Since this seemed to go off the rails a bit -
Contrary to some beliefs, I am not in here all of the time. If I step in, either the OP of a community thread asked me to, a lot of reports came in, or some extenuating circumstance required it. I also never unilaterally make decisions when it comes to a community (especially this one!). I consult with other staff, the OP, and get feelers for how things will be handled.
I think this approach is great, but it would've been more helpful if this point was made more clear from the start, rather than making it seem like it was mostly your decision.
I'll definitely trust clogger on making those types of decisions, but I also don't feel like it should be so cloak and dagger when it's something that was important, and to be dealt with reasonably.
For the initial rule change, that was pretty easy. Some of you might not be aware, but I've been in the BST thread for a good few years myself, and traded on CAG years before that as well. I've seen the argument about this go around and around, peter out, then get spun up again and again, usually with increasing volatility and hostility. As such, a community poll was an easy way to gauge people's interests in that change to a degree. Why people think I made the final decision on that, I have no idea.
Personally, I don't remember this downhill momentum kind of outrage on these topics as you are referencing, but yes, I do agree this did pop up over and over again, so in the end, the poll was reasonable, although I still have my qualms with that approach that I won't argue over in this thread at this time.
If a community poll is easy to gauge people's interest in a change to a degree, then I don't see why we shouldn't have a poll for outstanding issues that numerous people in the thread feel is important to gauge that decision. I think part of your response made it felt more like you won't even consider it until you see how this rule works, but that doesn't seem to be addressing the issue of listening to the community, and more about managing the community, which are two separate things.
For any extras, there's a few reasons why implementing them now wouldn't be the best idea:
1: The poll was not an overwhelming majority
When the poll was up, I believe it was around 60-40 for Yes. So while one option won, it wasn't really a slam dunk percentage, so the logical thing to do would be to see how the community as a whole handles it, since it's a relatively big rule change. Too many radical changes too fast is a great way to run into trouble.
So this part feels like a contradiction to me now. What is the purpose of having a poll if the end result is just going to be looked at as something they may or may not be important? If this is what the community decided, then that wish should be respected.
I personally don't agree with the rule, but since I'm a part of this community, I can respect that it is a rule, and I will abide by it.
However, if we view the results of this poll as trivial, then that's a different discussion to be had, rather than saying the logical thing to do is to see how it works.
If it's enforced as a rule, that's how it works. It's really just that simple. If someone breaks the rule, they'll get called out by the community. There are plenty of rules that are broken on a weekly basis, and we call each other out on it when necessary. That's how a rule works. Since it seems like mods will not have a heavy hand in enforcing these rules, as I'll talk about in the next part. However, what's really the point of seeing if this rule will work or not if the purpose of the rule was to make the change for the community? We didn't decide on this rule just so you can decide if you feel you made the right decision, but it was made to try to improve the community. This shouldn't be looked as a penalty to our community just because a new rule is created. This is how growth works, and I think it's great you provided us this empowerment, but don't take it away now by allowing us progress only if we show some sort of improvement on a scale.
2: The community must prove they can self-police
It's easy to vote in a poll, but another thing entirely to put the effort in and make sure the rules are followed. The expectation is that as a community, you will be able to make these things work without alienating other posters in the community. Can it be done? Are we unsure? Then pop a trial run, see how it goes.
You say you have been in the BST thread for years, but I have to say that the time I spent in the BST thread in recent times, I've never seen a problem from the community to self-police, and put forth the effort to do so.
The expectation is that you should be a part of the community, but not run the community. Who here is saying that our community can't, and haven't policed ourselves, from before and now? If we were really talking about the community self-policing, isn't this already an issue with mod involvement that's contradictory to this approach?
I personally take issue with the fact you are implying that our community can't police itself. Maybe that's not what you intended, but the way you just put forth this idea seems a bit insulting for me, as I feel like I am someone that does make that effort, and also to all the other NeOaks of this thread (albeit he's been less active since the Era T___T) that we still have to prove something that's already been in place.
I guess I am just confused as to exactly what the mod involvement is trying to mitigate as far as the thread is concerned. Yes, we know it's not just you, but if there are other staff that have been consulted as you've mentioned, then I feel we need a bit more clarification on the specific intent or purpose you are looking for.
Are you looking to intervene, or are you looking for us to self-police. Where is the line, and what should we expect as a community when engaging in discussions related to rule changes? I think it's important to have this distinction made clear, regardless of who came to you for the change. The community is made up of more than just those you speak to in private, but needs to include those who are willing to speak in public. It's about transparency, and that's what I feel we're not really getting here from the process thus far.
There is very little benefit to implementing multiple significant rule changes like this at the same time, so the best bet is to see how this one works, and reconvene after the holidays. If you want to discuss it, debate it, PM me about it, etc, you are more than welcome to. I am relatively easy to convince if you have the right data.
I feel I would need you to elaborate on this a bit more, as I don't necessary agree with you on this point.
If anything, it might be more beneficial implementing multiple significant rules at once, IF, that's what the community wants, and not because of some sort of a test run for something greater.
Striking while the iron is hot, and taking this chance to making this change now if it is the choice of the community should be a priority, not an after thought.
I am sure this relates to the self-policing point, but I personally don't see that connection as relative to each other. The longer we take to make these changes when we are at the peak of discussing these issues, the more likely they will fall into the backburner, and changes will not happen for quite awhile, or be forgotten, and only come back as pointless waves of bickering every so often.
One can make the argument that if we start implementing one rule, maybe it could open the floodgates to more, and rampant rule changes. However, this can only be true if it's what the community wants, and not just one or two people mentioning it. If it's something that is discussed by numerous people, it should be considered as important to the community. We shouldn't just imply that no discussion will be made until we meet some sort of mark or goal before it can even be considered. That shows little deference to our work as a community, and it's not the way we should be approaching critical rules for this thread.
And what is that mark or goal supposed to look like when we talk about self-policing, or if the new rule works? How long are we supposed to wait until we can decide that it's time? How much of this is subjective, or do you actually have a mark in mind to meet this objective?
I just feel the lack of transparency and clarity is just too lacking as far as the approach that has been taken on this issue thus far, and the subsequent comments to these issues.
