Hello all, Recent events on our Discord server have made it clear to me that there is community-wide disagreement or lack of clarity regarding the behavioral standards for staff members and users. Project:Conduct is deliberately vague and written in a way to be open to interpretation, and it should be added that it was written in 2016, and a number of conversations predate it. The primary cause for me writing this is a response to some of my own responses to users on the Discord server, and an idea that my commentary is held to a different standard because of my status. The most recent incident in question was mey response to someone aggressively pushing a pro-forking position on me that I don't respond to "snake oil salesmen" or condescension. From my view I was making my stance clear as to why I had no interest in continuing that conversation, but I understand an alternative viewpoint that my words could be taken as a personal attack against them. Either way, there are a few points I believe should be clarified:
| |||
To give some more context, over time the bcrats (meaning Yuan, Scathe, and I), while otherwise mostly inactive, are often called in to deal with disputes on the wiki Discord. One of the most common sources of complaints we get are that an admin, often but not always Techno, has used harsh language against another user. Project:RfP says that staff should "keep their cool", and Project:Conduct says that we must not "bite the newcomers"; these are the rules we are trying to enforce. As Techno said, whatever an admin says to a new users will be probably be viewed as the stance of the wiki rather than of themselves, and we want the wiki to be welcoming, so it is important in our view that admins do not use language which could be construed as a personal attack, even if the new user is being somewhat obnoxious. (I started here when I was 12 years old -- who among us was not obnoxious when they were a new user?)
I personally think that we should make the following clear:
- Personal attacks are never acceptable. It is important to be charitable, and to not assume that somebody is insulting or talking down to you, unless given compelling evidence otherwise. This is somewhat clearer than the rule "Don't be a dick" currently enforced on the FFWiki Discord.
- Staff should expect to be held to a moderately higher standard by virtue of the fact that newer users will invariably view their comments as representative of the wiki as a whole.
- Rule 6 of the FFWiki Discord -- do not hold important conversations about broad-reaching policies on Discord, where a lot of the on-the-ground users will never see it, and where people often type their knee-jerk reactions rather than thinking things through carefully -- should be enforced more strictly.
The fact that bcrats are mostly inactive is a separate issue -- I would like to look into promoting a new bcrat and raising some admins along the way some time over the next few months. But that's mostly out of the scope of this particular forum thread. Cat (meow ∙ hunt) 17:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Though I broadly agree with each of these points, I think we should further clarify what is considered a personal attack so that there is no ambiguity. i.e. I understand why the recent comment made was interpreted in such a way, but it was not intended to be delivered as such.
- What I'd add is we make rule 6 absolute in that we simply direct them to the forum and say "No further discussion", perhaps avoiding said scenarios.
- The other thing I would add is a note on the Conduct page that it does not apply retroactively. We can note that we are aware that the policy has been violated in the past, but that we will crack down on violations going forward rather than fight old battles.--
Technobliterator TC 18:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- The problem with narrow definitions for things like personal attacks or biting the newbies is that it's way too easy for a bad, or even well-intentioned, actor to narrowly not break the rule as according to the narrow definition, and then when a staffer tells them to stop it to accuse the staffer of moving the goalposts. Cat (meow ∙ hunt) 15:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll go over my opinions point by point:
- In my personal experience, I've found it hard to not associate staff responses as those of the sites where they are staff, which is why, whenever I am in a position to do so I attempt to be as charitable as possible with my responses and assume good faith from commentors. Regardless, this is my choice and I get how this can be stifling to conversations and the more casual ambiance on IRC/Discord, and it'd probably be... not very nice for mental health if every comment there has to be 100% "on" and "presentable". That might be justifiable of a paid position, but as part of a volunteer staff position, it's just not tenable. As such, perhaps an important addition to the Discord rules would be to clarify that each individual staff member's opinions are their own and not necessarily representative of the entire wiki staff.
- The thing with clarifying and ratifying what would count as "harsh" behaviour is that broad idea of being harsh is, in and of itself, not entirely unacceptable, as far as I can tell. However the closer we narrow down what counts as unacceptable, the more we widen and excuse stuff that doesn't fall into the category of unacceptable, and in that wiggle room is where bad faith actors can flourish. Not that we've had much in the way of bad faith actors in the wiki since... gods, what was it, the Jesse guy? And that was treated harshly but fairly in recent memory.
- Indeed nowadays it's hard not to see the wiki Discord as an extension of the wiki itself, and we should perhaps be stricter about policymaking being moved to Forumspace and Talkspace, but I can recall very few instances where policymaking has actually happened on the Discord server. As it stands, it is definitely a useful place for quick responses to questions and to quickly hash out ideas and reach out to admins and staff about if something fits within existing policy. As for the Conduct policy, I don't think having the exact same rules is necessarily a positive. For example there have been cases of people banned from the Discord server but not from editing and participating in the wiki proper, which they had continued to do so after their ban, and continued to be productive members of the community despite being banned from the Discord. If the Conduct policies had parity that person would either not have been banned from the Discord or banned from the wiki itself.
I don't know if I added anything to the discussion, honestly, but those are my current thoughts on the matter. — Zero-ELEC (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Regarding point 1, I agree that staff should be held at a higher level. Staff members will be, regardless of the established culture of the wiki, seen by new users as the first point of call. I think this is particularly important when it comes to policy decisions and discussions around the content of the wiki. The new users who begin by asking questions in these channels are people we want to encourage, because they are clearly interested in contributing to the wiki. They will not know the culture of the wiki/Discord. So addressing Zero's point, casualness, profanity and joking around are perfectly fine in general chat on Discord, but we expect gentler behaviour in the policy and content channels.
What do I expect of staff? The key, I think, is that staff should always try to de-escalate rather than escalate in the face of rudeness or aggression. Don't be the one who starts off with profanity, personal attacks, assuming bad faith or aggression, and do not answer these things with higher intensity of the same. Don't reprimand new users harshly for mistakes born of ignorance. If you need help with the situation, ask another staff member to intervene with impartiality. It doesn't matter that the person saying it doesn't intend for something to be aggressive, because if other users take it as such (particularly if it happens repeatedly), then this is clearly an issue that heightens tensions, causes other people to be uncomfortable and drives people from the Discord. — YuanSalut 00:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
If you want my thoughts, I will give them very raw and honestly.
I've held a lot of contention for the wiki's community based on the short time I started interacting on Discord and getting noticed there to be promoted to Content Mod. Generally, I joined the Discord because Discord is a faster mode of communication than talk pages. But what I've seen in the server has turned me off from wanting to interact with this community, that it's better for me to just stay far away and work on edits on peace whenever I want.
I'm an underdog supporter who prefers unpopular opinions and likes a lot of games and characters that everyone else openly hates on. I walked in on a conversation where my favorite game was getting shit-talked about, which when put up against a popular remake that is going to be relevant in wiki discussion for years to come, creates this message to me that the only game that matters to the wiki is FF7 Remake, and why should it matter if other games need updates to coverage when you don't like it anyway?
I'm not a fan of the "favorite game is the popular game ergo more updates, coordination, and airtime in discussion, who cares about anything else" atmosphere that I see in the Discord. I'm glad the forum system on the server now helps organize the games for more focused discussion on them, but before that, there was only one channel for wiki discussion where Techno complained about FF5 not having enough lore while rewriting the character pages. Blue responded to one mention of Lightning Saga needing rewrites with nothing but disdain for the lore which is already offtopic in a wiki discussion channel. I don't know you personally and you're higher up than me, so far be it from me to call you out on this, but seeing this in the Discord was a turn-off. I'm not asking you to like these games to appease me. Please just leave these topics alone if you don't want to work on them, you are not being forced to if editing on the site is voluntary.
Here's my take: Your opinion of a game should not matter when it comes to editing for it. Yes, you're much more motivated to work on your favorite games and characters, but I don't need to hear disdainful opinions alongside wiki-related updates. If no one's being paid or held on pain of death to edit this site, then you can discuss it in offtopic, after-hours channels instead of the wiki, where all Final Fantasy topics are deserving of coverage regardless of personal opinions. I get the impression that if the status quo in discussion is to praise FF7 and disregard the rest, then maybe you should all make roost at a Compilation Wiki instead. I don't want to bring up the games I want to help out with in discussion because you all would just eat me alive with your opinions and tone which I don't think I'll get along with. If your response is that it's my fault I like such unpopular opinions and games, then you prove my point why I'm staying away, and how I seriously doubt the wiki community can be welcoming to other users who want to help if they stay as they are now.
Techno, sorry I never responded to your DM from two years ago because I honestly had no idea how to respond. Part of this is in response to that DM, because this has been brewing in my head for a while and I don't want to unload it all where it's seen as out of line. I tried my best to write this without it getting too emotionally charged, because I have to set an example too according to the conduct for staff. Those who are higher-up in maintaining the wiki are very set in their communication style, and it gives an impression that's very abrasive and intimidating to me. That's why I was surprised when Catuse liked my avatar of a rare ship. I keep farther than arm's length from the community until I figure out how to interact with you all, but thank you for that comment.
My expectations for a community to work together on the wiki are very low at this point: Don't be like Swordzman. And don't make me feel like shit for the parts of Final Fantasy that I enjoy. I certainly never needed backseating opinions when I played those games, and I would gladly play them again. I wonder what it should take for the wiki community to be supportive of its users and all various topics covered on the site. But right now as they are, I don't feel like interacting and would rather keep to myself if it keeps me and my enjoyment of the series safe. Mierna 02:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Mierna. Appreciate this response and I think in this (rare) case I speak for the whole team in saying we don't want you to feel isolated on the wiki based on your opinions of the games at all.
- Speaking in my personal capacity: it's interesting you bring up FF5 because I actually overall really enjoyed working on that game and it's one of my favorites. One thing I love about editing is it gives a chance to examine the games deeply and look for flaws in things you like. I can't speak to the FF5 comment in question you're referring to, and it's possible that I was much more negative on it than I should've been, but it's a case of me throwing in light-hearted jabs at games I like. On the Lightning Saga, I definitely had an "uh oh" reaction but it was coming from a place of excitement at the possibility of working on and digging into it, as I've often been had a new appreciation for games after working on them.
- I can definitely say there are games on the wiki I don't pay attention to and have been dismissive of in wiki channels. The intent behind dismissive comments was more "I'm not gonna be opinionated on this one, so I support whatever you think is right", and I'd never rip into someone for wanting to work on a game I don't play for (I'd welcome it—they're the subject matter experts), so I greatly apologize if it actually gave the impression of "this game deserves no updates" (it does, I'm just ill-equipped to give them). For my part, there was a time when FF7 was the one that was derided a lot by the staff/userbase at the time, so I'm not proud to be responsible for perpetuating a negative cycle but in the other direction.
- Speaking as staff: I think the best policy suggestion perhaps, and this also speaks to Yuan's comment, is to enforce stricter professionalism requirements for interactions in the official wiki channels and keep things like observations of the games in other channels. I'd be very open to any other suggestions you have because we definitely want a welcome environment for all contributors, particularly on games wherein they are the subject matter experts and are motivated to work on them. And for that matter, though limited in our capacity to do so, staff should be willing to help out users who have questions when it comes to covering topics they are not familiar with.--
Technobliterator TC 09:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Been a while since I've logged in, but I will put my thoughts here.
To be blunt, once you are a member of "staff", the rules change. I'm not exactly perceived as a paragon of maturity considering my (ancient at this point) history, but it does bother me to be "represented" in such a way that reflects badly on us as a whole. I have, at least more than once, gone out of my way to DM someone who has clearly had a negative experience, and attempted to smooth it over myself. Which, really, I shouldn't have to do, or feel the need to do. It's not really my place, but I know no one else will do it.
In short, I very much agree with what Yuan had to say. De-escalation, regardless of personal feelings. Because as staff, you have to be the adult in the room, and be above provocation. You always have to be considering every one of us in your conduct. You have to be held to a higher standard. And, while I would really hope it isn't required, there needs to be consequences otherwise. I don't really see any other way of operating that improves the situation.
Now let's hope I remember how to add a signature. - 
Tidus357 03:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh boy, is it finally time for me to air my opinion on the Discord server in a way that doesn't get quickly blown over? Well let's bloody go then. Please understand that these are my personal thoughts and have nothing to do with my position as a staff member, but as an administrator I am privy to the server's private chat which for the most part we use to coordinate admin actions, double check whether or not certain events adhere to policy, and disseminate passwords for official wiki off-site accounts.
It is my sincere belief that due to failures of, frankly, the entire administration team, and I include myself in that, the Discord server is allowed to behave in a way that is antithetical to the operation of the wiki. Mierna's comments are absolutely true here, and the relentless negativity from specific users, while it has been in decline, makes it unpleasant to look at the server, especially when you try to engage with some people. That's what led me to relinquish my Discord moderator rights, and in one frankly disgraceful instance, my concern that one user was lying about comments I made, to me, within the conversation said comments were made, to accuse me of straw-manning so they could continue to rain on the parade of anyone who has different tastes to them, was dismissed because I got mad about that. No shit I got mad about that! There has to come a point where you realise that one party is refusing to abide by basic conduct and take measure to stop that, while also giving some leeway to the wronged party. Instead, neither happened, just great. Our policies do not expect perfect behaviour, they expect trying to do the right thing, with the knowledge that perfection is impossible, but on the Discord it feels like that's warped into an excuse to do the bare minimum to maintain it.
And yet the standard set for all users on the Discord is well below the bar of trying to do the right thing. How many times did admin chat complain about Swordzman's behaviour before we started warning him, and how many after that before he was finally removed? I lost count, and it wasn't just there where there were complaints. There's no expectation of any user to behave themselves, so of course admins fail to meet the bar of a regular user, let alone the proposed higher bar that logically comes with representing the site.
I do not blame anyone in specific for the issues of that place. We've all shirked responsibility, hell, I practically turned tail and ran from my duty, I won't deny responsibility on my part now. But the entire staff feel utterly unwilling to run such a community space, so this is what results; one that feels like it truly isn't, with our only recourse being to point at the rules again and again and double the number of channels on the server so maybe we can segregate people who want the rest of us to know about their hateboners from the places where games are actually discussed. Didn't actually work, by the way, the instance I mentioned earlier happened in one of those game specific channels.
If it wasn't for the fact that I'm currently the site's lead CSS coder and need to be present for faster responses than just regular wiki methods, I would not be there. Hell, if any of you had seen recent admin chat, you'd know I'm struggling with wanting to be an admin here at all any more. If Designer was still a thing I'd trade my current position for that in an instant.
I don't really have an opinion on if we need staff to be held for a higher standard, or we need to make the rules of the wiki and the Discord closer or anything. But I do note that I personally try to do this, so I guess you can take that as my implicit endorsement. I'm just tired of it all, man. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 04:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Based on these responses, my takeaways and responses are:
- The expectations of general conduct are to assume good faith, deliver no personal attacks and take a step back and cool down if one gets into an argument or feels emotional. Project:Conduct should be updated to reflect this.
- Staff are generally expected to be held to higher levels of conduct. That is, in addition to above, we expect more professionalism, for them to de-escalate conflict and ask other staff members to moderate discussions they are involved in
- The Discord is generally a more casual place, but a degree of professionalism, particularly towards new users, is expected in wiki-related discussions rather than in general chat
- Users would prefer a heavier hand with Discord moderation, particularly for repeated low level infractions
- To help us moderate, we are discussing in the bcrat team and with candidates promotion of a bcrat, admins and Discord Moderators to aid in this
I am not sure what can be done about the negativity in the Discord in general, which I agree is present and find troubling. It's driven me off engaging with it: for example, I recently finished my first playthrough of FFIX with ScatheMote, and yet I felt no desire to share this in the Discord at all. I think it would require a concerted effort from the community to be more active, positive and change the culture. This is difficult for many of us simply due to time constraints. When I joined the wiki, I was 14 years old. I'm now a 30 year old physician - a completely different situation to where I was before, and one which makes it impossible to moderate the Discord as well as it deserves. Moderating is a bit of a thankless task, so I would quite happily pass this on if there are willing and suitable candidates. — YuanSalut 23:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey all, thank you everyone for participating. I learned a lot from the responses and broadly agree with what we've concluded with the above summary.
I've written a draft of the updates to Project:Conduct, and you can see differences here. We can also update Project:Staff#Community standards just to add a "See also" link back to this, ditto Project:Discord just to note that official channels have the same rules as Project:Conduct while the rest just follows its own (looser) Discord rules.
I completely take the point that others have made that, if you start trying to define a "harsh comment" more, then it leaves more wiggle room for bad actors. Instead of doing this, I think following a principle of professionalism in official spaces is a better approach so as to avoid the grey areas that we have often encountered (i.e. comments perceived as harsher than was actually intended as occurring when users are unfamiliar with the culture of the wiki).
The only slight concern I have (aside from feeling that policing staff too separately defeats the point of them having the same rank as everyone else), is potentially creating an environment where people think it's ok to hurl abuse at staff. As was said above, this is a thankless role and we do it as a hobby, so I don't think we deserve to be dealing with abusive comments on a frequent basis (and we have encountered many in the past which we dealt with. However, that's a hypothetical; should we encounter that scenario, we can revisit the topic.
Please post if anyone else has any other contributions or anything we've missed, and feel free to edit my sandbox for any changes to wording/any accidental omissions.-- Technobliterator TC 16:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)