Guest User

'Shroom Debate Logs

a guest
Dec 27th, 2011
107
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. 15:03:35: <SMB> Alright.
  2. 15:04:20: <SMB> So, who will ask the first question?
  3. 15:05:35: <SMB> `spin
  4. 15:05:44: <SMB> Oh, I forgot that doesn't work anymore.
  5. 15:06:09: <SMB> Lord_Ghirahim , you mentioned you have questions?
  6. 15:06:18: <Lord_Ghirahim> I have a question for MG1.
  7. 15:06:24: <SMB> Alright, go for it.
  8. 15:06:28: <mg1> :O
  9. 15:06:43: <mg1> `bottle
  10. 15:06:43: GameServ spins the bottle for MG1 and it lands on...
  11. 15:06:44: <GameServ> SMB!
  12. 15:07:04: <SMB> (oh okay, that's the command :P)
  13. 15:07:20: <Lord_Ghirahim> Do I still get to ask my question?
  14. 15:07:30: <SMB> But go ahead Lord_Ghiriham, you may ask MG1 your question, and he will answer it.
  15. 15:07:33: <mg1> lol I knew you were gonna say that :P
  16. 15:07:38: <N64dude> `bottle SMB Is Awesome
  17. 15:07:38: GameServ spins the bottle for N64Dude and it lands on...
  18. 15:07:38: <GameServ> Fi|Bed!
  19. 15:07:41: <N64dude> awww
  20. 15:07:51: <mg1> When I saw you restart typing the question
  21. 15:08:14: <mg1> (mibbit stalking ftw)
  22. 15:09:04: <Lord_Ghirahim> Alright then. MG1, you mentioned that you're possibly going to add an "Activity Director" position to the core staff, but there was no mention of that anywhere in the rest of the page. Could you elaborate on this position?
  23. 15:10:08: <mg1> The Activity Director is a positions spawned by an idea we got when creating the 'Shroom Spotlight
  24. 15:10:24: <mg1> We were wondering whether or not to include Xzelion on the Core 'Shroom Staff
  25. 15:10:45: <mg1> We decided against it, but I think that may have been the wrong decision - if he were a member of the staff, that project may have taken off
  26. 15:11:48: <mg1> So I may go back on that mistake and hire someone (probably not Xzelion, as he is inactive) who will handle that monthly project and any others that pop up
  27. 15:13:55: <SMB> Alright, Lord_Ghiriham, does that answer your question, or do you have a follow-up on the same topic for MG1?
  28. 15:14:28: <SMB> * Lord_Ghirihim , sorry
  29. 15:14:30: <Lord_Ghirahim> I don't need a follow-up on that, so that's all on that particular section.
  30. 15:14:42: <SMB> *Ghirahim x_X
  31. 15:14:49: <SMB> Sorry again for the typos. :P
  32. 15:14:49: <mg1> (tab button ftw)
  33. 15:14:57: <SMB> And alright.
  34. 15:15:34: <SMB> Let's see, who is next?
  35. 15:16:01: <SMB> I have a question for MG1 if nobody wants to go next.
  36. 15:17:02: <Lord_Ghirahim> I'm still thinking of my next question, so SMB can go next.
  37. 15:17:09: <SMB> Okay, thanks. :)
  38. 15:17:16: <mg1> I'm getting pestered by petulant propositions!
  39. 15:17:38: <SMB> MG1, you mention this in your campaign as a way to curb one of the issues that you feel faces The 'Shroom:
  40. 15:17:40: <SMB> "The first problem has an obvious solution - we will need to have more Special Issues. I will try to have various Special Issues scattered throughout the year, to be planned at a later date. "
  41. 15:17:54: <SMB> The first problem you mentioned, being this:
  42. 15:18:11: <SMB> "Following up to the Special Issues"
  43. 15:18:38: <SMB> How exactly does having more Special Issues help the problem in question?
  44. 15:18:47: <SMB> Before you answer,
  45. 15:20:16: <SMB> Well, nevermind. Go ahead and answer.
  46. 15:20:20: <mg1> OK :P
  47. 15:20:54: <mg1> Before I get into the actual question, I'll expand the definition of "Following up to the Special Issues" (as that is very vague)
  48. 15:21:13: <mg1> "Following up to the Special Issues" does not simply mean in terms of quality, as that is in the eyes of the beholder
  49. 15:22:18: <mg1> Of course quality plays a factor, but the main thing I was pointing out was that I want to have at least the same number, or more, issues this year
  50. 15:22:29: <mg1> To follow-up last year's performance
  51. 15:23:21: <mg1> Similar to what the awards do, they don't improve old awards, they optimize them for the time and they add new ones (of course they also remove awards, but the total number of awards never goes down)
  52. 15:24:15: <mg1> Similarly, I will optimize the old special issues and add new special issues to try to make a better year than the last
  53. 15:25:09: <mg1> So having more special issues, does not necessarily help with the quality of the issues, but having more will help with the other issues
  54. 15:25:21: <mg1> Which were also present, if not dictated, in my statement
  55. 15:26:32: <SMB> Alright, I need to follow-up on this.
  56. 15:27:18: <SMB> My response is this: I feel that you place too little focus on the quality factor.
  57. 15:27:48: <SMB> I understand your point about "quality is subjective," but Special Issues are to be of the highest obtainable quality.
  58. 15:28:27: <SMB> To try to appeal to as many people as possible is the challenge, and not to say "well, quality is subjective, so let's overlook that a bit."
  59. 15:29:13: <SMB> I personally feel, after having directed The 'Shroom for the past year, that three Special Issues is really pushing it.
  60. 15:29:52: <SMB> They are extremely hard to make of a high quality and to plan all of the special activities that go with them.
  61. 15:30:58: <SMB> Having more could not only drain the special quality out of the Special Issues, but they are also very time-consuming and stressful when you are the one who is in charge of the paper.
  62. 15:31:31: <SMB> And it is time-consuming and stressful for anybody that takes part (the Core Staff, the guest writers, etc.)
  63. 15:31:55: <mg1> First off, I am not placing little focus on the quality factor, I don't think we can plan quality - otherwise we would plan for every issue to be perfect - I of course will try my hardest and make sure the writers are trying their hardest on all the special issues, but I can't really plan it
  64. 15:32:10: <mg1> Secondly, the special issues will not all be Issue L/Holiday Issue style
  65. 15:32:23: <mg1> I plan to do one large issue in the summer, the end-of-year issue again
  66. 15:32:47: <mg1> Probably put some festivities around the Poll Committee election
  67. 15:33:16: <mg1> And then sometime in the spring, a "Special Issue" would be something like a mafia game; moreover a "Special Event"
  68. 15:33:57: <mg1> They would all be hyped the same way as Special Issues (chat party, lots of advertisement)
  69. 15:34:33: <mg1> So no, I don't think the quality would detract from the writing in the Special Issues, because not all of them will be about writing
  70. 15:36:51: <SMB> Alright, I have another follow-up.
  71. 15:37:32: <SMB> Basically, I guess it is a difference of opinin at this point. I'm simply saying that quantity does have an effect on quality.
  72. 15:37:51: <SMB> If there are too many Special Issues, I feel that the quality of each one will go down.
  73. 15:38:04: <SMB> No matter how well-planned and executed they are.
  74. 15:39:00: <SMB> The energy and momentum will run out from the Core Staff, as would be expected: all of the effort that should be put in to a Special Issue, repeated as many as more than three times, would be exhausting.
  75. 15:39:18: <SMB> And the special feeling could easily wear off.
  76. 15:39:30: <mg1> I feel that with the difference in style of each of the special issues, they won't stack up (the apples and oranges metaphor)
  77. 15:40:41: <mg1> And if we have 1, 2, 1 Special issues (makes four, but in three columns/styles) then the most anyone will ever be writing will be 2
  78. 15:40:48: <mg1> Then for 1 they will be playing a mafia game
  79. 15:41:07: <mg1> And for the other 1 they will be doing something that I haven't decided yet, which will probably mix in with the debates
  80. 15:41:53: <mg1> And considering I plan to run two of the events myself, I don't think the energy of the core staff will run out
  81. 15:43:45: <SMB> Well, I guess I have nothing else to follow up on except for what I said before: it probably is a difference of opinion at this point. I feel that a huge amount of Special Issues will hurt the special feeling around each one, no matter how differently planned and unique you plan to make them.
  82. 15:45:36: <mg1> Well, I think they'll be different enough that we could call them something other than Special Issues, so if the special feeling is your problem, we could change the names
  83. 15:46:51: <SMB> Well, okay then. I guess you've answered my question in the fullest extent possible, so we can move on to the next person.
  84. 15:47:16: <mg1> OK
  85. 15:47:23: <mg1> Does anyone have any questions?
  86. 15:47:31: <mg1> (preferably for SMB, but I won't be picky :P)
  87. 15:47:50: <Lord_Ghirahim> I managed to think of a question for SMB, so if no one else has a question, I'll ask mine now.
  88. 15:47:54: <mg1> !!
  89. 15:48:00: <mg1> Well I've got a question for him
  90. 15:48:04: <mg1> But you can ask yours first
  91. 15:48:13: <Lord_Ghirahim> Alrighty.
  92. 15:50:40: <Lord_Ghirahim> SMB, you say that after you've filled in the positions that have no writers, then you'll have the Core Staff think of several new positions. How do you plan on balancing the focuses on preexisting positions and adding new content to attract new writers?
  93. 15:53:06: <SMB> To answer your question,
  94. 15:54:02: <SMB> I feel that it will probably just end up balancing out. We have quite a few individuals that are solidly dedicated to the positions that they write now. I do not expect them to leave just as new positions are created.
  95. 15:54:18: <SMB> An equal focus will also be put on every section.
  96. 15:54:41: <SMB> Old and new sections alike will be treated as "must be filled."
  97. 15:55:04: <SMB> And the goal will be to maintain an interest in all sections and teams.
  98. 15:56:15: <SMB> Not to mention that if a good amount of writers want to write new and old positions alike, but they might have the maximum, the team Director can change the maximum amount of sections a writer may hold for their team.
  99. 15:57:06: <SMB> So in most instances I could foresee the old sections being ignored or the new ones being ignored, there are automatic checks in place to ensure that those sections are all given top priority.
  100. 15:58:02: <Lord_Ghirahim> Alright, I have no follow-up to that concept, and it seems to be well thought out. MG1 can go ahead and ask his question now.
  101. 15:59:34: <mg1> OK
  102. 16:00:33: <mg1> You mentioned putting much priority on the usage of our Facebook and Twitter accounts, even going as far as to create a new position dedicated solely to updating them
  103. 16:01:23: <mg1> However the Super Mario Wiki is mostly populated by young people, often too young to use these social networks, or too young to properly understand how to use them
  104. 16:01:37: <mg1> Are you sure this is a good usage of effort?
  105. 16:03:03: <SMB> I have two issues with the concept you conveyed in your question.
  106. 16:03:36: <SMB> Firstly, I don't think the vast mjaority of individuals in the Super Mario Wiki are too young to use social networking sites.
  107. 16:04:22: <SMB> In fact, the community /does/ include those who are a little young for social networking sites, but also includes many who can use those sites.
  108. 16:05:01: <SMB> And the whole point is to be sure that everybody knows what is going on and to attract attention.
  109. 16:05:09: <SMB> Which brings me to my second point:
  110. 16:06:05: <SMB> Even if we did have an audience that is too young to use social networking sites, then couldn't we use the social networking sites to appeal to those that /can/ use such sites?
  111. 16:07:16: <SMB> Because one of the major goals is to reach out to as many individuals as possible.
  112. 16:09:55: <mg1> Yes, I see your point - many of our users do use social networking sites, but I think there are majorities and minorities
  113. 16:10:37: <mg1> Firstly, the majority of the users who would be interested in seeing these reports are too young for the intended means - the minority would benefit from your suggestion
  114. 16:11:13: <N64dude> can i say something?
  115. 16:11:15: <mg1> Then the majority of users who do use Social Networking sites are usually already informed on the goings-on in the community as they are dedicated to the wiki
  116. 16:11:34: <mg1> So I think it would be a waste of effort, overall
  117. 16:11:43: <mg1> N64Dude: In a bit, after I'm done
  118. 16:11:47: <N64dude> ok
  119. 16:13:38: <SMB> Well, I simply have this to argue: if this entire thing could bring one writer or reader in, then it is a success in my eyes.
  120. 16:13:55: <SMB> Because the whole point is to gaugue interest in the paper.
  121. 16:14:37: <SMB> Even if the minority of those in the Super Mario Wiki have social networking sites, as you have stated, then that minority of users can share and repost things and possibly attract new readers and writers.
  122. 16:14:51: <SMB> *have social networking accounts
  123. 16:16:20: <SMB> And not to mention any individual that might happen to just stumble across the social networking pages for The 'Shroom.
  124. 16:16:33: <SMB> They could also end up being interested.
  125. 16:17:04: <SMB> So I wouldn't view it as an issue of non-importance, when this project could help spark interest in the paper.
  126. 16:17:28: <mg1> I agree that every small victory is a victory, but I think the core staff's efforts could be focused on less diluted communities (such as our own) where they would be more fruitful
  127. 16:17:59: <mg1> Then we would have more than possible new writers
  128. 16:18:08: <mg1> We woould have probable new writers
  129. 16:18:27: <mg1> Who are active on the wiki, and want to take their activity to the next step
  130. 16:19:02: <mg1> So we should make sure our own community is fully committed to the 'shroom, before trying to modify other communities
  131. 16:20:04: <SMB> Well, I already have plans for that.
  132. 16:20:15: <SMB> I am sure you have read my employment plan and most of my other plans.
  133. 16:20:41: <SMB> But it doesn't hurt to go with the social networking medium to attract some attention either.
  134. 16:21:05: <SMB> Plus, I have indicated that there will be a new position created in order to manage these accounts on the social networking sites.
  135. 16:21:36: <SMB> So besides some coordination with the individual that will fill this position, it really shouldn't be much of a distraction.
  136. 16:21:40: <SMB> ...In fact,
  137. 16:22:40: <SMB> We tried making use of these accounts this year, but we assigned them to current Core Staff members.
  138. 16:23:03: <SMB> It didn't go over too well, so I felt that adding a new position would simply fix a broken process.
  139. 16:24:18: <mg1> OK, if you think the effort on the accounts will not detract from the rest of the 'shroom
  140. 16:24:24: <mg1> I guess I will lay off the questions
  141. 16:24:32: <mg1> Does anyone else have any questions?
  142. 16:24:35: <mg1> For me or SMB?
  143. 16:25:06: <SMB> I believe N64Dude had a comment?
  144. 16:26:15: <Lord_Ghirahim> If N64Dude is away, I have one more question for MG1 before I have to leave.
  145. 16:27:23: <N64dude> waiy
  146. 16:27:29: <N64dude> i got One
  147. 16:27:45: <N64dude> um its
  148. 16:28:18: <N64dude> The Core Staff Members are good
  149. 16:28:49: <N64dude> and Young People shoud not come on the wiki beacause they mess it up
  150. 16:28:51: <N64dude> that it
  151. 16:30:16: <Lord_Ghirahim> That wasn't really a question, more like a comment.
  152. 16:30:47: <N64dude> i was saying a Comment
  153. 16:30:51: <N64dude> :P
  154. 16:32:06: <mg1> OK N64Dude
  155. 16:32:14: <mg1> Lord_Ghirahim: Your question then?
  156. 16:32:17: <mg1> *shivers*
  157. 16:34:21: <Lord_Ghirahim> You mentioned that you're planning on using some alternate methods for getting users interested in positions. Having already experienced one of these methods myself, I'm curious to know what your methods will entail and how they'll be helpful in getting new sign-ups.
  158. 16:36:08: <Security_Lady> I'll assume guns are involved (okay sorry couldn't resist)
  159. 16:40:26: <mg1> Well, of course, I'll have demo sections throughout the year, as that strategy seems to work. Then I will try more proactive approaches, such as actually appealing to the users instead of to a general audience
  160. 16:41:20: <mg1> Because, if given the chance, active users may become writers and probably will
  161. 16:41:57: <mg1> And finally, I have a few plans other than that
  162. 16:42:21: <mg1> Do you have any follow-up, Bop?
  163. 16:42:45: <Lord_Ghirahim> No, I think that answers my question fairly well.
  164. 16:43:18: <mg1> OK
  165. 16:43:24: <mg1> Any more questions then?
  166. 16:44:10: <SMB> I have a question
  167. 16:44:18: <SMB> But it is more for clarification purposes.
  168. 16:44:33: <SMB> "Finally the matter of my new Core Staff. I like all of the current members of the Core Staff and I think they will probably all stay on the team, but I will probably replace a few positions, as well as possibly create that aforementioned Activity Director (pending title) position."
  169. 16:44:44: <SMB> The part I'd like to ask about is this:
  170. 16:44:57: <SMB> "I will probably replace a few positions"
  171. 16:45:14: <SMB> By that, do you mean you will literally replace the positions, or the individuals holding those positions?
  172. 16:47:38: <mg1> I meant he individuals
  173. 16:47:44: <SMB> Alright.
  174. 16:48:00: <mg1> So
  175. 16:48:06: <mg1> Does anyone else have questions?
  176. 16:50:49: <SMB> I am going to have to leave in ten minutes.
  177. 16:51:01: <mg1> I'll take that as a "no"
  178. 16:51:05: <SMB> So that is when the debate will conclude.
  179. 16:51:16: <SMB> Guys, does anybody have any questions?
  180. 16:52:06: <mg1> OK, I guess not!
  181. 16:52:10: <mg1> Thanks for coming everyone!
  182. 16:52:28: <mg1> If we ahve more debates, they will be announced at a later date!
  183. 11:52 <MG1>: Logs will be posted on the forums
  184. 11:52 <SMB>: Hopefully next time, we can make it at a more manageable time. :P
  185. 11:52 <SMB>: But yes, thank you all for coming.
  186. 11:53 <SMB>: And thank you for participating in this debate with me, MG1.
RAW Paste Data