speak. I don't think we can make it not look like that, but it is something the community can use with care for its benefit. | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 3:33 | comment | added | Jason_c_o | I don't want to, and haven't experienced enough to, get into this too deeply. But I actually did wonder about this in my passing-by. I remember seeing "revert" be the higher-voted answer, but then later on the "keep" was the policy that was posted. I don't have a horse in this race, really, but it did seem strange. | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 23:48 | comment | added | linksassin Mod | Also, the FAQ tag does not add any authority to a post. It is simply indicating that it is a FAQ. The curated list is there to help users get up to speed on topics they may not know about. The FAQ proposal you refer to does exactly that. If a new user comes to the site and sees arguments about guessing the system and wonders what is going on. They can start at the post to understand how things are, then read the revisits with an understanding of what people are arguing for/or against. Without that base understanding the revisit discussion is confusing. That was the purpose of the post | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 23:44 | comment | added | linksassin Mod | From that faq-proposal: "A post to be edited/updated as or if the policy changes over time" - That post reflected the current policy at time of posting. The reason we created it was because there were conflicting views of which posts actually formed part of the current policy and the policy was split over multiple meta posts which was confusing for users. That post is intended to change over time as the policy changes, without us having to update the FAQ list, but merely update that answer. Also should the community decide to revert the policy it is very easy to simply remove the FAQ tag. | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 13:34 | comment | added | Akixkisu | @Medix2 they decided to go the wrong way about a good thing, and that it is the wrong way has consequences. | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 13:32 | comment | added | Exempt-Medic | I mean, anybody can make anything an FAQ-proposal, and I don't think that tag carries much weight on its own. We even had an entire post specifically for FAQ-proposals getting added onto the FAQ. Related questions: "What's the actual process around [faq-proposal]s?" and "FAQ Proposal Index for Role-playing Games Stack Exchange". It's certainly not a very defined process, so I can definitely see what you're saying here | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 13:31 | comment | added | Akixkisu | @Medix2 the decision and all of that are fine. There is nothing wrong with making a statement that is: We are the mods, we do this. What is problematic is when they made it a faq-proposal, as our faq carries weight. | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 13:28 | comment | added | Exempt-Medic | What I'm saying is that what actually matters is when they made the decision about what policy would be enforced, not when they worded together an explanation of that policy. Presumably after much discussion and refinements, they did word together the explanation of the policy that we now have, but by that time the policy had already been enacted | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 13:27 | comment | added | Exempt-Medic | This sentence misconstrues actions, at best: "When the answer in favour of reverting our current policy eventually was ahead by one score, moderators proposed the second-highest scoring answer as the former status quo community consensus and future waypoint for discussion in this faq-proposal." Yes, that is when they posted the FAQ-proposal but that is not when they updated the re-revisit stating "As the community failed to achieve a consensus to change the status quo, we will continue to enforce the policy as we have in the past." | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 13:26 | comment | added | Thomas Markov | I think a timeline of sorts would help with clarity here. | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 13:11 | history | edited | Exempt-Medic | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Apr 14, 2021 at 13:10 | history | answered | Akixkisu | CC BY-SA 4.0 |