Forum:Improving our community

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Improving our community
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 January 2011 by Liquidhelium.

RfETs, while closed, can be found at RuneScape:Events Team/Requests.

The RuneScape Wiki has by far the most comprehensive and detailed articles on almost everything players could search. We beat other fansites at updating our articles and completing expansions after updates by weeks and sometimes months. This is all great and achievable thanks to our unique editing model as a wiki.

Unfortunately, we have yet to catch up or even get near other fansites when it comes to the community and official events. The people at RuneHQ run an event almost ever single week, regularily. We have one event once every 3-4 months. With such a large viewership and community, isn't it time we plan more events to involve the community, improve our relations and friendships with each other, and maybe pick up more new editors and viewers while we are at it?

There is no proposal here, but you can support improving the community if you like. What this thread is for, is to look for ideas for how we could involve and improve the community here, by running more frequent events and such. Discuss, 222 talk 01:07, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - We need more events. However, we still need a centralized way to get information out to people. Without the sitenotice we've lost that. Do you think we should have an event team of some sort? ʞooɔ 01:09, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I like the idea of an events team. I've been planning and hosting events on RS for years for a few clans - I would definitely like to help out. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:16, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The problem with an "event team" here is that it's completely volunteer-based from a group of teenagers. The organizers at the other fansites are adults. I don't mind an events team as long as it's small-sized and given enough authority so that they can plan without scrutiny from the community. As much as I like transparency and consensus, the reality of the situation is that community discussions are one of the main reasons why planning events take so long here. We have too many different ideas and not enough agreement. So, I'd only agree with this if we gave a small group of people who regularly play RuneScape enough authority to plan the events. --LiquidTalk 01:43, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, some of us do have an inkling of how to successfully organize things. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:49, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do would be to let the event organizers run it without interference from the community, so we could avoid having to slog through a thread for each one. ʞooɔ 01:53, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
You're wrong. RHQ have one of the best events teams for an RS fansite, yet a majority of them are aged from as low as 12 all the way to 19. Also, I hate to blow my own trumpet but the Fansite Tournament went well and I organised that mostly by myself when I was 13. I wouldn't put down teenagers. Mmk?   Swizz Talk   Events!   10:52, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Also, the fact is that most editors here are volunteer teenagers. You yourself are a teenager, yet you do some great work here. So could an events team.   Swizz Talk   Events!   11:15, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Everyone here should be as socially awkward as I am. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:58, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think we just need to find a way to get more people into the community. the more people the better. The other communities have very large communities that are quite active, but also they are run completely differently to us. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:35, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Improving the community = good. However, everyone does not like the typical activities that seem to happen when doing community events. I know it's just my opinions I'm stating, but I'm pretty sure everyone doesn't like clan wars, stealing creation, and other events such as those. So we should probably think outside our cylinders and come up with some unique events we can do as a community that will remove us from the dull mentality of community events = f2p clan wars. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 06:23, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Without regular events i have to lure wikians into the wilderness myself :/ - [Pharos] 06:46, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Community Events - We have a page. Now lets use it. Every week or so we'll make a new event that the community will be interested in. Perhaps we could have a comments section for people to say which event they would like next. I think it's stupid to say "we need a community like rhq or tip.it" we wont ever get that. We are a completely different site to them, our community is almost all on-site. Most people we get in-game don't really care about the site or even keep up to date with it and that is something we just cannot change. I, and Gaz will back me up here, remember when we used to get 20 people to play a game of stealing creation in 20 minutes. Now it takes 2 weeks to get 5 people to come to a match of Clan Wars? It's a bit disappionting. I'm not sure what has changed, but those times were probably my best on the game. We need them, or at least something like them back. I would support an Events Team.   Swizz Talk   Events!   10:42, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - It's a real shame that asking for Dungeoneers in the CC turns out almost the same amount of people as a 2-week long organisation of a Clan Wars match. We used to have Wiki Events, which died, now we have Community Events. We have a huge community, let's do something with it. Real Nub 10:50, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Massive Support - I think its a good idea cause there is not many wiki events right now and maybe sometime this year, if people hold some F2P ones, you never know... You might spot me there because the last time I attended a wiki thing was the 2009 or 2010 Spring/Summer WikiFest I think. This would be a great chance for members to meet others and see how they roll Smile Liam - Beta Tester (talk) 16:32, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Just a friendly reminder; community is not all about events and meeting up in-game. We have a strong community in the CC, IRC and of course, on the wiki. I'm sure many of use know each others names. I know the names of hundreds of users here. Even we come together as a community on the YG to make important decisions for the better. So it's not so much improving the community, but expanding it. Smile Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 11:56, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Events Team Proposal

Okay, I have a proposal for how we would do events. I was thinking that if we cut past the bureaucracy, we could get a good events team running. The reason we can never seem to get events to work is because we spend a month publicly planning things. If we let a small group of people do the organizing without the need for consensus every time we did an event, we could get a good thing going.

The hard part is deciding how the events team would work. I think that it should get a page in the RuneScape namespace, and a spot to advertise events on the sitenotice/community corner. How would we pick who gets onto the event team? I was thinking that we would pick about 5 people to join. Whether we just pick the people or do some sort of discussion (RfET >.>) is up to you. Once we have the team together, the people on the team would organize the events. Others would of course be free to suggest things on the talk page. The rest of the event idea is mostly up to the events team. If someone new wanted to join, I think they would either have to get approval from the community or maybe just from the rest of the team, and we'd need to make it so the people who join are actually dedicated to the events. I think it goes without saying that the people on the team would not get any special rights or privileges on the wiki, as most of their work would be done off-site.

As for the events, my personal preference would be to have the events either weekly or bi-weekly. We could obviously do some simple minigames (fine, activities) like Castle Wars or Stealing Creation, but I'm hoping people will come up with some more original and very creative ideas. People will get bored very quickly of simple things.

I've tried to make this proposal as un-bureaucratic as possible so we can just have events without too much interference. If you have any suggestions please feel free to, er, suggest them. I apologize if my ramblings are a tad too incoherent, it's late. ʞooɔ 11:36, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Weekly events would be optimal. Biweekly is a lot more aggravating when it's missed. We did have godwars going for a while which was great. I'm thinking we should go ahead and say pretty much anything boss wise (maybe not kq, corp, sara...just depends on who we have involved) and then we have quite a few minigames to choose from. If we want to get fancy...which I do. We could do both a minigame and a boss every week, so everyone gets their chance to enjoy something without being up at three in the morning. It also gives us more of a chance to mix it up. Example-Bandos with soul wars one week, a month later, bandos with castle wars. Just to throw out my two cents. HaloTalk 17:49, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - This will make events better and hopefully build a stronger community. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:38, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - <edit conflict> A team of people would probably be more effective than a ton of random people jumping in and out of a discussion. How we pick them is up to everyone else, 'cuz I don't mind, as long as it gets up and running. Real Nub 11:43, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom - [Pharos] 11:49, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Technically we have something up right now, it just isn't used. Swizz, Sentra, me, and a few others who want to join in; in theory we can do a good job, and we can. 222 talk 11:52, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

You voted again below. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:06, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Since those determining consensus understand that consensus is not determined by the number of supporting comments, I fail to understand why anyone crosses comments out... Leftiness 03:52, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Because you can't "vote" twice on the same proposal. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:53, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The "current team" (me, sentra and 222) should be cleared. We should start brand new. Hopefully this will mean we can get a good group users together to get the job done. Also to keep the amount of people on the Events Teams reasonable I think only the people in the team should be able to allow any new users in via consensus (we could make it so 100% support is needed so the events team will be at its best), just so we don't get 20 people in there trying to organise events. A low number of people will get things done a lot quicker and thorough. If people want their own event just post it on the talk and the Events Team will sort it out.   Swizz Talk   Events!   11:57, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I hope that we'll be able to put something together. I think that trying to get consensus already slows down the abhorridly low rate of events, so just being bold is key ingredient missing. I think most of us will just be happy if something that involves the community gets put on more often. I disagree that weekly simple events will discourage people from showing up. The main reason why I personally have not shown up to any of these events is because it's not very well-publicized, so I don't know when it is...and then there goes another event I missed. If there was some kind of schedule, then maybe if I miss a week, I'll be able to show up the next time around knowing that it'll happen again at some set time. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 12:11, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - I was considering this in the clan chat with a few people only a few days ago and a few months ago, I was hosting regular godwars trips to Bandos, Zamorak and some other PvM places which eventually stopped because I stopped playing the game for a while. I would LOVE to help out and join this team to create events for 20+ people at some of the larger and harder PvM monsters such as Bandos, Zamorak and the Corporeal beast. If this proposal goes through, I would happily self-nominate myself to join the team, since I have massive understanding of 80% of the mini-games on runescape, and 100% understanding of all PvM bosses. Might I suggest that a new section be added onto either the main page (Perhaps below the market index) or onto the community portal (Less viewed, but nevertheless a better place). This section would just have a small 4-5 line paragraph which would state that the next community event will be held at x, at y oclock on zth of z. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 13:12, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to maybe have events that were more..I don't know. Original? Obviously we would have some PvM stuff, but I was hoping to create some more fun-ish events. Also, I think the sitenotice might be good for the events. ʞooɔ 13:30, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean. I just worded what I said poorly. I was trying to say: So long we have PvM events every now and then mixed in with all this castle wars/soul wars/cabbage bomb the living crap outta varrock stuff. I would be really happy to be involved in the events team. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 13:33, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit early to start putting yourself forward for the team now. Let's just get the basics done now.   Swizz Talk   Events!   14:08, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Ah cook, the sitenotice only puts it on 2 pages now, maybe mainpage is better. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:18, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, a Wiki Events box would be good.   Swizz Talk   Events!   14:59, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good to me. Nothing like regular events to make the community stronger. --Callofduty4 15:11, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is less bureaucratic than the wikifest group that I tried a while ago. However, I have a few issues with this. First of all, we must consider advertising. The sitenotice is going to be on wikiactivity and recentchanges. How many people go there and read the sitenotice every day? We need to consider the way RuneHQ does it and how we can take the good parts from their system. RuneHQ has all the events advertised in large font and with an attractive (well, usually it's good-looking, but not always) image. We need something similar on our main page, which is what most users go to first.

Second of all, there is the issue with event team member selection. I really do not want a RfET or whatever discussion system. That's just going to shift the long discussion planning from the Yew Grove to that page, and we're going to get candidates advertising their merits and their plans (which effectively defeats the purpose of giving the planning stage to only a few people so they can plan without excess scrutiny). If the current gridlock in Congress is any guide, I'd like to avoid "quasi-election" systems. I think we should just agree on a few people here, and when one of the people on the team leave, then the rest of the team picks the replacement. I think this is a much better solution because the event team people know who is good with planning and organizing events. It's not really in the spirit of consensus, but I think this is a necessary step because of the problems that consensus has been giving us in this field. --LiquidTalk 16:00, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, I'm liking the sound of that. Because to me that sounds like we can put up a pic of whatever we did last week/fortnight on the main page to advertise the next event. We could have a good rotation for that, changing every event. And maybe an open gallery of screenshots from events on a subpage of the project page. I'm just concerned about how much space we have on the main page, probably need to shift some stuff around... And in reguards to the members, how about a (2 months?) rotation of the members. That way, lots of people can be part of it, but not part of organizing EVERY event which would just be counter-productive. (If non of this makes sense, it's because it's 3am) - [Pharos] iPhone Edit
this is exactly how I would want an Events Team to be. Thank you Liquidhelium   Swizz Talk   Events!   17:04, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
The real question is how we advertise this. Will the over edited pictures RHQ use on their frontpage look as good on our, probably not, perhaps they would with the new skin. We could repalce the "wiki news" box with "wiki events" and have a short summary of the upcoming events with a "See More..." link that will lead to our very own page full of over edited images and titles, something I doubt we've ever had before.   Swizz Talk   Events!   17:27, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
That was my original idea (just picking people) but I scrapped it because I thought I would get people screaming AEAE in my face. Maybe not. ʞooɔ 22:58, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This is a really good suggestion, one thing that I think is instrumental in this is getting more people in the clan chat. In light of that-I think we should add something about the clan chat in the welcome notice. HaloTalk 17:18, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - However, I share in Liquid's concerns regarding how users are selected for membership on the planning team. My suggestion is to compose the group of five members, then rotate two of them every few months. This way, we get some fresh faces included, but don't end up resetting the whole team (which could easily kill the project). Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 17:29, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should put someone (Swiz if he has no objections) in charge of the team and let him choose from interested people. I think putting a cap and saying 5 people will be involved is dangerous. Things function better with a leader, and Swiz has demonstrated to the community that he can handle this. If you (referring to everyone, not just Steler) want to scream AEAE, my talk page is in my signature, HaloTalk 17:44, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're saying about having a leader (and no, I'm not screaming about AEAE), though I still think it's important to rotate the leadership at some level. Otherwise, the ET would become an oligarchy, which goes against the principals of a wiki. We could have a leader who picks a number of people to be on the team, then occasionally rotate out one third of that group. Then, on a less regular basis, rotate out the leader, but not the rest of the team. That way, things remain stable, but power is not held by an exclusive group. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:37, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Can I just say this. Having a leader and a rotating group of members is extremely similar to what I suggested in a more bureaucratic thread a few months ago, someone point out why this proposal is any less bureaucratic than mine. 222 talk 00:25, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
A bureaucracy and a systematic way of doing things fail to share the traits that make the two different: efficiency and simplicity. The rotating group idea, while sounding complex on paper, isn't really that complex (and I don't think it sounds complex on paper to begin with OMG!). At the same time, I wouldn't consider the group bureaucratic because there's little red-tape in the way once they have all the members. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:57, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We should all discuss each event for no less than 6 months to make sure it's perfect! Andrew talk 17:43, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds great to me! Andrew talk 17:43, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense. --Aburnett(Talk) 17:44, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I've been spending some quality time in other clan chats lately, and I have noticed that many of them hold sites like Tip.It in higher regard because they have a better event team. We need to improve our social interactions if we are to be held with a higher regard to the population of Runescape.--Scimitar77 17:54, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Original events - most definitely please. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:22, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Excellent. In the past, we tried to improve the community by hosting what we called Weekly Events, but it didn't work out. This was probably because it was too bureaucratic. Also, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but we should keep free players in mind. Will we have two "teams", one for members and the other for free players, or will we switch regularly between members' and nonmembers' events?  Tien  18:26, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Though there should be consensus to decide who is in this "team". Matt (t) 23:43, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - General consensus, so far seems to be that we want an Events Team (ET). What we need to work out is how we get the ~5 users, and how we will advertise the events. Any ideas?   Swizz Talk   Events!   17:48, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

After we create the initial team, we could do The same thing the CE and IFC teams do to get new users. But to start I suggest we just nom within this thread until we have 5 members we agree on.
As for advertisement? I'm in full support of having a small section on the main page. As well as a sitnotice addition when the event is 1-3 days away. - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 18:28, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
I, personally, preferred a mix of Halo's and Liquid's ideas in which there is one leader/trusted user who picks the the initial 5 approx and the people within the group pick new members when someone decides to leave the team or when they feel an extra person is needed.   Swizz Talk   Events!   19:08, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Why do we need 1 leader, it would work just as well with just 5 people who are all equal, having 1 leader won't help the team much. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:26, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer more of an equal committee and less of a lead team. But i don't mind much. - [Pharos] 08:37, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I strongly oppose a leader, per what I have said below. 222 talk 00:03, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - After reading through this I think this is the best:

  • 1 members boss per week
  • 1 members minigame/some kind of other event per week (at a different time)
  • 1 free minigame/some other kind of event per week (at a different time than the other two)

I don't think we need two committees to deal with this, I think one can handle all three, so long as we choose the right people. HaloTalk 18:41, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

You want 3 events a week? OMG!   Swizz Talk   Events!   19:08, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
3 events a week is a bit much, i think it's best to leave it up to the discretion of the team otherwise it would probably turn out like like the old weekly events. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:26, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Three events is way too much. We don't have to look at this on a weekly basis, instead seeing through as an entire month, we can fit every type of event in an whole month, with one event each week which is planned individually, as opposed to four events in one month. 222 talk 07:02, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - just now, Glentra got a special slayer task where he had to kill the kq. He asks the cc and in less than half an hour we have a rag-tag team ready to go try and kill the KQ...

He died twice, lost all his stuff and didn't finish the task XD

But that's not the point, the point is wikians really do have nothing better to do most of the time and we love doing stuff with there wikians :) Im sure that everyone would love to have regular events. And im certain that we can pull a large enough crowd to make it worthwhile.

Boss runs will be fun as a mass, most low-level wikians would never be able to manage them with a regular team and this is a chance to do it safely. And on the event page for each even we really need to outline the important things, E.G what prayers. We cant just direct them to a guide and assume they can pick out what to do from those crowded pages.

Why did i need to say this? I didnt. I was bored. :P - [Pharos] 08:37, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Umm i kinda died 3 time =/. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:52, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Seems I have forgotten to support this. What I believe will be the best mash-up of the multiple ideas thrown out here is basically a few changes to Cook's initial idea as well as Halo's later suggestions. Having an Events Team with access to a small box on the main page would be immensely helpful, the rest of Cook's idea is pretty good and fine. However, there is really no need for a leader, as it is bound to cause arguments and conflicts if not when selecting a leader, but later on as well. I believe the group will function fine without needing a figurehead as long as the selected people don't hate each other, which from out of the nominees, none of them do. As for deciding who gets to be in the "first group", we need a discussion. Just plant the names above on a section of this page, or even a sub-page, and let havoc rage discussion occur for a week, then who ever can present the best credentials and garner the most solid support can be part of the first team. Notice I did not specifically mention the numbers involved, this enables the discussion to better give us the best group of editors to make up the events team; say if only a few users, 3-4 garnered enough support, we'd have a smaller group; on the other hand, if a larger group of users garnered support, say 6-7, the flexible arrangements enable a few more in the team. As with the other amendments, this is open for discussion and change. 222 talk 00:10, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose events team selection After a group is chosen they decide the future members themselves? That is absolutely the most effective way to create an elitist group I can imagine. Congratz. {{Down}} Considering that the people are discussing having up to three events a weak at various times a very small group will be ineffective at accomplishing this. Not that we need a large group, but ten to 15 people who can all give input to each event will allow events to happen at various times with a better degree of planning. And our whole community should have input when it is time for new people, although I do not want to see an overly prolonged bureaucratic process. Perhaps something as simple as they ask to join and if there are not a lot of reasonable opposes within a week, they be allowed on.--Degenret01 04:42, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Good point (in response to "That is absolutely the most effective way to create an elitist group I can imagine."). However, I think 10-15 people is too large, as the goal is to decrease the number of people involved in the planning. That's not to say people can't be trusted (they can, I will get to that in a moment), but a planning committee of 10-15 is almost enough to constitute a typical Wikifest thread. The goal is to increase the efficiency of event planning, and it's too difficult to balance that many people. I would support no more than 8 people being on the team at any given time. Regarding the statement "Perhaps something as simple as they ask to join and if there are not a lot of reasonable opposes within a week, they be allowed on.", there are two problems I have with that. First, there's more than 10-15 people that I would not be able to come up with a reasonable oppose for, as I trust most active wikians can handle event planning in some form. Second, the part "if there are not a lot of reasonable opposes," is key. Using RFAs as a process, a user will become an administrator if they have enough reasonable support in their favor. Under your proposed system, you will join the ET if you don't get any reasonable opposition. See the difference?
I was going to go back and offer a solution to your original point, though I'm not sure if you're following the premise that the group will be rotated or continuously expanding. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 17:42, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Three plus events a week at random times throughout the week hoping for 3-4 organizers per event actually requires up to about 15 people of various time zones to ensure things flow smooth. If we did one -two events a week, 6-8 would suffice.

As for selection, I didn't go into enough detail, my bad. I do like the process I proposed, but only when there are opening/people needed. Not just any old time someoe wants to join. But if someone does want to join, if all present members have been on for two months, one must leave to make room. And I see that some one suggested one person be in charge. This is quite a horrid wicked evil terrible idea. No damn way at all whatsoever is tis in any way a good idea at all. --Degenret01 04:50, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking we just did 1 event a week (Quality>Quantity). Also I oppose a RfET type of system for this. I think the people within the team should decide any new people because at the end of the day they're the ones who'll be having to work with them on a day to day basis. This means that they have to get along or at least be friendly with each other. An RfET system means that the people in the team don't have much of a say in who gets picked as a new member so its likely that people they don't get will have to be working together to make events which will end up leaving the community with poorly planned, unsuccessful events.   Swizz Talk   Events!   15:35, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Selection process

Note: This is about picking new users for the Events team after it is formed.

Proposal 1

Run a "RfET" page.

Pros:
  • The whole community decides who is picked
  • No favouritism in deciding who joins
  • A user most of the community feel will do the job correctly will be accepted
Cons:
  • Some members of the Events Team may not get along with the new member
  • The process can take weeks to be completed
  • The community decides when a new member is needed, this may lead to too many members

Proposal 2

Let the members within the group pick new members.

Pros:
  • The members can pick someone that can do the job well and they all get along with allowing better events
  • The Team can choose a new member when they feel one is needed
  • They know who has provided most help via moderating an event, etc.
Cons:
  • There may be a bias within the team to pick their friends who perhaps wont do as good a job as someone the community has chosen
  • Some members of the community may want to have a say on the matter

Support Proposal 2 - It's easier to work with people you like than people you don't, and it's faster.   Swizz Talk   Events!   16:04, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support 2 - Judging by how long it takes this community to decide on ANYTHING. It may take days or weeks to decide on a new member. Meanwhile, the team (5 members) will be even smaller, meaning more work for each member to plan up to 3 events a week. I really don't think Degen's issue will come up. We should be mature enough not to play favorites on a conscious level. If it does become apparent that it is occurring, we can always add a community-voted member or have a major re-shuffle (2-3 members?). - [Pharos] 16:12, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support 1 - If the RfET is at any time and not just when an ET member has left, i Support 1. Thanks for bringing that up Glentra :) - [Pharos] 16:34, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support 1 - Better for the whole community to choose, but you can get rid of the 3rd con if it is only opened when the team needs another member. Also make the rfet run for exactly 1 week, like rfa's are 2 weeks. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 16:12, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose 2, support 1 - Second proposal = elitism. I'm not supporting anything that proposes elitism. bad_fetustalk 16:29, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support 1 - As long as it's run more like an RfR than an RfA   Swizz Talk   Events!   17:22, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support 2, strong oppose 1 - I think 2 is a simple and effective way to do it. As long as we have competent people planning the events, I don't see a problem with it. If they get too out of hand, it's not a big deal to get the community to shut the group down.

As for option 1, I strongly oppose it unless the fundamental flaws are at least acknowledged and hopefully addressed. My interpretation of the system would be that it is going to run something like the RfR page does when active. The issue with having this kind of system is that there is no way to limit the size of the group. This could, and probably will, create a large group. From experience, the group size has an inverse proportionality to its productivity. This is usually because a large group will have greater difficulty coming to agreement on the details, and thus spend a lot of time debating each aspect. Just look at the wikifest/event threads. I think we once had a debate over whether or not a members' only event was legal. Come on.

Another issue that I've noticed on the past RfR was the fact that people were supporting if they thought the user was nice/friendly/amiable/cool, and opposing if they didn't like the candidate. This effectively meant that many ranks were selected for traits irrelevant to the task of kicking trolls/spammers. I'm afraid that the same thing will happen here. When discussing matters like this with many users in a short span on one page, people tend to treat the RfR more as a popularity contest, support a bunch of the requests, and hand us a long list of new ranks (most of whom I haven't seen around much).

However, if the decision is placed into the hands of the current events team (assuming we start out with a good team), then a user will actually be selected based on his or her merits and ability to get the job done. We can always ask potential users to nominate themselves to the group members and write a resume of sorts (perhaps just a few simple questions). Furthermore, the community will reserve the right to remove a member of the group by consensus if necessary. As long as we trust the users on the group to be competent, then there is no conflict of interest and no elitism. --LiquidTalk 23:52, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support 1 - to choose the initial events team. But once a team has been setup, the team should be allowed to select new members as they choose, within reason. 222 talk 00:03, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Errr, I had assumed we were letting the community pick the starting members already... I'm not sure how the currently non-existent team would pick themselves in the first place... I think you're supporting #2. - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 05:22, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support 1 - The more opinions, the merrier. Real Nub 00:32, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

That may sound good in theory, but leads to high RQ rates in practice >_> - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 05:22, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Selecting new users

Ok, i know it looks like im rushing this unnecessarily, but the selection process will take even longer. And by what i can tell from the CC and IRC, we really want wiki events and we want them "[email protected]@@@@@". I really want this to be completed as fast as possible and, before you say it, even if it means im not on the team.

I can confidently say that there has been consensus for an "Events team" to be created to organize and host wiki events on a regular basis. And it appear to me that there is a strong support for the community to select the team members. I know that it cant really be called consensus due to a few opposes and the fact that not many have expressed their opinions.

I suggest that we deal with this later, it sounds bad but just consider it. If we move onto the selection process now, we will have a team sooner which means events sooner and we can go over the details later.

Reading everything so far, it looks like we want 5 members. We will stick with this number until someone suggests another it it gains a good deal of support. If this does happen, it is very easy to just add/subtract a member. No real reason to let this stop progress. Another undecided point is how many events should be held per week/month. I think we can leave this to the team to discuss among themselves until, as before, we can decide on a good number as a community.

As for selecting members, the community obviously has decide on the first 5 members and then we can argue out the process of adding/replacing members later. Now, down to business. I propose an RfC process within the thread to select the first five members. Similar to what is happening in Forum:Choosing new CheckUsers. It is easy, neat and compact. I really cant see any alternative but if you can, feel free to suggest it. And remember that the method used to select members after the first five may be different, this is just temporary. - [Pharos] 20:44, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - There is one aspect about this process that worries me. If we have an unlimited number of nominations, but must select five, how do we do it fairly in the consensus based system? If we simplify the situation and ignore confounding variables like the nominee's position on the page or the attention span of the user who is supporting/opposing, that still leaves certain issues in place.

The biggest of which would be the manner in which we pick the final five. If numbers five and six are close, then what do we do? It's not a head-to-head battle, so we can't really have any tiebreakers. Counting supporters is an obvious no-no. A possibility is to have a head-to-head discussion between the two users where the community decides which to pick. However, that comes with its own problems, including the possibility of a flaming war breaking out.

Another issue is the question of whether or not the number of events team members is static at five. Consider the situation if, for example, only three users obtain enough support from the community to comfortably pass the RfET, are we supposed to pick the two remaining candidates that have the least opposition, even if everyone else has significant opposition? That would lead to a situation like this one in the NFC West where a truly mediocre team gets the playoff nod because someone is needed from four horrible NFC West teams.

I think a nice way to resolve these problems is to remove the mandate of five members. The closing sysop can just pick the users that the community trusts to do a good job without worrying about the size of the team. Then, the team can be later adjusted to a suitable size after retirements or additions, whichever is needed.

This will avoid the slew of possible scenarios in which difficult decisions that could potentially harm the wiki might have to be made. --LiquidTalk 01:38, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

You always find a way to bring up the Seahawks, don't you? ʞooɔ 18:43, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
Well, they were the first ones that came to mind. Besides, with a 7-9 team against wimpy opponents making the playoffs, that's a pretty inviting punching bag. --LiquidTalk 23:00, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The six members of the events team have been selected. As such, there is no further need to keep this thread open. --LiquidTalk 03:57, January 7, 2011 (UTC)