Staff: DoIntern List ~ Oppose. For me I've always seen interns as people who can be seen to give the community positive impact instead of anyone who can volunteer in a way, even if it's just through a list to be considered. For me, it's also more likely to make it so that staff (especially the COTP) actually has to keep track of who's in the community doing what in terms of positivity throughout the month between each Intern Meeting. For instance, while I was still in the COTP, I wrote down users' usernames throughout the month who made positive efforts in the community and kept track of their overall activity, and doing this made me feel more connected to the community and its happenings as a whole. All in all, I don't see this list as a very effective way and I feel like what benefits it may bring are somewhat outweighed by its deficits.
Is that a self-reflection? That's good. Also, harassing other users is also against the rules, as is posting comments unrelated to the content of a page. I just wanted to throw that out there. As it happens, spamming, harassing, and unrelated commenting on pages are very rude. I'd like to mention that doing so is just wasting one's own time in the first place. Finally, this wiki is not affiliated with Yandere Dev, and he takes no part in wiki governance here. All staff members are elected by the community. The fact doesn't usually make a difference, but please do keep that in mind. Thanks!
Don't have time to vote rn or to load the DPL Forum page, but could you please bump this thread for me? It's the easiest way I can load this thread--by having a notification handy for it. Sorry and thanks owo
Hmmmm, what situation prompts that? From what I know typing speeds of people who roleplay are pretty slow and if quality roleplayers can't type in that slowdown, it might actually slow them down. Then again I'm like a 100+ WPM person here xD I'm biased.
Has Tephra said anything about her(?) opinion after the rejection? I'm not too sure if this was all she had when she suggested it (iirc it was her but it's been a while, so idk). I'm not too knowledgeable on what the change would have really entailed, unfortunately, so sorry for any incredulousness on my part.
I do understand that the nameplate gives a weird sort of impression both in your last point and in the name itself.
Those two MW pages exist to indicate that the wiki has been assigned a Wiki Manager; their purpose is to display the Wiki Manager role in Special:Community, below the Admin list (it is documented here)
Not all wikis have Wiki Managers, nor do all wikis have features such as the Special:Community feature enabled, which is why these two scripts are added on a per-wiki basis.
Tephra and the lead of gaming both had given permission for us to fork the script. But Czech has stated we are not allowed to fork the script. So here we are.
I haven't spoken with Tephra about this since Czech's statement. I plan to inform her once the vote ends and the next vote starts.
Rename the "Lower Staff" and "Middle Staff" groups to "Lower Mod" and "Higher Mod". These names are a bit more clear. It shows the are moderators and it doesn't seem to imply Helpers and Interns are of higher rankings.
Oppose. I'm against having rules considered guidelines. I'd be more for it if all people who roleplay on the server were experienced and didn't need rules, but to me, it seems like a terrible idea to have the roleplay committee to make the rules last month(?) to make them in order to have all roleplayers within a certain boundary and then now basically call them optional as 'guidelines'.
However, I'm not against the Events Committee being able to propose changes to the rules as they deem needed.
We've never once even handed out a warning for breaking Roleplay rules. It's not even completely clear how we should handle Roleplay rules. Does breaking a roleplay rule warrant being blocked when you have 3 unrelated warnings? I don't think so.
The purpose of rolling them into guidelines is to be more flexible. Allowing a dedicated committee to manage it frees up the COA's time and allows quicker updating.
Also, keep in mind, Roleplay isn't the focus of our wiki, we just provide a place for it. So strict rules really shouldn't be our thing.
And if someone is being overly "obstructive" (in lack of a better term), regular rules would still apply. Using vulgar language? That breaks normal rules. Attacking someone? That breaks normal rules. Making the roleplay NSFW? That breaks normal rules.
Warnings don't need to be used for overall regulation, but they do set a standard. I'm fully aware that regular rules apply to roleplaying. Even if Roleplaying isn't the focus, it should still be made as quality and enjoyable for the participants as can be. Roleplaying doesn't happen as often from what I can tell, anyways. Still a solid oppose from me, but like I said, I don't mind the idea of the Events Committee working on the rules and such at all.
Nothing fancy is going on with that page. If you can load a thread, that page should be fine.
Here's the full text of the page:
In the event a 2/3 majority of the Council of Administration agree upon a suspension, the council is suspended. During this period, the Head Bureaucrat is given expanded duties.
At anytime, any council member can call for the Council of Administration to be unsuspended. Upon a new member joining the council, a vote is automatically called. In order to remain suspended, a 2/3 majority must vote to keep it suspended.
If a vote is called to end suspension, with a main reason being recent changes by the Head Bureaucrat, all changes are put on hold until after the vote. If the council remains suspended, the changes will go into effect.
In the event of no members, besides the Head Bureaucrat, remain on the council, it is automatically suspended. It will be re-established upon a new member joining.
Council of the People isn't suspended:
The Head Bureaucrat can;
Alter and add rules.
Implement new policies and features.
Add or change 5 rules/policies per-a-month.
The Head Bureaucrat cannot;
Change their abilities and restrictions.
Each month the Head Bureaucrat must explain all changes from the previous month during Global Staff Meetings.
While the Council of Administration suspended, the Council of the People will propose it's passing votes to the Head Bureaucrat to implement. If a proposal is not approved, the Council of the People can override the Head Bureaucrat's veto with a 2/3 vote.
The Head Bureaucrat may appoint someone as Senior Chairman to a committee and the Council of the People will vote to approve them or not.
Council of the People is suspended:
The Head Bureaucrat can;
Make 10 changes per-a-month.
Any changes to the Head Bureaucrats abilities and restrictions must be put to full staff vote. The Head Bureaucrat is required to do monthly staff wanted threads.
The Head Bureaucrat may appoint someone as Senior Chairman to a committee, appointment will not need any approval.
No other staff remain:
The Head Bureaucrat can;
Make 20 changes per-a-month.
Any changes to the Head Bureaucrats abilities and restrictions must be put to public vote. The Head Bureaucrat is required to do monthly staff wanted threads.
This establishes proper rules with how we handle revotes. Mainly what to do if the vote dies.
When a required revote is done; passing keeps the original vote, failing removes the vote, and ties are carried out under normal rules. If the vote instead dies, then a new revote will be scheduled with the previous's time.
Before, we've been kinda winging it. Depending on the kind of vote, a revote would become 1 or 2 separate votes. This simplifies it by making revotes a real mechanism of the Council system.
This isn't a vote to add something, rather make it clearer that it exists.
Since the councils were founded, the primary Presider (Head Bureaucrat and Head Helper) of a council has the ability of "active change". This allows them to change a proposal's content while the vote is on-going. This has been essential for allowing a meeting to progress.
However, very little of this ability is referenced anywhere. It's indirectly acknowledged by things such as the motions system and in several other areas, but it's not directly stated anywhere.
The Head Bureaucrat/Helper holds the power of active change during a vote. When exercised, this allows them to change the content of the current vote. However, motions can overrule the Head Bureaucrat/Helper.
The policy is the same between both councils, so I combined them by saying Bureaucrat/Helper. The COTP does have one additional line, though:
The Head Helper is unable to change the content for a COA tie.
If passed, literally nothing will change except this now being directly stated.
Currently, we have mobGriefing turned off. That means mobs can't effect the terrain at all. Even things like snow golems leaving snow trails and sheep eating grass. This plugin allows much more configuration.
If passed, mobGriefing will be turned back on and this plugin will prevent only creepers, ghasts, and bosses from destroying things.
Similar to the last plugin; this is to replace the keepInventory gamerule being on, which prevents losing your items when you die.
This places a users inventory and XP into a chest with a time limit (10 minutes). Failing to get the items in time will result in the chest dropping them. The chest is protected, preventing theft until it drops them.
This is revote was required by the original proposal. The vote is to keep the applications channel or to remove it. Support to keep, oppose to remove. If the vote ties, COTP breaks it. If the vote dies, we revote in 6 months.
I'm unsure how Dyno works, so I'm not sure about the viability of my suggestion, either.
Seeing as users seem to keep using Dyno commands in #general and channels they're not really supposed to be spammed in, would it be possible for Dyno to have some sort of redirect message to the channels where users could do that?
(I'm not too sure how it is now; if people actually are using the #bot-spam channel and the situation's cleaned up, then the suggestion doesn't need to be considered at all.)
Roleplay: rp-help--support even though it already passed.
Voting/Attending the Global Staff Meeting via Message Wall--also support. Notably, however, I'd like to add, though, it's meant to be a temporary solution. Once the UCP update places Message Walls on Discussions--well I can't access Discussions either, so there'll probably be some sort of other alternative then, I'm guessing? Until then, I still support.
Volunteer Committee: Proposals Subcommittee--Also support. It makes sense to me to be able to have more potential candidates.
Discord #gameupdates - Support for the idea, but out of curiosity, what would we link? YandereDev's Wordpress post? His YouTube video (if there is one)? Or a link to our Update History page according to the date? I was guessing the first two, probably the first one for efficiency since most everything is usually included in those posts, but since our wiki mostly has things directly related to the wiki and not YandereDev's official postings, I'm just asking this.
In my opinion, it just seems like sometimes the server stresses, like, fanworks as official (e.g. memes would have to do with Yandere Simulator, not just random? That's the idea I got from a post), and then there are those servers that are supposed to be just random and disorganized. I'm not opposed towards #memes, but the thing that's keeping me from voting support is the fact it seems official, but also not as used. I do look over content in the Discord server despite not being too active, and mostly it seems like people post more art there than memes (other than staff memes, which is obviously just limited towards staff). I support #spam (though honestly for some reason in all the chat places I'm in spam never really goes into the channel dedicated to it. Anyways). Just some points that are just making me neutral about it.
Sorry if this reply is insubstantial. I typed out a complete one, but the COA Meeting tab forced a reload, thus deleting my former reply, so I'm trying to retype it.
By "official", it might not be the best terminology, but I was referring to how channels such as #pictures (apologies if the names are wrong) and the original idea for #memes would have to be Yandere Simulator related. Even if not, I rarely see even general content for both as being all that prevalent. Like the example I said before (I think), art (not fanart) is posted more on #fun than memes and the like. Of course, channel names and such could be amended by the COA in the future, but a lot of reasons make me just stand neutral on this. For instance, while I dislike general disorganization (like the mixed havoc on #fun or whatever #venting became, which is why I support removing it), I also don't really see a point in breaking up a channel into one that may not be used all that much anyways.
To me personally, it'd make more sense to put memes (which are pictures? Hopefully? If they aren't I must seem like such an idiot) together with #pictures instead of giving it a separate channel, and also making it so pictures could perhaps include art and such. If all went well, it'd put considerable burden off of #fun. But that's a very large deviation from what you're suggesting and sounds much more like a proposal in phase 3 (?) than an amendment you could make.
I should probably know this already, but can we change votes nearing phase 2 or something (mostly asking this to try to gauge when the COTP would vote on this)? And would you remove venting as a channel but just pass on the #memes decision to the COTP this month, or would you have to give both the removal of #venting and addition of #memes to the COTP this month?
Votes *can* change before Phase 3. But, it must follow retroactive voting rules.
Basically, if the proposal passed by 1 vote. They can't change their vote unless someone who didn't vote support changed their vote to support. Retroactive rules are meant to prevent events like a rule passing and people getting punished, only for the rule to suddenly be no-longer passed and us needing to apologize.
Once a presider calls a vote, that's the outcome. Votes can also change if the outcome doesn't.
If this vote remains tied and it is sent to the COTP, the COTP won't vote on it until next month. This is because the COTP skipped Phase 1, which is when they would of voted on it.
The vote can be amended to only be venting's removal. But we'd need to hold a whole new vote for memes and tie it for it to go to the COTP.
# filthy_mortal_residence and #immortal_deities_realm
I'm honestly with no problem with supporting. I just don't have the motive to xD, so I don't think I should give support without a reason. Iirc Mitsuki doesn't have other suggestions? I don't have many either. I suck at naming. I was thinking that since everyone in #special_chat (iirc) has played some role in the governance (even former Interns since they were appointed Interns before) we could call it governance_chat or system_chat or something, though I'm going to regret bringing these up because I already feel dumb even mentioning them.
I assume governance_chat is meant as a joke, correct? If it's a serious proposal, I would oppose it. The only channel it would be appropriate for is staff_only. Since staff_only is a channel dedicated to those governing the wiki.
In regards to renaming special_chat, if I call the vote now; it'd likely be dead. This is how outcomes are determined.
Passed and failed: 51% or more of the vote
Tied: At-least 1 side is 50%
Minus only 1 neutral/absent/present if the council has an odd staffing.
Cannot tie if there's more than 1 neutral/absent/present votes.
Unless neutral, absent, or present reach 50% independent of each-other.
Dead: No side reached 50%
Regardless of how many neutral/absent/present
There's both 1 neutral and 1 present. That prevents a tie situation, since a majority are split positions.
Honestly neutral leaning towards oppose. There's nothing wrong with variety in names imo. But I wouldn't really mind either way. I just don't think staff_only staying could harm anyone's interpretations nor could the rename do something negative either.
People are fine to respond however they wish, even if it may be seen as unnecessary. Regarding you being annoyed by the notifications, you can unfollow the thread. There's no need to be rude to her regardless of your opinions of her or her actions.