API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
thedeadlymoose

Clef's proposal extended discussion

thedeadlymoose
Jul 23rd, 2012
148
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 65.22 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. [2012-07-22 18:35:20] <thedeadlymoose> .tell Nusquam http://pastebin.com/F6xBDqJm > Clef's proposal, since you asked on 05.
  2. [2012-07-22 18:35:22] <CROM> thedeadlymoose: I'll pass that along.
  3. [2012-07-22 18:36:00] =-= Clef_zzzz is now known as Clef
  4. [2012-07-22 18:37:00] <thedeadlymoose> Speak of the devil.
  5. [2012-07-22 18:50:03] =-= DexaLoL is now known as Dexanote
  6. [2012-07-22 18:52:23] <Nusquam> I'm reading this proposal now.
  7. [2012-07-22 18:53:43] <Nusquam> I don't like the suggestion that SS need to review a member's submitted works for them to be approved as a contributor.
  8. [2012-07-22 18:54:31] <Nusquam> I /really/ don't like that, by the looks of this: "After one month in good standing, a Probationary Contributor is then upgraded to a Site Contributor. A Site Contributor may, in addition to uploading creative works to the wiki, vote on other creative works." Only writers can vote.
  9. [2012-07-22 18:55:10] <EchoFourDelta> You know what? With the massive explosion in membership, and looking like t's only going to increase?
  10. [2012-07-22 18:55:31] <EchoFourDelta> I think a much more restrictive authorship status policy is *excellent*.
  11. [2012-07-22 18:55:52] <Nusquam> Voting should not be restricted.
  12. [2012-07-22 18:56:18] <Nusquam> Not to writers only.
  13. [2012-07-22 18:57:13] -->| Wilkes (Mibbit@synIRC-A129C52B.dynamic.waikato.ac.nz) has joined chat
  14. [2012-07-22 18:57:24] <Nusquam> And the need for SS to review submitted works for someone to be credited as a contributor is pretty backwards when you consider the membership explosion.
  15. [2012-07-22 18:58:22] <thedeadlymoose> Nus, I think you misunderstood. People only have to have their material voted on when they're applying, under this proposal.
  16. [2012-07-22 18:58:43] <thedeadlymoose> I do agree that this would require a large increase in the ranks of senior staff, as Echo and I have both noted
  17. [2012-07-22 18:59:12] <Nusquam> It also implies, or maybe states and I just don't get it, that there would be two different pools of work, the main list works and then this "slush pile" that submissions from people trying to get vetted would go to.
  18. [2012-07-22 18:59:13] <thedeadlymoose> I further do not think that this is a bad thing, if we make it clear that senior staff is not automatically a fast track to moderator.
  19. [2012-07-22 18:59:19] <thedeadlymoose> Or a track at all, technically.
  20. [2012-07-22 18:59:56] <thedeadlymoose> Yes, and each member need only deal with the slush pile for their first two works. (I'd argue for reducing that to /one/ work.)
  21. [2012-07-22 19:00:45] <user> two seems good...you can get lucky once
  22. [2012-07-22 19:00:45] |<-- Heiden has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  23. [2012-07-22 19:00:50] <Nusquam> I don't think it's necessary.
  24. [2012-07-22 19:00:53] <thedeadlymoose> I think getting lucky once is okay.
  25. [2012-07-22 19:01:25] <user> but if they become a contributor, is the expectation for them to keep writing?
  26. [2012-07-22 19:01:28] <thedeadlymoose> I... tentatively agree, actually, that voting should not be restricted.
  27. [2012-07-22 19:01:37] <user> Maybe you become probationary when you get one done
  28. [2012-07-22 19:01:45] <user> and then a real contributor on the second one
  29. [2012-07-22 19:01:58] <user> instead of the arbitrary one month thing.
  30. [2012-07-22 19:02:22] <thedeadlymoose> I'm not sure. Hm.
  31. [2012-07-22 19:02:35] <Nusquam> That's kinda bullshit. Someone's either contributed or they haven't. I don't buy refusing to credit someone as having contributed because they only wrote one thing.
  32. [2012-07-22 19:02:46] <thedeadlymoose> Yeeeeeah, I don't either, actually.
  33. [2012-07-22 19:03:12] <thedeadlymoose> I think it's perfectly fine to have one good piece. What's wrong with that?
  34. [2012-07-22 19:03:20] <Nusquam> Nothing at all.
  35. [2012-07-22 19:03:43] <thedeadlymoose> Unless I'm missing something, I can't see anything wrong with that either.
  36. [2012-07-22 19:03:50] <EchoFourDelta> I can get behind that.
  37. [2012-07-22 19:04:19] <thedeadlymoose> I still like the slush pile concept for that single work, though.
  38. [2012-07-22 19:04:21] <Nusquam> I further don't like only calling authors contributors, as it downplays the roles played by commenting and voting.
  39. [2012-07-22 19:04:50] <thedeadlymoose> I can get behind calling them Authors.
  40. [2012-07-22 19:04:57] <Nusquam> I would prefer authors.
  41. [2012-07-22 19:05:15] <thedeadlymoose> I am okay with Contributor myself but I do think Authors is better.
  42. [2012-07-22 19:05:24] <Nusquam> But I would prefer the slush pile bit be scratched.
  43. [2012-07-22 19:05:42] <Nusquam> The slush pile isn't going to be as well reviewed as the main list. I can almost guarantee that.
  44. [2012-07-22 19:05:50] <Dexanote> i kinda agree there
  45. [2012-07-22 19:06:41] -->| Heiden (Mibbit@synIRC-BBC098E3.tc.ph.cox.net) has joined chat
  46. [2012-07-22 19:06:51] <Nusquam> I can see someone trying to submit works to it to be approved as an author and be thwarted by a lack of feedback telling them what they're doing wrong, and I can see that happening repeatedly until they lose patience.
  47. [2012-07-22 19:08:43] <thedeadlymoose> Hmmmm. I think it depends on how it's implemented. I was under the impression that staff just have to sign off on it as evidence of the author not being super stupid. But Clef's proposal isn't clear on that.
  48. [2012-07-22 19:09:12] <thedeadlymoose> We oughta ask about that, then.
  49. [2012-07-22 19:09:19] <thedeadlymoose> Because you're not wrong, Nus.
  50. [2012-07-22 19:09:20] <user> Maybe someone should hash out a more specific version
  51. [2012-07-22 19:11:33] <Nusquam> I /really/ don't like the suggested changes to the deletions process.
  52. [2012-07-22 19:11:36] <thedeadlymoose> I like the idea of having a slush pile barrier, but I find that I am uncertain on how that could be made to work.
  53. [2012-07-22 19:11:56] <thedeadlymoose> Elaborate, Nus?
  54. [2012-07-22 19:12:11] <Nusquam> Something drops to the deletions threshold, so we immediately halt the ability of the author to receive feedback on it?
  55. [2012-07-22 19:12:46] <Nusquam> To edit it, get feedback, and for the rest of the community to change their votes accordingly?
  56. [2012-07-22 19:12:48] <thedeadlymoose> Ha. Good point. I mentally filled in 'after a 24 hour period'.
  57. [2012-07-22 19:13:03] * thedeadlymoose needs to stop doing that
  58. [2012-07-22 19:13:18] <Nusquam> Even if it is after a 24-hour period, they should be able to get feedback and try to save it down to the wire.
  59. [2012-07-22 19:13:19] <thedeadlymoose> With that caveat, I still like it, though.
  60. [2012-07-22 19:13:34] <Nusquam> There is no good reason to deny them this.
  61. [2012-07-22 19:13:37] <user> Why is august 18th a special day?
  62. [2012-07-22 19:14:16] <Nusquam> Gears' birthday.
  63. [2012-07-22 19:14:21] <thedeadlymoose> Well, I also assumed that if it rose above deletion threshold in 24 hours (and stayed there - an alteration to current policy which I feel is inefficient), we'd not kick it back to sandbox.
  64. [2012-07-22 19:14:37] <thedeadlymoose> Yes. Gears' birthday. :D
  65. [2012-07-22 19:15:05] <thedeadlymoose> And, yes, I should also clarify that I agree with /that/ caveat as well.
  66. [2012-07-22 19:15:36] <user> Mmm
  67. [2012-07-22 19:15:47] <thedeadlymoose> basically, I would support that assuming we keep the 24 hour grace period, and if the article is saved in that period, we cancel kicking it back to sandbox.
  68. [2012-07-22 19:15:48] <user> What are we doing for his birthday?
  69. [2012-07-22 19:15:55] <thedeadlymoose> user: Ask Troy.
  70. [2012-07-22 19:15:59] <thedeadlymoose> And then help him.
  71. [2012-07-22 19:16:29] <thedeadlymoose> Hm... I'm going to write down my personal caveats, for posting if/when Clef kicks this to 05.
  72. [2012-07-22 19:16:49] -->| Light (~Light@synIRC-74B1D5CE.kcls.org) has joined chat
  73. [2012-07-22 19:16:49] =-= Mode chat +o Light by ChanServ
  74. [2012-07-22 19:16:59] <user> Hi Light
  75. [2012-07-22 19:17:22] <Light> Heyo
  76. [2012-07-22 19:18:42] <thedeadlymoose> Hey Light
  77. [2012-07-22 19:18:52] <thedeadlymoose> Seen all the 05 developments? :)
  78. [2012-07-22 19:19:53] <Light> Looking now!
  79. [2012-07-22 19:20:03] <Light> what the fuck
  80. [2012-07-22 19:20:09] <Heiden> ^
  81. [2012-07-22 19:20:11] <Heiden> seconding
  82. [2012-07-22 19:20:14] -->| Eskindle (~Eskobar@synIRC-AE05D5C0.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com) has joined chat
  83. [2012-07-22 19:21:03] <user> Wut
  84. [2012-07-22 19:21:06] <thedeadlymoose> Hahahahaaha.
  85. [2012-07-22 19:21:06] <thedeadlymoose> Yeah.
  86. [2012-07-22 19:21:09] <thedeadlymoose> /Yeah./
  87. [2012-07-22 19:21:25] <thedeadlymoose> Four ludicrously outsized developments at once.
  88. [2012-07-22 19:21:43] |<-- Eskindle_ has left irc.synirc.net (Ping timeout)
  89. [2012-07-22 19:21:52] <Eskindle> Fish, Gears, what else?
  90. [2012-07-22 19:22:09] -->| spikebrennan (Mibbit@synIRC-7C0A3B3D.hsd1.pa.comcast.net) has joined chat
  91. [2012-07-22 19:22:14] <Nusquam> Scroton.
  92. [2012-07-22 19:22:28] <thedeadlymoose> Addition of a feedback page & fucking with main page (admittedly not the biggest development), and the authorship debate developments.
  93. [2012-07-22 19:22:37] <thedeadlymoose> Including Scroton in the last.
  94. [2012-07-22 19:22:41] <Eskindle> Okay, I buy it.
  95. [2012-07-22 19:22:54] <thedeadlymoose> Hey spike.
  96. [2012-07-22 19:22:55] <thedeadlymoose> Go 05.
  97. [2012-07-22 19:23:02] <spikebrennan> yo
  98. [2012-07-22 19:23:25] <spikebrennan> wife is all caught up in watching the bachelorette show or something
  99. [2012-07-22 19:25:13] <user> fishmonger wants in again?
  100. [2012-07-22 19:25:18] <Eskindle> Yep.
  101. [2012-07-22 19:25:23] <Eskindle> SPOILERS DUDE
  102. [2012-07-22 19:25:39] <EchoFourDelta> Oh yeah, Heiden. Fish isback.
  103. [2012-07-22 19:25:44] <Heiden> I saw.
  104. [2012-07-22 19:25:46] <Heiden> My response?
  105. [2012-07-22 19:25:47] <Heiden> Nope.jpeg
  106. [2012-07-22 19:25:49] <Eskindle> Gotta let Spike get there organically.
  107. [2012-07-22 19:26:17] <spikebrennan> say, what?
  108. [2012-07-22 19:26:21] <spikebrennan> what's on the agenda now?
  109. [2012-07-22 19:27:02] <Nusquam> http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-532611/management-overhaul
  110. [2012-07-22 19:27:02] <Nusquam> This.
  111. [2012-07-22 19:27:23] <Nusquam> http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-533796/squonk
  112. [2012-07-22 19:27:24] <Nusquam> This.
  113. [2012-07-22 19:27:48] <Nusquam> And one other thing.
  114. [2012-07-22 19:28:04] <thedeadlymoose> http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-532302/unclaimed-scps
  115. [2012-07-22 19:28:05] <thedeadlymoose> That.
  116. [2012-07-22 19:28:31] <Nusquam> Yes, that.
  117. [2012-07-22 19:28:48] <thedeadlymoose> And I suppose you might want to read the Scroton thread too: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-513296/scroton
  118. [2012-07-22 19:28:58] <thedeadlymoose> Which prompts the Unclaimed SCPs thread.
  119. [2012-07-22 19:29:19] <spikebrennan> well, management overhaul. TL, DR. Is there a specific thing going on?
  120. [2012-07-22 19:29:19] <user> Night guys
  121. [2012-07-22 19:29:19] |<-- user has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  122. [2012-07-22 19:29:26] <thedeadlymoose> Hahahahahahahahaha.
  123. [2012-07-22 19:29:28] <thedeadlymoose> Sorry spike.
  124. [2012-07-22 19:29:35] <thedeadlymoose> You can't really tl dr on this one.
  125. [2012-07-22 19:29:35] <spikebrennan> I know, Gears has too much real life shit to deal with-- and I can certainly understand that. So, what changes?
  126. [2012-07-22 19:29:35] <Eskindle> Ironic.
  127. [2012-07-22 19:30:15] <thedeadlymoose> Sigh, I'll try to tl;dr it for you. :p
  128. [2012-07-22 19:30:33] <thedeadlymoose> Gears wants to feel out if we feel an overhaul is needed, and if so, to what extent.
  129. [2012-07-22 19:30:42] <Eskindle> Apparently we need to work now or something.
  130. [2012-07-22 19:30:46] <thedeadlymoose> (Answer so far: Yes, with Bright dissenting.)
  131. [2012-07-22 19:31:19] <thedeadlymoose> Also, if Gears should step down because he can't be around for more than 2 days a week at most, maybe less.
  132. [2012-07-22 19:31:25] <thedeadlymoose> Answer so far: Unanimously opposed.
  133. [2012-07-22 19:31:46] <EchoFourDelta> Heiden: Look at this
  134. [2012-07-22 19:31:47] <Eskindle> Honestly, two days a week would be a step up for him.
  135. [2012-07-22 19:31:48] <EchoFourDelta> 21:07 Bookwizard But thank you for your encouragement, EchoFourDelta 21:07 Bookwizard It means a lot to me.
  136. [2012-07-22 19:31:58] <thedeadlymoose> Also, if there should be a 50/50 divide between writerly admins/mods and managerial admins/mods.
  137. [2012-07-22 19:32:03] <spikebrennan> Well, let's take a step back: an overhaul would be needed if something in the process were regarded as not being handled properly. Does anyone have a specific complaint?
  138. [2012-07-22 19:32:04] <thedeadlymoose> Answer so far: Unanimously opposed.
  139. [2012-07-22 19:32:15] <thedeadlymoose> Spike, that's a complex question.
  140. [2012-07-22 19:32:28] <thedeadlymoose> So far, all but Bright have agreed that /some/ kind of overhaul is needed.
  141. [2012-07-22 19:32:43] <thedeadlymoose> I would imagine everyone but Bright has complaints based on that, but they may not be the same ones.
  142. [2012-07-22 19:33:00] <thedeadlymoose> Gears is specifically not yet calling for votes or decisions or that sorta thing.
  143. [2012-07-22 19:33:39] <thedeadlymoose> Two more issues: "Increased professionalism/clarified duties and structure – [answer being] Good theory, but in need of more discussion"
  144. [2012-07-22 19:33:41] <Eskindle> Though I'm not fully sure why not.
  145. [2012-07-22 19:33:49] <Heiden> jesus, echo, what did you say
  146. [2012-07-22 19:33:54] <Heiden> I can't imagine you ever encouraging someone
  147. [2012-07-22 19:33:57] <spikebrennan> And on Gears stepping down-- that's completely his call, and his alone, as far as I'm concerned.
  148. [2012-07-22 19:34:08] <thedeadlymoose> And, the question of whether applications ought to be split up amongst admins. Again, all agree with Bright dissenting.
  149. [2012-07-22 19:34:13] <thedeadlymoose> spike, he asked us our opinion.
  150. [2012-07-22 19:34:17] <thedeadlymoose> :P
  151. [2012-07-22 19:34:18] <Maddy> He can be encouraging.
  152. [2012-07-22 19:34:19] <thedeadlymoose> We gave it.
  153. [2012-07-22 19:34:20] <thedeadlymoose> Hehe.
  154. [2012-07-22 19:34:52] <Eskindle> I've wanted that for a while, but figured he other admins didn't want the job.
  155. [2012-07-22 19:34:56] <spikebrennan> These are very vague issues. I handle governance for a living. When I'm leading a client who pays over this sort of thing, before making changes to management or processes we should first identify the problem, if any.
  156. [2012-07-22 19:34:58] <thedeadlymoose> That's as tl;dr as I can possibly make that thread, spike.
  157. [2012-07-22 19:35:19] <thedeadlymoose> Spike then goddamn read the thread instead of making me tl;dr it, and post your opinion! :P
  158. [2012-07-22 19:35:20] <thedeadlymoose> Hehehe.
  159. [2012-07-22 19:35:35] <Nusquam> He wouldn't gain anything by reading it, I don't think.
  160. [2012-07-22 19:35:56] <spikebrennan> Look; I'm not aware of a specific problem that needs solving.
  161. [2012-07-22 19:35:56] <Eskindle> This is sort of what that is. It's backassward, but he's putting forward possible solutions to problems and aking us which ones we feel will solve problems we have.
  162. [2012-07-22 19:36:04] <Nusquam> I don't think anyone gave specific issues that any proposed changes would address.
  163. [2012-07-22 19:36:23] <thedeadlymoose> So /tell him that/.
  164. [2012-07-22 19:36:31] <Eskindle> Many of the admins don't do shit. That's part of it.
  165. [2012-07-22 19:36:33] <thedeadlymoose> In the 05 thread.
  166. [2012-07-22 19:36:53] <spikebrennan> Well, there you have it, then. A very wise man once told me that when you buy a building, before you knock down a wall, make sure you know why it was there in the first place.
  167. [2012-07-22 19:37:00] <Eskindle> Some of the SS are assholes. That's part of it. (I'm paraphrasing.)
  168. [2012-07-22 19:37:02] <thedeadlymoose> Hehehehe.
  169. [2012-07-22 19:37:07] <EchoFourDelta> Gears is barely here, and is *usually* a figurehead. Kain is about as out of touch and absentee as one could be most of the time. Quikngruvn has scaled back his time here drastically. Waxx doesn't give a shit. The Admin is a dummy account. Pair o' Ducks and Snorlison are about as MIA as can be. Light and Photo are rarely around.
  170. [2012-07-22 19:37:53] <spikebrennan> Admins who don't do shit: well, i'm in that category. somebody made me an admin kind of by courtesy by way of inviting me to post in the admin site from time to time.
  171. [2012-07-22 19:38:07] <thedeadlymoose> That doesn't make you admin, spike :P
  172. [2012-07-22 19:38:08] <Eskindle> You're SS, not admin.
  173. [2012-07-22 19:38:12] <thedeadlymoose> all senior staff are on 05
  174. [2012-07-22 19:38:17] <spikebrennan> ah, right you are.
  175. [2012-07-22 19:38:18] <thedeadlymoose> that's one of our unlisted rights
  176. [2012-07-22 19:38:21] <thedeadlymoose> er...
  177. [2012-07-22 19:38:22] <Eskindle> Top-shelf people shouldn't be absent.
  178. [2012-07-22 19:38:34] <thedeadlymoose> not 'our' anymore since I'm a moderator but you know what I mean
  179. [2012-07-22 19:38:35] * MisterFlames just reads.
  180. [2012-07-22 19:38:39] <Eskindle> MINE.
  181. [2012-07-22 19:38:47] <thedeadlymoose> XD
  182. [2012-07-22 19:38:48] <thedeadlymoose> YOUR
  183. [2012-07-22 19:38:53] <Light> What's this proposal of clef's that everyone is talking about in the thread? There a link somewhere?
  184. [2012-07-22 19:39:02] <Nusquam> http://pastebin.com/F6xBDqJm
  185. [2012-07-22 19:39:10] <spikebrennan> if people are going to stop showing up, a policy won't stop that. so the decision to make is, should some set period of silence be grounds for pulling admin status? and why would it be a good idea to do that?
  186. [2012-07-22 19:39:14] <Eskindle> Bright does all the applications. That's s problem for lots of reasons.
  187. [2012-07-22 19:39:26] <Eskindle> Yeah, that was my idea, spike.
  188. [2012-07-22 19:39:28] <Light> Thanks nus!
  189. [2012-07-22 19:39:29] <thedeadlymoose> Yeah, sorry, Light, I forgot to link you.
  190. [2012-07-22 19:39:29] <Nusquam> If Clef doesn't post it in the next hour or so I'm just gonna myself.
  191. [2012-07-22 19:39:33] <Nusquam> No problem.
  192. [2012-07-22 19:39:42] <spikebrennan> bright does the applications because bright is willing to do the applications. is anyone else willing to take some of the burden and is bright willing to divide it up?
  193. [2012-07-22 19:39:57] <Nusquam> I would if I were able.
  194. [2012-07-22 19:40:04] <Eskindle> Apparently so
  195. [2012-07-22 19:40:11] <Eskindle> I hadn't thought so.
  196. [2012-07-22 19:40:17] <Nusquam> Most of the admins are willing to, and indeed already capable of it.
  197. [2012-07-22 19:40:23] <thedeadlymoose> It's more that all the other admins either want to or are willing to, who have posted in the thread so far.
  198. [2012-07-22 19:40:32] <Nusquam> It's just that Bright insists he be the only one to do them, which is ridiculous.
  199. [2012-07-22 19:40:33] <thedeadlymoose> Bright does not feel it's necessary, though
  200. [2012-07-22 19:40:44] <Eskindle> He's gonna lose that one, it seems.
  201. [2012-07-22 19:41:11] <spikebrennan> what is bright's argument in favor of remaining in sole control of that function?
  202. [2012-07-22 19:41:31] <Eskindle> "Nah, guys, you don't need to. Really."
  203. [2012-07-22 19:41:38] <Eskindle> I'm paraphrasing.
  204. [2012-07-22 19:41:57] -->| Doctofapfap (~Doctolapt@synIRC-CE028DCE.sub-174-252-35.myvzw.com) has joined chat
  205. [2012-07-22 19:42:13] <thedeadlymoose> "And, for I don't know how many times, there is absolutely no need to make different people do the applications. I'm handling it perfectly fine, and, at this point in time, the workload isn't enough to need more than one person."
  206. [2012-07-22 19:42:21] <thedeadlymoose> That is bright's non paraphrased argument
  207. [2012-07-22 19:42:23] <thedeadlymoose> you lazy fucks
  208. [2012-07-22 19:42:24] <thedeadlymoose> <3
  209. [2012-07-22 19:42:31] <Eskindle> KINDLE OKAY
  210. [2012-07-22 19:42:36] <thedeadlymoose> FINE
  211. [2012-07-22 19:42:41] <thedeadlymoose> GO KINDLE YOURSELF
  212. [2012-07-22 19:42:54] <Eskindle> PROFESSIONALIZE YOURSELF
  213. [2012-07-22 19:43:03] <Eskindle> *IN THE ASS*
  214. [2012-07-22 19:43:24] <spikebrennan> thing is, bright is actually getting the job done. so what sometimes happens is, when you take away someone's toy, they get upset and go home. and then you figure out that you really did need that person doing that job. so i'd say, careful.
  215. [2012-07-22 19:44:09] <spikebrennan> the concern is what, that bright is letting in too many fuckwits? or that having bright be the sole gatekeeper is in and of itself a bad thing?
  216. [2012-07-22 19:44:25] <Maddy> I think its the latter
  217. [2012-07-22 19:44:37] <Nusquam> Applications are closed every time he's out of town at a convention or something.
  218. [2012-07-22 19:44:40] <Nusquam> And that's dumb.
  219. [2012-07-22 19:44:57] <EchoFourDelta> thedeadlymoose: I'm trying that thing now, btw
  220. [2012-07-22 19:45:04] <Maddy> That and, if I may be honest here, Bright has a tendancy do go "My way on the highway" as if he's the king of the site, which, ain't so great in itself.
  221. [2012-07-22 19:45:26] <EchoFourDelta> spikebrennan: Except literally anyone could do the aplications.
  222. [2012-07-22 19:45:48] <spikebrennan> i would imagine, though, that applications is a pretty time-consuming and boring job
  223. [2012-07-22 19:45:51] <EchoFourDelta> It's not taking away a toy, it's ensuring transparency, eliminating bias, and easing workload.
  224. [2012-07-22 19:46:03] <EchoFourDelta> This isn't hard.
  225. [2012-07-22 19:46:10] <thedeadlymoose> Echo: kk
  226. [2012-07-22 19:46:13] <Nusquam> If it were to be viewed as taking away a toy, there's an issue.
  227. [2012-07-22 19:46:39] <Photosynthetic> Quite right, Nus.
  228. [2012-07-22 19:46:44] <thedeadlymoose> It /has/ been viewed that way so far, which is I think what's prompted this.
  229. [2012-07-22 19:47:27] <spikebrennan> oh, i agree with the policy arguments against having one person with basically life tenure be the gatekeeper for membership. all i'm saying is, if there's going to be a change, it will have to be presented to bright very diplomatically. and i'm not sure who would be the right person to do that.
  230. [2012-07-22 19:47:44] <thedeadlymoose> Plus, Bright is the sole arbiter of what goes on the application so far, and what determines who gets in (like the gender/location requirements).
  231. [2012-07-22 19:47:45] <Nusquam> I nominate Troy.
  232. [2012-07-22 19:47:52] <Nusquam> All in favor?
  233. [2012-07-22 19:47:58] <spikebrennan> of what?
  234. [2012-07-22 19:48:00] <thedeadlymoose> hehe, guys, Bright /is/ logging all this, y'know. he's a big boy, he can read. XD
  235. [2012-07-22 19:48:08] <Eskindle> We cannot, to paraphrase a catchphrase, have an admin who's Too Big to...Have a Job Taken Out of His Exclusive Hands.
  236. [2012-07-22 19:48:11] <Nusquam> Nevermind, it was a joke.
  237. [2012-07-22 19:48:16] <thedeadlymoose> Hahahahahaha.
  238. [2012-07-22 19:48:26] <thedeadlymoose> I laughed. But I didn't think it was a joke.
  239. [2012-07-22 19:48:31] <thedeadlymoose> That's the issue, innit.
  240. [2012-07-22 19:48:35] <Eskindle> Not catchy, but you get it.
  241. [2012-07-22 19:50:26] <thedeadlymoose> I would also note, guys, that Gears doesn't get these chat logs, and Gears' thread is what we're discussing
  242. [2012-07-22 19:50:36] <Light> By the way, anyone paying attention- is there a reason no one's linked Clef's proposal in the thread yet? I'm about to do that otherwise
  243. [2012-07-22 19:50:48] <Nusquam> Nope, I was just about to myself.
  244. [2012-07-22 19:50:50] <thedeadlymoose> Light, Troy and I have not, at least, because Clef didn't and we were unsure.
  245. [2012-07-22 19:50:54] <Nusquam> But go ahead.
  246. [2012-07-22 19:50:58] <Light> Cool!
  247. [2012-07-22 19:51:00] <thedeadlymoose> He might want to do it himself.
  248. [2012-07-22 19:51:11] <thedeadlymoose> Hehe, but if you two figure otherwise, it's not like it's a secret. XD
  249. [2012-07-22 19:51:53] <Nusquam> It's being discussed in the thread; having to inquire in chat about it is an unnecessary pain in the ass and prevents people discussing it effectively.
  250. [2012-07-22 19:52:21] <Photosynthetic> Please do link it; I haven't read it yet.
  251. [2012-07-22 19:52:30] <Nusquam> http://pastebin.com/F6xBDqJm
  252. [2012-07-22 19:52:32] <Photosynthetic> Because I couldn't find it.
  253. [2012-07-22 19:52:34] <Photosynthetic> Ah thanks.
  254. [2012-07-22 19:52:50] <thedeadlymoose> Photo, Clef linked it, said 'discuss', and went offline for the weekend. This was Friday. XD
  255. [2012-07-22 19:53:52] <Photosynthetic> ah. That would explain it.
  256. [2012-07-22 19:55:20] <spikebrennan> so, some quick, half-digested thoughts on http://pastebin.com/F6xBDqJm :
  257. [2012-07-22 19:55:50] <EchoFourDelta> Anyone know the current passwords off the top of their head?
  258. [2012-07-22 19:55:55] <spikebrennan> (1) i suspect that making a distinction between site members and site contributors would not actually result in improved quality of first-time submissions.
  259. [2012-07-22 19:56:13] <thedeadlymoose> Echo, there is only one, twisted fire
  260. [2012-07-22 19:56:33] <spikebrennan> (2) i see no good reason to muck around with the current deletion mechanics.
  261. [2012-07-22 19:56:34] * EchoFourDelta goes back over the guides.
  262. [2012-07-22 19:56:38] <Wilkes> Sounds like Star Ship Troopers, are you a citizen or a civilian?
  263. [2012-07-22 19:57:24] <EchoFourDelta> The distinction between members and contributors is the same difference as that of wikidot members and wiki members
  264. [2012-07-22 19:58:13] <Nusquam> Not really, no.
  265. [2012-07-22 19:58:23] <Photosynthetic> I don't know about (2), Spike. I like at least having a better way to kick articles back to authors. I'm a bit worried that it'll tie up too many numbers, too fast.
  266. [2012-07-22 19:58:36] <Photosynthetic> * BUT I'm a bit worried
  267. [2012-07-22 19:58:43] <spikebrennan> in clef's proposal, as i understand it, if you're a "member" you get to post in the forums and,i guess, vote. if you're a contributor, you get to try to post contributions which would then be subject to some kind of additional deletion process.
  268. [2012-07-22 19:59:01] <Nusquam> Actually, his proposal implies only contributors can vote.
  269. [2012-07-22 19:59:04] <thedeadlymoose> I'm putting up some critique of my own, actually
  270. [2012-07-22 19:59:06] <thedeadlymoose> And yes, it does
  271. [2012-07-22 19:59:08] <Nusquam> Which is one of my big sticking points.
  272. [2012-07-22 19:59:18] <Clef> Nus: why?
  273. [2012-07-22 19:59:23] -->| Doctopiss (~Doctolapt@synIRC-5A90A285.sub-174-252-43.myvzw.com) has joined chat
  274. [2012-07-22 19:59:23] <spikebrennan> the current system isn't that bad. people join, they post (or not), and if they post something that's crap, it goes through the process and gets deleted.
  275. [2012-07-22 19:59:34] <spikebrennan> gotta go, bye
  276. [2012-07-22 19:59:39] <thedeadlymoose> ciao spike
  277. [2012-07-22 19:59:40] |<-- spikebrennan has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  278. [2012-07-22 20:00:00] <Nusquam> Because it would exclude everyone but authors from voting for no good reason.
  279. [2012-07-22 20:00:11] |<-- Doctofapfap has left irc.synirc.net (Ping timeout)
  280. [2012-07-22 20:00:12] <Clef> Nio
  281. [2012-07-22 20:00:16] <Clef> There is a VERY good reason for it.
  282. [2012-07-22 20:00:21] <thedeadlymoose> Actually, Clef, what is the reason?
  283. [2012-07-22 20:00:23] <thedeadlymoose> I don't know it, myself.
  284. [2012-07-22 20:00:40] <Clef> It's meant to help limit the influence of the mob on the SCP scores.
  285. [2012-07-22 20:00:49] <EchoFourDelta> ^
  286. [2012-07-22 20:01:11] <Clef> As it currently stands, the scores are basically popularity contests. There is really no rhyme or reason to why certain articles are rated higher than others, aside from the fact that certain ones get attention and the mob does a mass upvote.
  287. [2012-07-22 20:01:47] <Clef> The idea is: fewer votes, but from a more focused userbase
  288. [2012-07-22 20:02:29] <Eskindle> Procrastinati. That's my comment.
  289. [2012-07-22 20:02:31] <EchoFourDelta> Obviously, this is a terrible idea, because everyone should be able to vote!
  290. [2012-07-22 20:02:36] <EchoFourDelta> /sarcasm
  291. [2012-07-22 20:02:51] <thedeadlymoose> Hmmmmmmmm.
  292. [2012-07-22 20:02:53] <EchoFourDelta> I agree ith Clef; you don't write, you don't vote
  293. [2012-07-22 20:02:55] <Nusquam> That certain ones get attention and thus, more review is the reason.
  294. [2012-07-22 20:03:09] <Clef> In fact, I would almost recommend that the voting system be replaced with a 1-10 rating.
  295. [2012-07-22 20:03:26] <Clef> So that there is a hard cap on how high an article can be voted.
  296. [2012-07-22 20:03:27] <Nusquam> And there's nothing really WRONG with that.
  297. [2012-07-22 20:03:53] <Clef> Yes, there is.
  298. [2012-07-22 20:04:12] <Clef> The size of the fanbase is increasing greatly, and it will soon reach the point where the fanbase becomes uncontrollable if we allow things to proceed as they have.
  299. [2012-07-22 20:04:39] <Clef> In addition, off-site fanbases are starting to grow in popularity, which is increasing the possibility of fandom based voting blocs forming off-site.
  300. [2012-07-22 20:05:23] <Dexanote> This is true.
  301. [2012-07-22 20:05:33] <thedeadlymoose> I'm starting to get convinced over here myself.
  302. [2012-07-22 20:05:46] <Dexanote> We can't let people who don't add anything to control what we keep and produce.
  303. [2012-07-22 20:05:56] <thedeadlymoose> I wouldn't agree out of context of the site starting to increase massively.
  304. [2012-07-22 20:06:12] <Dexanote> They have no right to pick and choose what we do. They didn't earn it.
  305. [2012-07-22 20:06:20] <thedeadlymoose> Also, malicious downvotes/upvotes or mass downvote/upvote brigades are now almost impossible to detect.
  306. [2012-07-22 20:06:29] <Dexanote> Yes.
  307. [2012-07-22 20:06:31] <Eskindle> This is roughly my reasoning.
  308. [2012-07-22 20:06:37] <thedeadlymoose> You /all/ know that 076 has been the target of some of these. it's only a matter of time before it works for an SCP.
  309. [2012-07-22 20:06:51] <Eskindle> Though are we pegging voting rights to authorship specifically?
  310. [2012-07-22 20:06:58] <Eskindle> In this proposal?
  311. [2012-07-22 20:07:16] <Clef> Eskindle: the idea is that if you want to vote you need to show that you are willing to make a significant contribution to the wiki.
  312. [2012-07-22 20:07:26] <Clef> My proposal contained one such method of doing so.
  313. [2012-07-22 20:07:41] <Photosynthetic> I find myself convinced.
  314. [2012-07-22 20:07:44] <Nusquam> So then we let the /possibility/ of a few bad apples ruin a privilege everyone has and, I feel, should have?
  315. [2012-07-22 20:07:45] <Eskindle> Would we let in people we have judged as being good at critique as well?
  316. [2012-07-22 20:08:10] <Wilkes> using a 1-10 rating and then giving articles a bayesian average instead of a total aggregate sum does sound better
  317. [2012-07-22 20:08:43] <thedeadlymoose> Nus, argue for the other side?
  318. [2012-07-22 20:08:43] <Maddy> As much as I would miss voting under the new system, I see its merrits and I could get behind it, honestly.
  319. [2012-07-22 20:08:48] <thedeadlymoose> What's the upside of what we have now?
  320. [2012-07-22 20:08:54] <thedeadlymoose> Btw, not necessarily convinced on the 1-10 rating.
  321. [2012-07-22 20:09:05] <Maddy> Not a fan of the 1-10
  322. [2012-07-22 20:09:06] <thedeadlymoose> I mean the upside of the all members get to vote thing.
  323. [2012-07-22 20:09:07] <Dexanote> Nor am I. But it's a possibility.
  324. [2012-07-22 20:09:08] <Photosynthetic> Nusquam, let me play devil's advocate a moment. /Why/ should everyone have the right to vote?
  325. [2012-07-22 20:09:21] <Eskindle> I dunno. I could be convinced on the 1-10 scale.
  326. [2012-07-22 20:09:44] <EchoFourDelta> Photo: Cuz it r our freedum accordn 2 genva convenshun
  327. [2012-07-22 20:09:46] <Light> You know, re: 1-10 and agregate voting, suppose we have a way to display both and then pick one main one down the line?
  328. [2012-07-22 20:09:47] <Clef> Nus: it is not the possibility of a few bad apples, it is the certainty that we WILL get a large number of bad apples. Ask anyone who has been an active admin: the number of disruptive users and newbies has been going to exponentially, and if we don't take measures soon, we are going to wind up overwhelmed.
  329. [2012-07-22 20:09:49] <Nusquam> The more people who are able to vote, the less of an impact a small group of users attempting to influence the system maliciously will have.
  330. [2012-07-22 20:09:53] <Clef> echo, shut up
  331. [2012-07-22 20:09:54] <thedeadlymoose> I don't see the upside and I like the current system. But I could be convinced too.
  332. [2012-07-22 20:10:04] <Clef> if you have nothing useful to say, do NOT mock someone trying to make a serious argument
  333. [2012-07-22 20:10:08] <thedeadlymoose> Echo, I agree with you, but don't ---
  334. [2012-07-22 20:10:09] <thedeadlymoose> Yeah
  335. [2012-07-22 20:10:16] <Light> Both are interesting but I think I'd like to see them in action
  336. [2012-07-22 20:10:18] <EchoFourDelta> Hey, buddy, I don't fucking "shut up" for nobody.
  337. [2012-07-22 20:10:53] <EchoFourDelta> I *did* have a point to make.
  338. [2012-07-22 20:10:59] <Clef> Well, in that case, I suggest you learn to do so. Because what you are doing right now is outright trolling.
  339. [2012-07-22 20:11:04] <Nusquam> Then make it.
  340. [2012-07-22 20:11:21] <Clef> I do not agree with Nusquam, but he is making an argument in a polite and well-written manner, and I will respect that.
  341. [2012-07-22 20:11:24] <Photosynthetic> Light, that's an interesting point.
  342. [2012-07-22 20:11:55] <Nusquam> I don't like the idea of making voting more exclusive, because the entire idea has been that it's a reflection of what the community thinks about something.
  343. [2012-07-22 20:12:16] <thedeadlymoose> Well, yes, but isn't the idea of what it 'stands for' up to us?
  344. [2012-07-22 20:12:16] <Nusquam> Not necessarily only the people directly contributing.
  345. [2012-07-22 20:12:21] <EchoFourDelta> I was supporting *your* point of view. As the site expands (as it has in the past year by a massive amount) the current trends are only going to intensify. If it's no stemmed, the results are obvious.
  346. [2012-07-22 20:12:29] <thedeadlymoose> I /think/ that's what Echo was trying to say.
  347. [2012-07-22 20:12:38] <Photosynthetic> What if we pulled a CNET and had two scores -- one for the popular vote and one for the contributors' vote?
  348. [2012-07-22 20:12:50] <Light> Right- It would be possible to see both easily, especially if we go through with the contributors vs. members plan
  349. [2012-07-22 20:12:52] <Eskindle> Um, hey.
  350. [2012-07-22 20:12:57] <thedeadlymoose> My first reaction is that that's overly complicated
  351. [2012-07-22 20:12:59] <Eskindle> I would not mind that.
  352. [2012-07-22 20:13:03] <thedeadlymoose> My second reaction is "actually, why not?"
  353. [2012-07-22 20:13:12] <Eskindle> Not for Mack, I don't think.
  354. [2012-07-22 20:13:12] <Nusquam> Which do we go by?
  355. [2012-07-22 20:13:24] <Photosynthetic> For deletion? I'd say the contributors'.
  356. [2012-07-22 20:13:24] <thedeadlymoose> For deletion?
  357. [2012-07-22 20:13:29] <thedeadlymoose> What Photo said.
  358. [2012-07-22 20:13:32] <Dexanote> With Photo.
  359. [2012-07-22 20:13:34] <thedeadlymoose> Full stop.
  360. [2012-07-22 20:13:37] <Photosynthetic> Though exceptions could be made, perhaps, with unusual cases...?
  361. [2012-07-22 20:13:38] <Dexanote> Yes.
  362. [2012-07-22 20:13:55] <thedeadlymoose> Exceptions for staff discretion can already be made under current rules, we just... Tend not to.
  363. [2012-07-22 20:14:04] <Photosynthetic> Haha, true that.
  364. [2012-07-22 20:14:12] <thedeadlymoose> We can all of us vote against deletion.
  365. [2012-07-22 20:14:17] <thedeadlymoose> Into eternity, if we so chose.
  366. [2012-07-22 20:14:20] <thedeadlymoose> We just don't.
  367. [2012-07-22 20:14:27] <Photosynthetic> I'm thinking more of the case where it's a +5 staff and a -250 popular, or vice versa.
  368. [2012-07-22 20:14:38] <Photosynthetic> * +5 contributors
  369. [2012-07-22 20:15:07] -->| that_tall_fellow (~that_tall@synIRC-546B4F32.nrflva.fios.verizon.net) has joined chat
  370. [2012-07-22 20:15:24] <that_tall_fellow> hi-ho
  371. [2012-07-22 20:15:27] <that_tall_fellow> kermit the frog here
  372. [2012-07-22 20:15:44] <Photosynthetic> Hi Tallfellow.
  373. [2012-07-22 20:15:47] <Dexanote> ...
  374. [2012-07-22 20:15:49] <EchoFourDelta> Oh shit.
  375. [2012-07-22 20:15:52] <that_tall_fellow> 'lo, photo!
  376. [2012-07-22 20:15:58] <Eskindle> Just peg staff votes to a particular number of civilian votes, or have a fixed number for both that make a page eligible forcdeletion if either fals below.
  377. [2012-07-22 20:15:58] <Clef> Look, here is what it comes down to: I'm trying to basically challenge the assumptions people have been having that SCP Foundation has to be a certain thing. With the impending site changeover, we have a chance to fix a lot of those issues that we've just "lived with" up until now because it's convenient.
  378. [2012-07-22 20:16:00] <EchoFourDelta> Seems like it's been a while since you were in here.
  379. [2012-07-22 20:16:12] <EchoFourDelta> ^^ This is what I've been saying.
  380. [2012-07-22 20:16:12] <Clef> I'm glad that people are discussing that, so I'll consider my work here done.
  381. [2012-07-22 20:16:17] <that_tall_fellow> i've been gone a couple of days, yeah
  382. [2012-07-22 20:16:17] <Light> I figure that we could end up displaying a main statistic, but having both visible- my first instinct is to have the contributor rating visible first, but obviously we could decide that later on
  383. [2012-07-22 20:16:24] <that_tall_fellow> also, what's going on?
  384. [2012-07-22 20:16:26] <Photosynthetic> Clef, thank you.
  385. [2012-07-22 20:16:28] * Photosynthetic salutes
  386. [2012-07-22 20:16:30] <Light> Clef- This is a good philosophy
  387. [2012-07-22 20:16:34] <EchoFourDelta> You guys have a chance to make it whatever you like, OUTSIDE of te confines of the wiki's framework.
  388. [2012-07-22 20:16:39] <EchoFourDelta> Build it how it should be.
  389. [2012-07-22 20:16:49] <Photosynthetic> Clef's right.
  390. [2012-07-22 20:17:01] <Photosynthetic> So's Echo. We've got a chance to reshape.
  391. [2012-07-22 20:17:05] <Light> I thank you for these thoughts and also your fascinating proposal for stuff
  392. [2012-07-22 20:17:08] <that_tall_fellow> ...what is happening?
  393. [2012-07-22 20:17:12] <Light> /stuff/
  394. [2012-07-22 20:17:17] <Clef> Now what I'm going to say next is going to be unpopular: there's going to be a solid bloc of the older userbase that is NOT going to like it.
  395. [2012-07-22 20:17:18] <that_tall_fellow> :<
  396. [2012-07-22 20:17:20] <Dexanote> We're going to cook Eskobar, TTF.
  397. [2012-07-22 20:17:23] <Eskindle> I still like the two ratings thing.
  398. [2012-07-22 20:17:27] <Photosynthetic> Clef, we're listening.
  399. [2012-07-22 20:17:28] <Dexanote> Go on, Clef.
  400. [2012-07-22 20:17:58] * Light listens
  401. [2012-07-22 20:17:59] <Clef> So I guess the big question now becomes, what SCP Foundation is. As proud as I am of the work I've done getting it off the ground, I have to admit that it's basically grown way bigger than I ever expected.
  402. [2012-07-22 20:18:15] <thedeadlymoose> [20:15] Clef Look, here is what it comes down to: I'm trying to basically challenge the assumptions people have been having that SCP Foundation has to be a certain thing. > I have to say, I really appreciate this even if I don't agree with all you're saying.
  403. [2012-07-22 20:18:36] <thedeadlymoose> And Echo is also right.
  404. [2012-07-22 20:18:54] * thedeadlymoose shuts up and listens, oops.
  405. [2012-07-22 20:19:02] <Clef> In earlier days I was really resistant to the idea of changing the way we did things, but. . . I was wrong.
  406. [2012-07-22 20:19:47] <Clef> The fandom has gone way out of control of what the old model can handle. It was designed to handle a wiki that, maybe a couple of hundred people were reading at any one time. In fact, the number of active contributors was something like. . . a dozen or so.
  407. [2012-07-22 20:20:00] * Photosynthetic nods
  408. [2012-07-22 20:20:23] <Clef> So I guess what I'm saying is. . . in my opinion, the new model of the wiki needs to accomplish three things.
  409. [2012-07-22 20:21:01] -->| Eskindle_ (~Eskobar@synIRC-AE05D5C0.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com) has joined chat
  410. [2012-07-22 20:21:01] |<-- Eskindle has left irc.synirc.net (NickServ (GHOST command used by Eskindle_))
  411. [2012-07-22 20:21:02] =-= Eskindle_ is now known as Eskindle
  412. [2012-07-22 20:21:09] <Eskindle> Is anybody logging all of this?
  413. [2012-07-22 20:21:14] <thedeadlymoose> I'm logging.
  414. [2012-07-22 20:21:15] <Photosynthetic> I can.
  415. [2012-07-22 20:21:16] <Clef> 1. You need more agility in terms of decision making and rules reinforcement. Example: 4chan is set up so that a user who is disruptive can be given a 24 hour ban for any reason which cannot be appealed. The short duration limits the possibility for abuse, but gives the moderator on the spot discretion for handling a situation without waiting for a superior
  416. [2012-07-22 20:21:18] <thedeadlymoose> I will pastebin on request.
  417. [2012-07-22 20:21:19] <TroyL> I always log, Esko.
  418. [2012-07-22 20:21:26] <thedeadlymoose> (Ditto.)
  419. [2012-07-22 20:21:41] <Eskindle> Just seems like we should have a record of this.
  420. [2012-07-22 20:21:43] <Nusquam> I don't think it's a good idea to ignore the thoughts of the greater community for the thoughts of the smaller contributor circle. It's elitist and practically begging for circlejerk, and would remove the ability of the masses to dilute the influence of possible voting blocs. Yes, voting blocs can and will happen, but that doesn't mean we should throw
  421. [2012-07-22 20:21:48] <Nusquam> the baby out with the bathwater.
  422. [2012-07-22 20:22:12] <thedeadlymoose> That's... Not wrong, Clef. We've all been struggling between potential rule abuse and dealing with an increasingly byzantine rules structure.
  423. [2012-07-22 20:22:16] <Clef> 2. You need to figure out a way to limit the user base and figure out how to filter noise. Yes, you will lose the "greater community," but the truth is, a lot of that "greater community" now exists off-site. As an example: 4chan and SA now serve as off-site discussion forums for the SCP Foundation itself.
  424. [2012-07-22 20:22:24] <thedeadlymoose> We all = 'staff at large', rather.
  425. [2012-07-22 20:22:55] <Nusquam> One of the things I've always loved about the site was that it was run by the community.
  426. [2012-07-22 20:22:56] <Clef> You need to make sure that the voices that determine content and direction of the main wiki consist of those users who are making a solid investment in this wiki itself.
  427. [2012-07-22 20:23:18] <thedeadlymoose> How do we avoid becoming an incestuous circlejerk?
  428. [2012-07-22 20:23:22] <Nusquam> They may also exist off site but that doesn't mean we should drive them off.
  429. [2012-07-22 20:23:31] <thedeadlymoose> I am inclined to agree with you, Clef, but that's still an issue from my POV.
  430. [2012-07-22 20:23:31] <Clef> Moose: that'
  431. [2012-07-22 20:23:33] <Clef> s the third thing
  432. [2012-07-22 20:23:47] * thedeadlymoose listens
  433. [2012-07-22 20:24:08] <Clef> 3. We need to loosen the limits of what we allow on the wiki. I don't like this, because it'll mean that we're going to lose a lot of what we've been aiming for since the Fishmonger incident, but. . . the direction the wiki is currently taking in terms of content is not sustainable.
  434. [2012-07-22 20:24:29] <Dexanote> What do you mean?
  435. [2012-07-22 20:24:39] <Eskindle> I am i
  436. [2012-07-22 20:24:40] <Clef> We need to bring back a lot of those things that we used to discourage and hate: things like cross- linking articles, cross-linking to things like the GOC site and SErpent's HAnd. . . canonical storylines. . .
  437. [2012-07-22 20:24:41] <thedeadlymoose> I don't get it either.
  438. [2012-07-22 20:24:44] <Eskindle> listening.
  439. [2012-07-22 20:24:54] <Clef> things that get the userbase invested into the ongoing metastory of the site.
  440. [2012-07-22 20:24:56] <thedeadlymoose> Ahh, you're saying we can't isolate articles?
  441. [2012-07-22 20:25:02] <thedeadlymoose> As we do now?
  442. [2012-07-22 20:25:03] <Clef> We can't do that any more.
  443. [2012-07-22 20:25:07] <Light> I feel it
  444. [2012-07-22 20:25:17] <Photosynthetic> ^
  445. [2012-07-22 20:25:22] <Clef> Because as it currently stands, we've basically been trying to encapsulate every article into a single stand-alone entity because. . . well
  446. [2012-07-22 20:25:41] <Dexanote> Because of Fish.
  447. [2012-07-22 20:25:44] <Clef> Because under the current system of voting and review, there is the possibility that any piece of the site could be downvoted past the acceptable point and removed.
  448. [2012-07-22 20:25:52] <Clef> Also because of Fish.
  449. [2012-07-22 20:25:55] <thedeadlymoose> This is true.
  450. [2012-07-22 20:26:02] <Eskindle> Will we have to nail down a single canon, then?
  451. [2012-07-22 20:26:03] <thedeadlymoose> I have often thought this, Clef. Often.,
  452. [2012-07-22 20:26:04] <thedeadlymoose> But.
  453. [2012-07-22 20:26:04] <Clef> Look, this is my opinion
  454. [2012-07-22 20:26:10] <thedeadlymoose> How do you /possibly/ avoid incestuous circlejerk if you require every article to take into account every other article?
  455. [2012-07-22 20:26:14] <Clef> 1. You need to front-load the review process as much as possible.
  456. [2012-07-22 20:26:22] <Eskindle> With flexibility, but with some things set iin stone?
  457. [2012-07-22 20:26:27] <Clef> An article that is not of acceptable quality should never hit the site.
  458. [2012-07-22 20:26:28] <thedeadlymoose> Or am I caricaturing your argument unintentionally?
  459. [2012-07-22 20:26:47] <Clef> Moose: I am saying we need to start loosening the limits
  460. [2012-07-22 20:26:51] <Dexanote> I don't think we need to nail a certain singular canon. But individual storylines can be done /well/ .
  461. [2012-07-22 20:26:52] <Clef> not placing more requirements
  462. [2012-07-22 20:27:25] <thedeadlymoose> So, in other words, make it easier to form a metastory? Encourage and don't shut down attempts at crosslinking, but don't police contradictions? Or if we do, do it with a light touch?
  463. [2012-07-22 20:27:36] <Clef> moose: yeah
  464. [2012-07-22 20:27:37] <Wilkes> You would need to recind the policy of article removal due to author request due based on submission under the CCsasa-Com license
  465. [2012-07-22 20:27:40] <Clef> I mean
  466. [2012-07-22 20:27:46] <Clef> Wilkes: that's another thing, yes.
  467. [2012-07-22 20:27:49] <Wilkes> You would still loose some due to quality
  468. [2012-07-22 20:27:56] <Clef> We need to basically take ownership of everything that gets posted to the wiki.
  469. [2012-07-22 20:28:03] <Wilkes> But that should happen before they've been around long enough to cross link
  470. [2012-07-22 20:28:11] <Clef> Because as it currently stands, the wiki. . . it's not sustainable.
  471. [2012-07-22 20:28:29] <Clef> I mean, god forbid that Gears or I throw a hissy fit and decide to enact that policy. What is going to happen?
  472. [2012-07-22 20:28:54] <Clef> The TOS needs to change so that the users understand that anything they submit will become the property of the wiki under creative commons./
  473. [2012-07-22 20:29:04] <Clef> But yes
  474. [2012-07-22 20:29:05] <EchoFourDelta> The end result of what clef's describing is a tighter, more integrated site with a more invested userbase, and a more agile and responsive staff; there's not really anything there that doesn't make sense in moving forward into a new site with a vastly expanded userbase.
  475. [2012-07-22 20:29:11] <that_tall_fellow> thaaat's going to be a tough sell for a lot of folks
  476. [2012-07-22 20:29:12] <Clef> going back to things like. . .
  477. [2012-07-22 20:29:15] <thedeadlymoose> I can see how this can be done if we bring back sitewide contests to encourage such things. Previously Bright/Troy/me/Eskobar came up with the idea of regular contests, but delete all entries of low enough quality ratings wise. (This might not be relevant under your proposed system.)
  478. [2012-07-22 20:29:18] <Clef> ttf: yes, it is.
  479. [2012-07-22 20:29:25] <thedeadlymoose> Encouraging crosslinking, metastory, etc, I mean.
  480. [2012-07-22 20:29:27] <Clef> sitewide contests are horrible
  481. [2012-07-22 20:29:30] <thedeadlymoose> Oh really?
  482. [2012-07-22 20:29:32] <thedeadlymoose> Why?
  483. [2012-07-22 20:29:37] <Dexanote> Um
  484. [2012-07-22 20:29:38] <Clef> as they currently stand
  485. [2012-07-22 20:29:44] <Dexanote> Go on
  486. [2012-07-22 20:29:47] <thedeadlymoose> As they currently stand, yes.
  487. [2012-07-22 20:29:48] <thedeadlymoose> .me ditto
  488. [2012-07-22 20:29:50] <CROM> thedeadlymoose: memory usage: 25716 kB
  489. [2012-07-22 20:29:51] <Clef> however, it they were revised so that the entries that did not win were not added to the site, they could work
  490. [2012-07-22 20:29:57] <Ecks> i approve of stricter rules
  491. [2012-07-22 20:30:03] <Clef> But yah, let's go back to a simple question.
  492. [2012-07-22 20:30:17] <Clef> Why have we been forbidding things like SCP crossovers and experiment logs?
  493. [2012-07-22 20:30:22] <thedeadlymoose> That was essentially the idea, yeah, Clef. The threshold was going to be +15 or possibly higher.
  494. [2012-07-22 20:30:32] <Dexanote> As I understand it
  495. [2012-07-22 20:30:33] <Photosynthetic> Clef: Because the results are usually crap.
  496. [2012-07-22 20:30:38] <Clef> Photo: YES.
  497. [2012-07-22 20:30:38] <Eskindle> People bitched about...yeah.
  498. [2012-07-22 20:30:42] <thedeadlymoose> Yeah.
  499. [2012-07-22 20:30:46] <Clef> However, they CAN be done well.
  500. [2012-07-22 20:30:48] <Dexanote> Yes.
  501. [2012-07-22 20:30:49] <Dexanote> Yes.
  502. [2012-07-22 20:30:53] <Photosynthetic> Yes, they can.
  503. [2012-07-22 20:30:57] <Wilkes> Because of the threat of authours pulling their submitted works after they've become significantly interwoven in the site canon
  504. [2012-07-22 20:31:02] <Clef> If you front load the review process so that the crappy stuff never his the wiki to begin with?
  505. [2012-07-22 20:31:05] <thedeadlymoose> We have stopped disallowing it, but the userbase has been trained not to already.
  506. [2012-07-22 20:31:07] <Dexanote> But it's hard to make an experiment log that isn't a copy of 507, Hypergraphia, 914, or the vending machine
  507. [2012-07-22 20:31:09] <thedeadlymoose> Not to do it, I mean.
  508. [2012-07-22 20:31:10] <Wilkes> you know, without the spelling mistakes
  509. [2012-07-22 20:31:17] <Clef> If the submitted works are clearly established as belonging to the wiki under creative commons?
  510. [2012-07-22 20:31:33] <TroyL> Clef: You're essentially suggesting what the Russians already have in place I believe.
  511. [2012-07-22 20:31:34] <Clef> You're going to reopen a space that we've locked out for a long time.
  512. [2012-07-22 20:31:42] <Clef> TroyL: essentially, yes, apparently.
  513. [2012-07-22 20:31:57] <Clef> On a larger scale, it'
  514. [2012-07-22 20:32:03] <Clef> s also what I'm trying to do with GOC.
  515. [2012-07-22 20:32:09] <Wilkes> If you submit something to the site you can't unsubmit it, only release your hold upon it
  516. [2012-07-22 20:32:10] <thedeadlymoose> I have to admit that I salivate at the idea of a metastory, with the caveat that I worry people will add shit I don't like, which it looks like you're taking steps to mitigate.
  517. [2012-07-22 20:32:13] <Clef> But that's another story.
  518. [2012-07-22 20:32:21] <Clef> moose: yeah, me too.
  519. [2012-07-22 20:32:24] <Dexanote> Thedeadlymoose, that's already happened to us
  520. [2012-07-22 20:32:27] <thedeadlymoose> And the caveat that I was convinced by others that it's hopeless.
  521. [2012-07-22 20:32:28] <Wilkes> shit
  522. [2012-07-22 20:32:29] <Clef> But. . . like I said, I need to let this site go
  523. [2012-07-22 20:32:29] <thedeadlymoose> I know, Dexa.
  524. [2012-07-22 20:32:31] <Wilkes> family trouble
  525. [2012-07-22 20:32:34] <Clef> it's gotten way bigger than me.
  526. [2012-07-22 20:32:36] <Dexanote> No offense to Eskobar, but I loathe a majority of the University stuff. But people do like it.
  527. [2012-07-22 20:32:42] <Photosynthetic> ^
  528. [2012-07-22 20:32:49] <Photosynthetic> And that's okay.
  529. [2012-07-22 20:32:51] <Wilkes> will try and get on at home to continue participation
  530. [2012-07-22 20:32:55] <thedeadlymoose> I've read all of Fishmonger's stuff. I know how addicting and how shitty it was.
  531. [2012-07-22 20:32:57] <Dexanote> No problem Wilkes. Good luck.
  532. [2012-07-22 20:33:02] <Wilkes> best of luck chaps and chapettes
  533. [2012-07-22 20:33:02] <thedeadlymoose> No problem Wilkes
  534. [2012-07-22 20:33:05] <Clef> moose: yes, this was true
  535. [2012-07-22 20:33:10] <Photosynthetic> LAter Wilkes.
  536. [2012-07-22 20:33:12] <Clef> but the thing was. . .it was also COMPELLING.
  537. [2012-07-22 20:33:12] <Light> Hmmm
  538. [2012-07-22 20:33:17] <thedeadlymoose> It WAS compelling, Clef.
  539. [2012-07-22 20:33:18] <Clef> people READ it, people ENJOYED it.
  540. [2012-07-22 20:33:21] <Eskindle> I know that's am issue, people being stuck with metastory they don't like.
  541. [2012-07-22 20:33:21] <Photosynthetic> Clef is quite right.
  542. [2012-07-22 20:33:25] <Dexanote> I mean
  543. [2012-07-22 20:33:25] <TroyL> You know.. Hate me if you want, but I'm actually trying that.
  544. [2012-07-22 20:33:27] <Dexanote> Okay.
  545. [2012-07-22 20:33:28] <thedeadlymoose> For all that I couldn't stand it. It was compelling as fuck.
  546. [2012-07-22 20:33:34] <Dexanote> This is how I see this scenario.
  547. [2012-07-22 20:33:34] <Photosynthetic> Troy: In His Own Image?
  548. [2012-07-22 20:33:35] <Clef> yeah.
  549. [2012-07-22 20:33:37] <Dexanote> I have always said.
  550. [2012-07-22 20:33:39] <TroyL> Yes, Photo.
  551. [2012-07-22 20:33:43] <thedeadlymoose> Also: I support the idea of /multiple/ canons.
  552. [2012-07-22 20:33:44] <Dexanote> "I read this site for entertainment."
  553. [2012-07-22 20:33:45] <thedeadlymoose> Strongly.
  554. [2012-07-22 20:33:54] <Dexanote> Yes, ditto @ Moose.
  555. [2012-07-22 20:33:59] * Photosynthetic listens to Dexa.
  556. [2012-07-22 20:34:30] <thedeadlymoose> So far the only reason we have that at all is because of Mann's subcanon for the Library, and Mann's subcanon for the Bellerverse, and Troy's subcanons in Unfinished Business and the like... Stuff like that.
  557. [2012-07-22 20:34:34] <thedeadlymoose> Stuff in the vast minority.
  558. [2012-07-22 20:34:45] <thedeadlymoose> And stuff like that comprises some of the best work on the site.
  559. [2012-07-22 20:34:49] <thedeadlymoose> iMO.
  560. [2012-07-22 20:35:08] <Dexanote> ... Well Moose said it better and faster than I could.FFf.
  561. [2012-07-22 20:35:13] <Eskindle> Most of them aren't reallg contradictory, though.
  562. [2012-07-22 20:35:17] <thedeadlymoose> Hahahaha. Sorry Dex.
  563. [2012-07-22 20:35:22] <Dexanote> So what?
  564. [2012-07-22 20:35:27] <TroyL> Mine are, Eskobar.
  565. [2012-07-22 20:35:32] <EchoFourDelta> Those are just subplots :p
  566. [2012-07-22 20:35:35] <Eskindle> With what?
  567. [2012-07-22 20:35:35] <Clef> So yeah
  568. [2012-07-22 20:35:40] <TroyL> I use different Clefs.
  569. [2012-07-22 20:35:48] <Dexanote> Troy INTENTIONALLY makes his canons contradictory.
  570. [2012-07-22 20:35:58] <TroyL> I... I do, in fact, do that. >.>
  571. [2012-07-22 20:36:08] <Dexanote> Is it a problem? No.
  572. [2012-07-22 20:36:09] * TroyL didn't want to end up smelling fishy.
  573. [2012-07-22 20:36:13] <thedeadlymoose> Yes. And that's a good thing. Multiple metastories is the answer to There Is No Canon, I feel. If it can be implemented.
  574. [2012-07-22 20:36:31] <Dexanote> Moose and I seem to have the same feelings here.
  575. [2012-07-22 20:36:40] <thedeadlymoose> I'd been talked out of thinking it could be implemented sitewide, but you know, I'm not even entirely sure why besides like of staff consensus in enacting / encouraging that.
  576. [2012-07-22 20:36:42] <Light> I think it could work out really well this way
  577. [2012-07-22 20:36:46] <Clef> Moose: I agree
  578. [2012-07-22 20:37:09] <Clef> Part of what I'm personally planning to do is set up the GOC wiki as a directly contradicting canon to the SCP Foundation
  579. [2012-07-22 20:37:19] <Photosynthetic> Oh /ho./
  580. [2012-07-22 20:37:25] <thedeadlymoose> Hehe, I noticed that, Clef.
  581. [2012-07-22 20:37:31] <Eskindle> I've set up all9$
  582. [2012-07-22 20:37:34] <Eskindle> fuck
  583. [2012-07-22 20:37:40] * thedeadlymoose lurks but doesn't feel the need to contribute to GOC
  584. [2012-07-22 20:37:44] <TroyL> Well. I guess this means Chai Iota is once again a Go.
  585. [2012-07-22 20:37:46] <TroyL> :)
  586. [2012-07-22 20:37:52] <TroyL> Talk to me sometime soon, Echo.
  587. [2012-07-22 20:38:01] <Eskindle> I've set up all of the University stuff so that it's as out of everyone's hair as possible.
  588. [2012-07-22 20:38:07] |<-- Wilkes has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  589. [2012-07-22 20:38:10] <Light> I agree with clef that "loose" should be the main idea in how this eventually turns into policy, as in, cease telling people not to do metastories OR conflicting stuff
  590. [2012-07-22 20:38:28] <Photosynthetic> Yes.
  591. [2012-07-22 20:38:30] <Eskindle> Site 38 is in backwoods Tennessee. The rest of it happens in another goddamn universe.
  592. [2012-07-22 20:38:33] <Light> ...Because both of those things are good!
  593. [2012-07-22 20:38:37] <Clef> My eventual dream is that we'll no longer need a bunch of condescending newbie guidew
  594. [2012-07-22 20:38:38] <Dexanote> I do have a question, was none of this official to begin with?
  595. [2012-07-22 20:38:39] <Clef> guides
  596. [2012-07-22 20:38:44] |<-- Doctopiss has left irc.synirc.net (Ping timeout)
  597. [2012-07-22 20:38:49] <thedeadlymoose> I think we should also /encourage/ people to use metastories.
  598. [2012-07-22 20:38:53] <Dexanote> Yes.
  599. [2012-07-22 20:38:54] <thedeadlymoose> This is why I suggested contests.
  600. [2012-07-22 20:38:58] <EchoFourDelta> TroyL: Oh shit! I've got that on mah other computator
  601. [2012-07-22 20:39:01] <thedeadlymoose> This, to me, is the /only/ reason to have contests.
  602. [2012-07-22 20:39:06] <EchoFourDelta> I'd forgotten all about that!
  603. [2012-07-22 20:39:08] <Dexanote> I mean, what could people like Tanhony do with that drive?
  604. [2012-07-22 20:39:12] <Dexanote> new Tanhonies
  605. [2012-07-22 20:39:33] <Clef> Game Day was an attempt to do that
  606. [2012-07-22 20:39:37] <Clef> sadly I think it mostlyfailed
  607. [2012-07-22 20:39:39] <thedeadlymoose> Yeah, and it came close to working.
  608. [2012-07-22 20:39:46] <thedeadlymoose> it came close, Clef.
  609. [2012-07-22 20:39:51] <Photosynthetic> Clef, a little more badass and it could've been amazing.
  610. [2012-07-22 20:39:55] <Photosynthetic> Just a little.
  611. [2012-07-22 20:40:00] <Photosynthetic> And hey, now we know for next time.
  612. [2012-07-22 20:40:02] <Dexanote> Yes.
  613. [2012-07-22 20:40:05] <Dexanote> We do.
  614. [2012-07-22 20:40:11] <thedeadlymoose> People were never sure how to contribute. But they still talk about it.
  615. [2012-07-22 20:40:14] <thedeadlymoose> People reference it.
  616. [2012-07-22 20:40:17] <Photosynthetic> We also know, now, that there can /be/ a next time.
  617. [2012-07-22 20:40:21] <Eskindle> Though some kind of resolution would be nice.
  618. [2012-07-22 20:40:24] <Light> (Whooo my long-ass response is in the O5 thread!)
  619. [2012-07-22 20:40:24] <Photosynthetic> ^
  620. [2012-07-22 20:40:27] <MisterFlames> I kinda feel bad about Gameday in that I didn't do much for it.
  621. [2012-07-22 20:40:31] <TroyL> Eskobat: Site38 is in my town.
  622. [2012-07-22 20:40:32] <TroyL> :D
  623. [2012-07-22 20:40:39] <thedeadlymoose> Yeah, a lot of people wish for resolution for that but honestly don't know what to do in terms of contribution.
  624. [2012-07-22 20:40:46] <Eskindle> Close.
  625. [2012-07-22 20:42:01] <Photosynthetic> Unfortunately, guys, I need to go. Talk to you all later, and can someone wiki-PM me the logs?
  626. [2012-07-22 20:42:09] <Dexanote> Night Photosynthesis
  627. [2012-07-22 20:42:14] <thedeadlymoose> Well, Clef, so far I'm extremely on board with your idea, and I hope it gets enacted. But honestly until the last few days with all the stuff coming out of the woodwork seemingly out of nowhere, I did not think it could be implemented. And I'm still uncertain. I hesitate to get excited about what you're saying because I really fear it's gonna get smacked down because Change Is Bad. Or one or...
  628. [2012-07-22 20:42:14] <thedeadlymoose> ...two admins will veto it completely, and the others won't pipe up because they don't want to start drama, or don't want to butt heads, or any number of other reasons.
  629. [2012-07-22 20:42:32] <Clef> well
  630. [2012-07-22 20:42:37] <thedeadlymoose> This goes for your proposal too with some minor caveats.
  631. [2012-07-22 20:42:43] <thedeadlymoose> Night Photo.
  632. [2012-07-22 20:42:45] <Clef> in that case I guess the question is who the SCP Foundation really belongs to.
  633. [2012-07-22 20:42:47] <thedeadlymoose> If you want logs, I shall send them.
  634. [2012-07-22 20:42:51] <Photosynthetic> For what it's worth, there are parts I'd stand up for.
  635. [2012-07-22 20:42:55] <Clef> the staid old guard or the people who are actually doing shit?
  636. [2012-07-22 20:42:56] <Photosynthetic> Yes, Moose, thanks.
  637. [2012-07-22 20:43:00] <Photosynthetic> And then, 'night all.
  638. [2012-07-22 20:43:03] <EchoFourDelta> Clef: Yeah, if this proposal went up, it'd have my vote.
  639. [2012-07-22 20:43:03] <thedeadlymoose> Will do, then, Photo.
  640. [2012-07-22 20:43:05] <thedeadlymoose> Night. :)
  641. [2012-07-22 20:43:05] |<-- Photosynthetic has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  642. [2012-07-22 20:43:17] <thedeadlymoose> I would support it. But I'm a moderator, and a newly appointed one at that.
  643. [2012-07-22 20:43:20] <TroyL> Clef: What if, as a member of that "old guard," I am doing shit? ;)
  644. [2012-07-22 20:43:24] <TroyL> Also, I like this.
  645. [2012-07-22 20:43:25] <thedeadlymoose> What about administration?
  646. [2012-07-22 20:43:25] <Clef> I will honestly admit that all of what I have said is not what I would want to do with the wiki.
  647. [2012-07-22 20:43:39] <TroyL> This sounds like a lot of fun.
  648. [2012-07-22 20:43:44] <TroyL> What else, then, Clef?
  649. [2012-07-22 20:43:46] <Clef> But. . . like I said this has all gone out of control.
  650. [2012-07-22 20:43:53] <thedeadlymoose> What /would/ you want to do?
  651. [2012-07-22 20:44:00] <Clef> Ban everyone
  652. [2012-07-22 20:44:04] <thedeadlymoose> Hahahahahahahahaha.
  653. [2012-07-22 20:44:11] <thedeadlymoose> Welp. That doesn't sound like fun to me.
  654. [2012-07-22 20:44:16] <thedeadlymoose> But I really like your /other/ idea.
  655. [2012-07-22 20:44:32] <thedeadlymoose> And I am glad that you've presented it.
  656. [2012-07-22 20:46:28] <Dexanote> man
  657. [2012-07-22 20:46:31] <Dexanote> you'd have to like...
  658. [2012-07-22 20:46:42] <Dexanote> appoint a bunch more admins to even begin to ban everyone
  659. [2012-07-22 20:46:48] <Dexanote> what do we have like 3500 people now
  660. [2012-07-22 20:46:56] <Dexanote> it could take weeks
  661. [2012-07-22 20:47:07] <EchoFourDelta> ...
  662. [2012-07-22 20:47:09] <Eskindle> And anyone who asked to be an admin, you'd have ti ban them, too.
  663. [2012-07-22 20:47:12] <EchoFourDelta> Maddy...
  664. [2012-07-22 20:47:17] <Maddy> Yesir?
  665. [2012-07-22 20:47:20] <Dexanote> god i'm too lazy for that shit.
  666. [2012-07-22 20:47:28] * Dexanote shoots maddy with an arrow
  667. [2012-07-22 20:47:35] * Maddy whimpers.
  668. [2012-07-22 20:47:36] <Eskindle> When it was all done, how would the Last Admin Standing ban him or herself?
  669. [2012-07-22 20:47:44] <Light> Then it would turn into a death tournament as all the admins tried to ban each other- that too, yes
  670. [2012-07-22 20:47:48] <Dexanote> But I'm behind a majority of what you said, Clef. I just want this site to work.
  671. [2012-07-22 20:47:59] <EchoFourDelta> ...
  672. [2012-07-22 20:48:05] <EchoFourDelta> Behold! http://www.minitarz.com/images/blizzard/bolvar.jpg
  673. [2012-07-22 20:48:21] <EchoFourDelta> http://www.minitarz.com/images/blizzard/paladint2.jpg http://www.minitarz.com/images/blizzard/priestt5.jpg
  674. [2012-07-22 20:49:18] <Maddy> EEEEEE
  675. [2012-07-22 20:52:53] -->| Wilkes (Mibbit@1B05EBBA.99A02B93.40ACF6DF.IP) has joined chat
  676. [2012-07-22 20:53:14] <that_tall_fellow> okay
  677. [2012-07-22 20:53:18] <that_tall_fellow> so
  678. [2012-07-22 20:53:30] <that_tall_fellow> something is happening, huh
  679. [2012-07-22 20:54:22] <that_tall_fellow> is this shift more likely to happen after the site gets migrated?
  680. [2012-07-22 20:55:11] <that_tall_fellow> or are we looking at seeing these changes implemented while we're still here on wikidot?
  681. [2012-07-22 20:57:33] <Eskindle> I assume ASAP, so our new structure is ready to be in place when PF is.
  682. [2012-07-22 20:58:38] <that_tall_fellow> PF?
  683. [2012-07-22 20:59:49] <Dexanote> project foundation
  684. [2012-07-22 21:00:13] <that_tall_fellow> is there an 05 post on this that i can read up on?
  685. [2012-07-22 21:01:25] <thedeadlymoose> Sadly, not really, TTF.
  686. [2012-07-22 21:01:32] <thedeadlymoose> PMs.
  687. [2012-07-22 21:02:12] <Nusquam> Someone remind me to make another post to that thread as soon as I log on tomorrow, please.
  688. [2012-07-22 21:02:48] <Nusquam> Goodnight.
  689. [2012-07-22 21:03:10] |<-- Nusquam has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  690. [2012-07-22 21:03:59] <EchoFourDelta> .tell Nusquam Make a post in that thread. Now. Stop being such a slacker. Your mother would be so ashamed, you schlemiel.
  691. [2012-07-22 21:04:00] <CROM> EchoFourDelta: I'll pass that along.
  692. [2012-07-22 21:05:11] <Light> Getting dark, hands are freezing up, night all!
  693. [2012-07-22 21:05:16] <thedeadlymoose> Night Light
  694. [2012-07-22 21:05:46] <EchoFourDelta> O_o
  695. [2012-07-22 21:06:56] |<-- Light has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: Leaving)
  696. [2012-07-22 21:21:38] -->| Eskindle_ (~Eskobar@synIRC-AE05D5C0.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com) has joined chat
  697. [2012-07-22 21:21:39] |<-- Eskindle has left irc.synirc.net (NickServ (GHOST command used by Eskindle_))
  698. [2012-07-22 21:21:39] =-= Eskindle_ is now known as Eskindle
  699. [2012-07-22 21:36:31] |<-- that_tall_fellow has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: I got ants in my butt, and I needs to strut.)
  700. [2012-07-22 21:37:47] <Bright> Hmm
  701. [2012-07-22 21:43:02] |<-- Pig_catapult has left irc.synirc.net (Broken pipe)
  702. [2012-07-22 21:52:12] |<-- TroyL has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: )
  703. [2012-07-22 21:52:34] |<-- Dexanote has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: night)
  704. [2012-07-22 22:13:01] <thedeadlymoose> Hurgh, that's right, people need logs
  705. [2012-07-22 22:13:16] <thedeadlymoose> Bright, have you backscrolled yet? If not, logs forthcoming
  706. [2012-07-22 22:14:42] <thedeadlymoose> unless I start vomiting which is a possibility in which case they may be a while
  707. [2012-07-22 22:14:46] * thedeadlymoose sick
  708. [2012-07-22 22:15:03] <MisterFlames> Ouch, dude. You gonna be okay?
  709. [2012-07-22 22:15:38] <Bright> I did.
  710. [2012-07-22 22:15:44] <Bright> and am talking with clef
  711. [2012-07-22 22:16:02] <MisterFlames> Talking's good.
  712. [2012-07-22 22:21:42] <thedeadlymoose> agreed
  713. [2012-07-22 22:22:07] -->| Eskindle_ (~Eskobar@synIRC-AE05D5C0.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com) has joined chat
  714. [2012-07-22 22:22:07] |<-- Eskindle has left irc.synirc.net (NickServ (GHOST command used by Eskindle_))
  715. [2012-07-22 22:31:14] |<-- Break__ has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: bluh)
  716. [2012-07-22 22:31:16] <EchoFourDelta> I hope that's not the extent of it.
  717. [2012-07-22 22:31:47] <Bright> Hmmm?
  718. [2012-07-22 22:32:20] <MisterFlames> They're planning a lovely little honeymoon in Seattle.
  719. [2012-07-22 22:32:52] <EchoFourDelta> I mean, talking's all fine, but this is some stuff that's going to require some actual decision-making.
  720. [2012-07-22 22:33:20] <MisterFlames> Echo, they decided you're going to be the flower girl.
  721. [2012-07-22 22:33:28] <Maddy> Lol
  722. [2012-07-22 22:33:49] <Bright> Well, yes, but we have to bro it out first. I'm largel agreeing with his ideas for the site.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!