Forum:Policy discussion Discord channel
A couple of days ago a #policy-discussion channel was created on the wiki Discord server. The reasoning behind this were concerns that admins were falling into bad habits of discussing policy related things in our private admin only channels (spoiler that these exist). The public channel was created so that these discussions could take place somewhere all parties could contribute if they wanted to. This has generally gone down well with Discord users; though it occurs to me that not everyone who edits uses Discord and this is perhaps still excluding some editors from informal policy discussions. I would be interested in hearing what those people who aren't active on Discord think about the idea.21:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - I fully support this new channel! It's great for everyone to have an in-the-moment discussion about things that affect everyone. ALSO memes are funny :P21:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - Yes to transparency
- It’s possible to have transparency without requiring a new channel that is already not really being used for its intended purpose. #wiki-rs or #wiki-osrs (or both where applicable) makes more sense. We should be encouraging more interaction on our existing channels rather than making new ones that nobody uses often enough (see: #cartographers) jayden 02:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Sup-pose - I support discussion of policies for transparency, and for the general input of ideas or relevant questions pertaining to said policy. However, having it on Discord is counterproductive, to say the very least.
- On the point of counter-productivity, there was rather vocal opposition to the idea with various reasons, ranging from the channel going to shit (It has, and part of the reason it has based on personal observation was due to said opposition), the number of channels present (which is too much for some) and the impossibility for RS:DDD to be enforced.
- Lastly, As per Isobel's last statement, and I quote "I would be interested in hearing what those people who aren't active on Discord think about the idea.", it would be more productive and feasible to have policy discussion here in lieu of said people not utilizing Discord, which in my opinion is a good initiative to have every member have a voice in policy as it has with most matters concerning the wiki. 23:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment - With time, it can be used for its intended purpose. Over the last day or so there has actually been a decent amount of discussion in it following its purpose, without users trying to intentionally derail it. 02:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Comments - The main arguments I've seen for not having #meta-discussions (it's been renamed from #policy-discussion) is because it's inactive or because we can just use #wiki-rs/osrs. I haven't seen anyone against the idea that admins should be speaking outside the cabals.
Inactivity: There will be ups and downs in this channel similar to any other channel. It's relative to how active Yew Grove discussion currently is. It makes no sense to remove a channel solely because it's inactive (usually there would be an underlying reason as to why it became inactive, eg we removed the #rsc channel under projects because the project was done).
Redundancy: #wiki-rs/osrs is for discussion about the content of the respective Wiki, not about the self-referential principles (hence "meta") of the Wiki. Allowing these discussions in #wiki-rs/osrs would just clog up the channel with two different conversations. It's better to have one direct place to talk amongst everyone about any current forum topic.
Usefulness: "People should comment on the threads if they want to say something" - I agree, but there are often times where it's just easier to talk to someone on Discord to clarify something they've said or extensively talk to them (and then later a response is made on the thread). Conversation like this is unavoidable - it will happen regardless if this channel exists or not (and it would happen much more in a cabal). It makes sense that such conversation is in its own channel.
I will continue to push admins discussing meta content to talk in #meta-discussion and not in a cabal. If people neglect to comment in it then of course it will be viewed as inactive and unnecessary. I also hope to see in future a bot that will announce changes to each thread. Let's give it some time. Haidro 07:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- My issue is that I don't think we should be focusing on these informal discussions; we have always had formal public discussions and this is where decisions should continue to be made. As I said, not everyone is on Discord or can be online at the relevant time on Discord to participate in an informal discussion. Discord is also not logged or archived etc. I actually don't like what you've said at all about usefulness; I think Discord "discussions" are often very poor quality and the "ease" of being able to extensively converse quickly descends into an argument when people don't agree. I think this has caused a lot of friction between editors (if you guys were looking for further spoilers about our super secretive cabal debates, it's at least 75% fighting over things we can't agree on) and it's sad to see the negative effect that has had on people. In comparison commenting on a Yew Grove thread requires you to actually put some thought and time into what you're writing and avoids this heat of the moment pitfall to some extent. Personally I would rather comment on a yew grove thread at my leisure and then go back to editing; I don't want to constantly be distracted by someone who wants to extensively talk to me about my thoughts on a discussion.
- Sure, informal discussions will always happen but I ask you to bear in mind how desirable endorsing them actually is when you "continue to push admins discussing meta content to talk in #meta-discussion".
17:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- You raise some good points I never considered. I agree that we shouldn't focus on these informal discussions, but at the end of the day they will happen like you said. I don't intend on #meta-discussion being a channel to endorse these "75% of arguments between people" but more as a public place for everyone to vocally have their own opinion. I guess you could say that the existence of such a channel would endorse this, but wouldn't it be better for such arguments (albeit they do tend to be constructive at times) to not be restricted to admins only? Haidro 08:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)