Line-By-Line ShitCrit™️: 05 Command
SHITPOST — On “[Discussion] Mainsite Policy Discussion”
Taking a commercial break from the solemnity of these wide-lens critiques of SCP over its last 13 years to pop the blog post equivalent of a beer.
Today we are going to take the line-by-line crit style™ that SCP made the mistake of formally recognizing…
… and apply it to a recent staff post on O5 Command. I think we’ll be doing this more often!
Here is the post in question. The posting staff member is OCuin.
There’s the bell.
“The Problem: Users feel like they have no input on site policy, and O5 threads routinely exclude them altogether from potential discussions (as well as often limiting the discussion to certain levels of staff, never mind from the userbase). Whilst it sometimes makes sense to ensure a discussion is being held amongst qualified staff members…
I don’t know what’s worse, the inclusion of “whilst/amongst” or the phrase “qualified staff members”.
There’s some strange inclination to formalize the language to an imagined upper eschelon of some dainty far-off society when staff post. Dexanote did this during the Town Halls. It’s as embarrassing but the opposite of when a really white guy starts talking like he is fluent in ebonics around African Americans. Please stop. It does no favors, and keeps the staff at a distance. To think that now, when they’re still finding ways to diminish the gap between themselves and the average user, is a good time to remember it. I think they can’t help themselves.
“Qualified staff members” makes it seem as though you are have taken a standardized test or gotten through an intensive obstacle course in order to speak here. This is a discussion. Anyone can have one, it literally just requires literacy and the ability to type. There are no subjects outside I.T. that are so esoteric and so specialized as to require “qualified staff members” to be the only ones allowed… I mean, capable of contributing. Maybe the idea that staff are more qualified to speak on behalf of the users than the users are is part of why we are here in the first place.
… it is important to note that this policy can appear both elitist and can make staff seem like a group that imposes policy upon users rather than crafts policy from user or site need.
“Can appear”? “Seem”? But this is exactly what happens! There’s no “seem” about it. “It’s important to note”, but only now 13 years on, holding the hand of OCuin?!
Once we take out the fluff that euphemizes the grim look for staff, the sentence becomes:
“It is important to note that this policy is elitist and make staff a group that imposes policy upon users rather than crafts it from user or site need.”
And this explains perfectly why this O5 post exists.
The truth is, most of the policies are not created (“crafted”) due to a need… only this one is because it’s the latest in an episode of staff getting their act together (out of need). Most policies are enacted because staff are like moths around anything policy-related and the remainder are staffers’ thinly-veiled attempts at building a “gettin-it-done, can-do-attitude” resume so they can make it a full page long when being considered for Admin. The cart is commonly put before the horse in this eagerness.
“Policy creation on site has often been shaped in a strange manner — a forum exists for users to propose their own policies, but is rarely used, whereas there is no formal way for users to provide input on policy proposals that originate from within staff, which is the way the vast majority of policy comes about.”
So that strange manner is that staff gave the users a little playground and sandbox to throw sand around in, but that it’s where the kids should play, and they’re not allowed at the grown-up table? So they basically don’t listen to the users, despite having thrown them a bone about it? I guess that’s what this is fixing.
In looking at the policy section of the user forums, I see that it actually is used quite a bit, not “rarely” at all. There are 2 posts by users in June, 4 in May, 2 in April, 5 in March… this is about as frequent as staff promising they’ll do better.
“Although informal channels for policy input from users exist, they vary wildly in their utility and accessibility and are often unintentionally restrictive to many users.”
Wouldn’t messaging the Wikidot members who propose staff policies via PMs technically be a way to provide input? Oh no? That’s considered “harassment level”?? Oh ok.
“Simultaneously, staff are required to maintain a degree of professionalism and emotional control during policy discussions, which can become heated at times. If necessary, staff may recuse themselves from conversations in order to regain composure.”
You might be surprised at the inclusion of this, a reminder to not act like children, and a written permission slip that staff can leave if they can’t control their anger, but (1) some people on staff will truly feel better that there is now a solid protocol telling them they are allowed to leave when mad (some people can’t understand or think things unless you tell them that they can) and (2) this is a round-about way of addressing the fact that staff commonly don’t want to leave when things get heated, they want to stay, to get the last word in, and they want to give the ignorant users they are arguing against a disciplinary warning or stop order.
Reading the rest, honestly, this isn’t a terrible idea. Glad to see it, should be fun.
That’s all there is to say except that you’d think with as many times that staff respond to a proposal with “Why didn’t we do this earlier?”, and “… I don’t think this fixes all the problems, but it’s a great step in the right direction…” things would have gotten a lot better by now.
Wait… in the spirit of this proposal…
… shouldn’t the users get to have a say in this?
Class dismissed.
© Lack of Lepers, 2021
