Abd wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:19 pm
I don't see that it is possible to comment on [
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 80#p257280 the announcement on Wikipediocracy]. It's locked. No discussion allowed. Except here, where we will be accused of being "excitable," and who knows what else?
We can start a separate discussion thread on that, I just wasn't that interested. If Zoloft explains himself here, I won't be, either.
Stanistani wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am
Y'all are an excitable bunch.
I assume your reason to write this is that it sounds better if you don't list those who were not excited at all, including me...
I'll change the topic title to dissolve this impression.
Stanistani wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am
We looked at our rules and noticed there is no explicit policy on the subject.
If it ain't broke then don't fix it. What happened to make this necessary?
Stanistani wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am
When we're done, we'll replace the existing TOS, change titles/descriptions on forums, and post another notice.
There was no mention of any more changes to TOS, that post sounds like you are already done. This sounds like an ex post facto explanation.
What this has to do with titles? Are you going to tag each title with [NONPUBLIC] or similar? That would make the distinction clearer. I wonder why the rule does not mention this, for the sake of clarity.
Stanistani wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am
I posted the change because it would be unfair to chide or discipline people for following unclear rules.
This again sounds like you are ready to apply the rule. However, the rule is unclear of what to expect and how strictly you'll apply it and this non-explanation here just adds to the confusion.
The questions that need to be answered:
1. What happened to make this necessary? (anonymized, of course)
2. Did some info get out that caused retaliation to a member? That would give an explanation, that most of us can relate to and sympathize with.
3. Was it leaked on wikipedia, or an article? Which one is a bigger "danger" to the well-being of the forum members?
4. Members of this forum are mostly members of that forum and discussing WPO here is a common practice, just like discussing WPS on WPO. Do you intend to police these interactions at all?
5. Will you ask us to remove any content that might concern you - as a sign of good faith -, or do you intend to go straight to sanctions, as the rule suggests?
6. Is it a violation, if members-only content on WPO is discussed in a members-only topic here?
I believe the possibility of this policing is a major concern behind the "excitement", as you call it. The "excitement" is just a sign of how obscure the wording of the new rule is.
7. Last, but not least, what content will be deemed sensitive enough to police? The "music thread" referred by Sashi is a clear example of what not, but there will be many gray areas, that need to be clarified.