User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26845762-20170713190006/@comment-26845762-20170714174040: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Yes, but where's the line between an unfavourable outcome and a completely illogical outcome? Sorry to lump you people into one group, but it seems like the admin team as a whole has taken a turn for the non-inclusion of stories. Stuff like [[User talk:Josiah Rowe|discouraging past admin for supporting inclusion debates]] or [[Thread:212365|just flat out saying that you're tired of inclusion debates]]. Nobody is beyond bias and this section added to the policy gives an admin the ability to close a thread without allowing the rest of us to take into account their points first. | Yes, but where's the line between an unfavourable outcome and a completely illogical outcome? Sorry to lump you people into one group, but it seems like the admin team as a whole has taken a turn for the non-inclusion of stories. Stuff like [[User talk:Josiah Rowe|discouraging past admin for supporting inclusion debates]] or [[Thread:212365|just flat out saying that you're tired of inclusion debates]]. Nobody is beyond bias and this section added to the policy gives an admin the ability to close a thread without allowing the rest of us to take into account their points first. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
If these few sentences are kept in [[Tardis:Changing policy]], I would <s>propose</s> ask that there be a clause that if a discussion is large enough that it can have a majority of - I don't know - over three users, they should be given a chance to take salient points into account before the closure of the thread. | If these few sentences are kept in [[Tardis:Changing policy]], I would <s>propose</s> ask that there be a clause that if a discussion is large enough that it can have a majority of - I don't know - over three users, they should be given a chance to take salient points into account before the closure of the thread. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20170713190006-26845762/20170714174040-26845762]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 22:47, 27 April 2023
Yes, but where's the line between an unfavourable outcome and a completely illogical outcome? Sorry to lump you people into one group, but it seems like the admin team as a whole has taken a turn for the non-inclusion of stories. Stuff like discouraging past admin for supporting inclusion debates or just flat out saying that you're tired of inclusion debates. Nobody is beyond bias and this section added to the policy gives an admin the ability to close a thread without allowing the rest of us to take into account their points first.
Thread:191574 was one inclusion thread recently closed based on points the majority had not taken into account. Unfortunately, the closer of the thread did not seem to acknowledge some of the points made in the first post of the thread, instead opting for third party sources on the story which had glossed over some of the story's connections to the DWU. The thread was shut down on some "salient points" which could quite easily have been countered had we the chance.
If these few sentences are kept in Tardis:Changing policy, I would propose ask that there be a clause that if a discussion is large enough that it can have a majority of - I don't know - over three users, they should be given a chance to take salient points into account before the closure of the thread.
