Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-24718406-20160929032831/@comment-26944420-20161001191924

Michaelyoda wrote: Brick425 wrote: Michaelyoda wrote: Brick425 wrote: Riolu777 wrote: Michaelyoda wrote: Brick425 wrote: Michaelyoda wrote: TheShadowAssassin wrote: Riolu777 wrote: TheShadowAssassin wrote: Michaelyoda wrote: Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back.

B That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate.

And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info. That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email. So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email? What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person. What's the problem? More like, what's the point? We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.

Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site. That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken... Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros. True, but this is a lot different. Like I said, we don't know when they're being broken. Just like this CV, should it pass.

...What do you think I'm talking about?