We all knew this was coming, and in the light of recent events, Meta urged me to get going, so buckle up, because I won't even try to keep this short.
The way our rules aren't exactly … good. Being small and all, we did fine operating under Mos Maiorum for quite some while, but even without further reasons, we should eventually return to the provisional stuff and future-proof it.
With that out of the way, it has come to the point where there seem to be different conflicting interpretations of the rules (or even what are rules) and the original Twelve Tables document (a living document without proper versioning at that) isn't exactly a guiding light in the darkness. Melodrama aside, have you ever looked at our rules? The Site Rules at some point randomly turn into a monologue of Cad, the Guide for new Recruits (assuming it is a binding document) mentions the same rule twice and seems to be stricter about some things than the other page. We seem to have multiple Golden/Zeroth/Utimate rules as well.
Also, there are many rules or processes that are found in a plethora of forum posts, other pages (wikis too; the Falchion Valley has some stuff even I might not have seen) and things that are propagated without ever having been ratified anywhere (it seems to be common wisdom that a GoI needs 3 articles before being eligible for our GoI page … or is it? Looks like we never actually put that in place) which muddies the water, especially considered some very, very badly defined rules (where does plagiarism starts? If I were arguing in bad faith, I could make a very compelling point that Agent Ukulele is a shameless rip-off. Are the obscure references I hide in my works okay? The legal line to draw is clear, but the rest not so much) that could mean everything or nothing at all.
Things like these cause at best only friction and uncertainty, at worst destroy communities. Everyone got their own stories to share of communities that were ruined by overbearing admins playing gods, and not learning from Big Brother SCP's gradual downfall (symptomized by having an impenetrable thicket of rules, policies and competencies, many of which are out-of-date, conflicting or flat-out unenforceable) would be foolish.
So, in the spirit of fairness, accountability, sustainability and community involvement, let us act. Cut of the weak sprouts and focus on rearing our strengths.
Considering the above issues, we should focus on Centralizing, Structuring, Clarifying, Reviewing and Expanding our existing rules.
Centralizing
As of now, there are at least three documents outlining important rules, namely the Site Rules, the Personnel Guidebook and the Guide for new Recruits, plus two pages for our chat servers, plus the Site Protocols and the Staff Manual. Additional, there are many additions, be they actual rules, clarifications or exceptions made somewhere by staff, existing mostly as informal traditions.
I'm going to be blunt: we can't expect people to find them all like that; I'm both staff and naturally interested in this kind of stuff and I have my troubles with this, expecting newcomers to deal with this is bollocks. Even when you're willing to argue they shouldn't (and in doubt just lurk more) this is still a far shot from what can realistically be expected to happen.
So bringing the required reading to one set of place(s) and keeping that the only binding document is going to reassure everyone about which rules are in effect. It also makes maintenance much easier, as there is only one place to change and a comprehensive changelog of edits and revisions for everyone to see.
Structuring
Besides being scattered everywhere, our current rules also happen to be an amorphous blob that jumps from topic to topic and makes it hard to find individual rules.
In particular, whilst I have been using the broad term "rules" until now, we must consider that our rules belong to different kinds of rule sets, each with its own peculiarities. In particular, we have:
- A Code of Conduct, governing user behaviour with one another (*teleports behind you and snaps your neck* Is this forum role playing?)
- Content Guidelines, based on what we want and do not want posted on this site (am I allowed an article picture of a classical painting, even though it features nudity?)
- Process Outlines, defining how certain things are supposed to happen on the site. (Hod does the deletion process work? How to start a contest, how to amend these rules?)
- Policies, which are our stances and requirements on more refined topics (is me including a style sheet from a third-party domain according to how we should use CSS?)
Clarifying
If we use terms that are ill-defined (or not defined at all), we can just directly write "enforcement of this rule is at staff's discretion", that would at least be honest. If you have staff running around as Judge and Executioner (Juries are sooooooo common law) at the same time, you're cultivating a terrible climate in which being buddies with whoever is in charge is all that counts.
There is also the problem that nowhere is an exact account of how disciplinary measures are meant to be applied. Yes, there are "Minor Offenses" and "Major Offenses" with a progression on penal actions to each, but there is no explanation of what constitutes either and how much leeway is allowed (not what to do when staff disagrees and the severity).
Reviewing
Whilst the three goals before must be our main priority, we should take the opportunity to also take a look at some rules and decide whether they're worth keeping, and if any changes are required or demanded. Staff might be tasked with "Locking, temporarily or indefinitely, threads which contain excessively heated or irrelevant discussions", but the latter part historically seems to have been duly ignored without any repercussions.
There are other things that might irk some, or some open loop holes we find, without there being an excuse not to at least re-consider every little rule we ever made. Which would naturally lead to the final objective.
Expansion
Upon bundling, sorting and rewriting, we will certainly create new and destroy. We are a community of clever folks, and together we can probably do better than what a bunch of edgy teens build almost a decade ago (very well knowing that these clever folks used to be those edgy teens). The chains of command are what kept us together, so it is time to hone them.
In case anyone's still around to read this, here are some things we can do right now to get going:
- Gather all rule resources we can find
- Begin drafting of a new comprehensive rule document (or multiples ones, vis supra, frankensteined into one page)
- Bring up concerns and suggestions here
- Share any personal experiences and feedback on what is being done here
- Don't grow idle on this project — we want to replace the status quo, not worse it with a concurrent, half-finished alternative
- Try not to break any of the old rules until we have new ones
That's it for a start. I promised to get this up yesterday, so we're already starting with a delay, but at the same time, we're not under time pressure (if you don't count the inevitable and irreversible decay of your fouling mortal bodies, that is).
I was honestly trying to approach this step-by-step, but now here we are. This is probably more important than any other projects, second only to finding an alternative for when (not if) WikiDot enters the happy hunting grounds.
This Zesc is currently out of order. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
For more information, contact our Customer Support Hotline under 1-800-GOLF-TIP.
