Jump to content

SiIvaGunner Wiki:Moot/Log 2025 January

From SiIvaGunner Wiki
Our big questions to answer are:
  1. Should we continue using the ⁠meme-discussion system?
  2. If so, what changes should be made to the process?
I will prompt us with topics, and we'll go mostly free-form from there.

ironwestie pinned a message to this channel. See all pinned messages. — 1/18/2025 2:57 PM

ironwestie pinned a message to this channel. See all pinned messages. — 1/18/2025 2:58 PM

  • 22:01: Ironwestie: Okay, let's begin. First, I would like for us to answer the first question: Should we continue using the Meme discussion system?
Some questions to prompt our discussion:
    • Did the system accomplish what it set out to do?
    • What was it like to participate in the discussions?
  • 22:01: Ironwestie: Anyone may respond.
  • 22:01: Mick the Squirrel: yeah, this facilitated discussion well.
  • 22:01: Mick the Squirrel: very casual.
  • 22:02: Brunocoolgamers: i think the sisteam worked pretty well it allowed anybody to propose change which i am big fan of
  • 22:02: CorbCreates: I think that continuing with the Meme discussion system is our best course of action. It is better than any system we have used previously/
  • 22:02: Notascryptic: Yes, I think the system did its intended purpose well.
  • 22:03: Mick the Squirrel: i have yet to see anything too divisive yet? the most controversial (as in a vote split, not just unanimous opposes) was ghetto smosh, and thats warranted based on the subject matter.
  • 22:03: Airy342: system worked pretty well yeah
  • 22:04: CorbCreates: I am not saying that the system is perfect, but the threads system appears to be the most functional so far and will be a good baseline if we ever come up with a different method
  • 22:04: Brunocoolgamers: yeah its not perfect but its good enough
  • 22:04: Ironwestie: Elaborating on the first question a bit: The system replaced meme criteria, which we tried to come up with over several moots. How do we feel about not having meme criteria, but we do have this meme discussion system?
  • 22:04: Brunocoolgamers: atleast for now
  • 22:05: Brunocoolgamers: i think it was clear that having stat based criteria doesnt really work
  • 22:05: Mick the Squirrel: i like it. no silly numerical restraints. we're still figuring out the true definition, and thats a good thing.
  • 22:05: CorbCreates: I do think we should work together to properly define what is a meme, but it does not need to be statistics as the criteria
  • 22:05: Brunocoolgamers: something like ice cap zone was clearly not a meme even if it had the required amount of rips while something like wordle rap which is clearly a meme was allowed to be classfied as such earlyer without having to wait until the rip amount increseas
  • 22:06: Brunocoolgamers: i think this 2 are some of the best exsamples as too why meme discusion is a better sisteam
  • 22:07: Airy342: what bruno said
  • 22:07: Ironwestie: I'm hearing that the system allowed discussions to be flexible and more free form, which let people elaborate more than moots did
  • 22:07: Mick the Squirrel: people coming in days later to completely flip the discussion was interesting ("interesting" as in the good type).
  • 22:07: Ironwestie: I can't comment (EDIT: on) what it was like to participate myself.
  • 22:07: Brunocoolgamers: plus theres more time
  • 22:08: CorbCreates: [in reply to: Corb: "I do think we should work together to..."] We have had this discussion many times about what we should even be considered a meme fundamentally, and while it is productive, its never actually anything we can refer to as concrete. It is just vibes right now and that might not be a good idea moving forward. However, defining a meme is not a requirement to continue this system and this should be a topic we work on outside of choosing whether to continue the threads system
  • 22:08: Brunocoolgamers: moots didnt last that long with meme discussion we have up to 7 days to discuss a particularly difficullt meme
  • 22:08: Brunocoolgamers: like ghetto smoosh was or poop alpha ferb thing will probably be
  • 22:09: Overcast07: It seems to have done the job it was supposed to do (I didn't participate much so I don't think I can say more on that) but if it continues on Discord I think it should be a forum rather than a thread system purely out of Discord UI considerations, because threads are more difficult to find in the UI
  • 22:09: Notascryptic: I agree with overcast on that
  • 22:09: Ironwestie: That's one of the topics I have written down, Overcast, so we'll tackle that in a bit. Good reminder
  • 22:09: CorbCreates: we would need to convert the server if we do that, i believe. i dont think we have access to forums atm
  • 22:09: CorbCreates: or at least thats what ive been told
  • 22:10: Ironwestie: Before we get into that, I'd like to take a vote. It seems like most folks are okay with continuing with the system, so let's vote on that formally first
  • 22:10: Brunocoolgamers: [in reply to: Corb: "we would need to convert the server if..."]you litteraly press 1 button for that iirc
  • 22:10: CorbCreates: This is true
  • 22:10: Overcast07: You can switch the server temporarily, add a forum channel, and then switch it back I think, not sure if that's still the case
  • 22:10: Brunocoolgamers: anyways i agree with this
  • 22:10: Ironwestie: Let's tackle that next. Let's do a vote first
  • 22:11: Ironwestie: Summary: We will continue using the Meme discussion system (with some changes if voted on).
Please reply with , , or .

====

Voting closed
  • 22:12: Ironwestie: 8-1-0. The vote has passed.
  • 22:12: Ironwestie: Moving on, let's tackle that topic about forum vs. thread channels
  • 22:12: CorbCreates: [in reply to: Pokemonfreak: ""]what was your reason behind the neutral vote you have not stated your opinion
  • 22:13: CorbCreates: I am just curious
  • 22:13: Ironwestie: Pokemonfreak, if you'd like you can elaborate before we move on.
  • 22:14: Pokemonfreak777: frankly im still not entirely sold on the system personally, but im clearly in the minority (and i didnt participate in it) so im neutral
  • 22:15: Mick the Squirrel: whatever issues you have with it could be discussed right now
  • 22:15: CorbCreates: Fair enough, I am not completely sold on it as a perfect choice either. I just voted in support as it is definitely the best we have so far, at least in my opinion.
  • 22:15: Mick the Squirrel: or is it just the general vibe of it you dont like
  • 22:15: Ironwestie: It's a valid opinion to have reservations about a system. It's still a work-in-progress
  • 22:16: CorbCreates: This is a good direction to go
  • 22:17: Ironwestie: Speaking of, let's discuss forum vs. thread channels. Currently we use a bunch of Discord threads, but there's also the option of using a Discord forum channel.
Our next question should be: Should we switch the Meme discussion channel to a Discord forum instead?
  • 22:17: Ironwestie: From what I can see, the forum channel lets you do things like tag, search, and auto-close posts
  • 22:17: Ironwestie: So plus in my book
  • 22:17: Notascryptic: I think a forum helps people find the discussions easier
  • 22:18: CorbCreates: Forums are definitely built to house this sort of conversation. I feel like forums are a no-brainer
  • 22:18: CorbCreates: Are there downsides?
  • 22:19: Mick the Squirrel: (unless we immediately revert it) it makes the server publicly visible
  • 22:19: Mick the Squirrel: i dont think thats really an issue though since this is a public wiki
  • 22:19: Mick the Squirrel: wow ⁠test [Note: "test" is a link to the forum channel]
  • 22:19: Ironwestie: Sorry, I wanted to test things out.
  • 22:20: Mick the Squirrel: keep it up this is interesting
  • 22:20: Ironwestie: It is indeed possible to enable the community server feature, make a forum channel, and disable the community server status
  • 22:21: Brunocoolgamers: ok i am back
  • 22:21: CorbCreates: ok well it is done i guess
  • 22:21: Brunocoolgamers: i wanted to say something even if the forum channel is made the the meme discussion channel should be keeped
  • 22:21: Brunocoolgamers: so people can discuss before starting a full on discussion vote
  • 22:22: Pokemonfreak777: i suppose if we want to have some sort of permanence in discussions, forums is the way to go
  • 22:22: Brunocoolgamers: or propose memes to give a discussion
  • 22:22: Airy342: [in reply to: bruno: "so people can discussion before starting a full on discussion vote..."] agree
  • 22:22: Ironwestie: Ah, so the ⁠meme-discussion would be for free form discussion (like ⁠wiki-general or something), and the forum channel would be for meme proposals
  • 22:22: Brunocoolgamers: yes
  • 22:22: Ironwestie: I like the idea
  • 22:23: TelescopeOperator: forum sounds cool yeah
  • 22:23: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to: Pokenmonfreak: "i suppose if we want to have some sort of permanence..."] threads was apparently designed to be temporary, on the spot discussion, while forums is for more thought out ones
  • 22:23: Mick the Squirrel: [in reply to a now-deleted post] and that way (slightly segwaying to another topic) non-verified people have a dedicated place to discuss memes
  • 22:23: TelescopeOperator: I find the threads system a bit hard to navigate and I don’t check this server often so I miss out on threads
  • 22:23: Brunocoolgamers: forums should also be archived but i assume this was already gonna be the case
  • 22:23: Ironwestie: That's a good topic, Mick. Let's vote on the threads vs. forum topic first
  • 22:23: Ironwestie: Anything else we want to bring up before we take it to a vote?
  • 22:24: Ironwestie: Summary: We will transition the meme discussion channel to a forum channel instead of a threads channel. The ⁠meme-discussion channel will serve as a place for freeform discussion, while the forum channel will be where memes are proposed.

====

Voting closed
  • 22:25: Ironwestie: 7-0-0. Vote passed.
  • 22:25: Coolbeans Cruz: oops
  • 22:26: Ironwestie: Let's move on to the topic of whether or not to let non-verified users participate in discussions
  • 22:26: Ironwestie: @Mick , I believe you had something to say about this?
  • 22:26: Mick the Squirrel: yep
  • 22:27: Mick the Squirrel: ive seen people talking about wanting to discuss memes but not wanting to get verified, and they are valid
  • 22:28: CorbCreates: Getting verified is a very low barrier for entry, however.
  • 22:28: Mick the Squirrel: the restriction to only verified people was more overcorrection (theres probably a better word for that) from Evil Trollish Characters, which don't seem to have popped up yet
  • 22:28: Brunocoolgamers: the thing is if evil trolish character shows up we can just ban that person in particular
  • 22:29: CorbCreates: I think of it more as gatekeeping the voting from people who do not care enough about the wiki to not get verified.
  • 22:29: Mick the Squirrel: [in reply to: Corb: "I think of it more as gatekeeping the voting from people..."] im fine with the voting being Verification-Restricted
discussion should just be free
  • 22:29: CorbCreates: Whether this is valid, I am unsure
  • 22:29: Brunocoolgamers: i will say yeah verficiation is an extremly low barrier of entry
  • 22:29: Brunocoolgamers: i manage to get one with only like 3 wiki edits
  • 22:30: CorbCreates: You do not need to edit the wiki at all to get verified, I believe
  • 22:30: Notascryptic: if unverified people are allowed to participate in these then there is less risk of a discussion not getting enough votes to pass
  • 22:30: Ironwestie: I see meme discussions as another moot-like forum, which means that people are held accountable for what they say. We need to know who said what if we are going to make changes to the wiki as a result of these discussions
  • 22:30: Brunocoolgamers: this is also true but i guess there is also more risk of people who wont listen to reason and only wanna support a meme they like will show up
  • 22:31: Pokemonfreak777: verification is really easy; you dont even need to edit, all you need is a wiki account connected to discord. as such i am against unverified people participating in this
  • 22:31: CorbCreates: We can use discord accounts as the way of holding accountability, to be honest
  • 22:31: Mick the Squirrel: all the other channels are free to talk in though? its just the topic of the channel.
  • 22:31: Ironwestie:
Mick: im fine with the voting being Verification-Restricted
discussion should just be free
I think we should clarify whether we are discussing whether to allow non-verified people in ⁠meme-discussion (the freeform channel) or the forum channel (name TBD)
  • 22:31: Brunocoolgamers: i think meme discussion can be opended for everyone i see no reason for that to be close however the forum should be closed to verified users
  • 22:31: Mick the Squirrel: ok
  • 22:31: ThisGreenDingo: If i might weigh in for a moment, i believe the more people are able to determine meme status the more accurate the documentation will be, as it will represent the community more consistently outside of the wiki bubble
  • 22:31: Mick the Squirrel: Meme Discussion - Everyone
Forums - Verified only
Mick: Meme Discussion - Everyone
Forums - Verified only
Ah, then I would agree with this. I'm not okay with "Forums - everyone"
  • 22:32: CorbCreates: Unverified should definitely be allowed to view the forums, at the very least.
  • 22:32: Brunocoolgamers: if someone feels really strongly about a spefic one they can probbaly just get verefied before participating anyways
  • 22:32: ThisGreenDingo: Forums for everyone would get very difficult to manage i agree
  • 22:32: ThisGreenDingo: But I believe anyone should be allowed to discuss these things
  • 22:33: Mick the Squirrel: [in reply to: Corb: "Unverified should definitely be allowed to view the forums..."] well yeah lol we dont need to hide any channels here
  • 22:33: Ironwestie:
Corb: Unverified should definitely be allowed to view the forums, at the very least.
100%. We're not going to hide the forum discussions
  • 22:33: Notascryptic: You’re participating in wiki descicions, you should have a wiki account to vote on these
  • 22:33: CorbCreates: Meme discussion should also definitely be for everyone now that we are not using it for anything but general discussion
  • 22:34: CorbCreates: The forums, however, I am usure which side to really weigh in on
  • 22:34: Brunocoolgamers: i think both sides are valid an ultimatly i dont think it would be that big of a deal ethier way but i am gonna say verfied only
  • 22:34: Mick the Squirrel: meme discussion is the spitballin practice place and the forums are for when you truly believe in something
  • 22:34: Brunocoolgamers: is the best desecion
  • 22:35: Brunocoolgamers: for the forms
  • 22:35: Ironwestie: My issue with "Forums - everyone" is that you should have a wiki account to vote on wiki matters. It's free, it's a low barrier to entry, and verification is super easy.
  • 22:35: CorbCreates: "More opinions means it is more representative of the community thoughts as a whole" is why i am worried that blocking it behind verification is counterproductive.
  • 22:36: Notascryptic: I agree with ironwestie
  • 22:36: Brunocoolgamers: [in reply to: Mick: "meme discussion is the spitballin practice place and forums..."] the way i see it is
meme discussion: guys how do you feel about trough the fire and the flames? i was thinking of wrtting something about it
forum: trough the fire and the flames is not a meme (and an explenation obviously)
  • 22:36: Brunocoolgamers: i dont even agree with this lol just the first meme that came to mind
  • 22:37: Mick the Squirrel: [in reply to: Bruno: "the way i see it meme discussion..."] soon...
  • 22:37: Ironwestie: I understand where you're coming from, Corb, and I think that's an interesting point. The wiki (or rather, parts of the wiki community) is basically deciding what is and isn't a meme. Ideally it would be a community or a siiva staff thing, but I don't think that's our responsibility to host
  • 22:38: Ironwestie: We're doing this whole thing to figure out what memes to document. I think siiva staff (and the siiva community) will chime in if the wiki gets the meme list wrong
  • 22:38: CorbCreates: I do not think the siiva community will chime in.
  • 22:38: CorbCreates: At least, for the most part.
  • 22:40: CorbCreates: The wiki is very big and unless you are really into siiva I find it very likely nearly anyone would take everything at face value.
  • 22:41: Ironwestie: Fair enough. I think there is a slight problem with a wiki deciding what is and isn't a meme, but it's what we've decided on doing in lieu of anyone else deciding it
  • 22:41: CorbCreates: I still don't think gatekeeping the voting is a bad idea, I just think it is something we need to carefully consider and be aware of.
  • 22:42: Ironwestie: 100%.
  • 22:42: Ironwestie: Shall we take it to a vote?
  • 22:42: Mick the Squirrel: k
  • 22:42: Ironwestie: Summary: We will allow non-verified members to participate in ⁠meme-discussion (the freeform channel), while the forum channel for meme proposals will continue to be restricted to verified members.

====

Voting closed
  • 22:44: Ironwestie: 5-2-0. Vote passed
  • 22:44: CorbCreates: Vote passes either way, does not truly matter lol
  • 22:45: Ironwestie: I have two more topics that I'd like to discuss, in no particular order:
    • The vote approvers role
    • logging the votes
  • 22:45: Ironwestie: After that I'll open up the floor to other ⁠meme-discussion -related topics
  • 22:46: Ironwestie: Let's start with logging the votes, since I think that will impact the vote approvers role discussion
  • 22:46: Ironwestie: @Mick , did you have something to say about this topic? I believe you did most of the logging
  • 22:46: Mick the Squirrel: ok
  • 22:46: Mick the Squirrel: logging, i should have been more engaged with that
  • 22:47: Mick the Squirrel: i have the text files of each moot stored, but not converted into the wiki format nor actually on the wiki
  • 22:47: Mick the Squirrel: there is one currently logged, and I didn't even log it (thank you turretbot).
  • 22:48: Mick the Squirrel: i don't have prior experience with python, but the process looks simple enough from what ive seen? just seems tedious when done 20 times over
  • 22:49: CorbCreates: Yeah a lot of it appears to be tedious. There is not a lot of reward from it from my point of view, either.
  • 22:50: Pokemonfreak777: what does your text file look like? when i do the logging for moots, i have a script on my end and iron's script as well which together produces most of the wiki formatting
  • 22:50: CorbCreates: All of the text is logged in the discord anyways.
  • 22:50: Mick the Squirrel: and also being able to do that is one of the intended necessities of becoming a vote approver, and it has made one person reluctant so idk if it should really be a requirement.
  • 22:50: Mick the Squirrel: [in reply to: Pokemonfreak: "what does your text file look like? when i do the logging..."] i know about the regex thing, was going to do that next...
  • 22:51: Ironwestie: To expand on what Mick is saying, logging the discussions seems to be an arduous process, and it will be difficult to continue doing logging as it is now as we continue making proposals.
There is also the issue of the logs not really explaining the results of the discussion. A lot of the discussions have specific changes that aren't explained with just , ,
  • 22:51: Mick the Squirrel: [in reply to: Mick: "and also being able to do that is one of the intended necessities..."] iron brought up that he was working through systems that are less human-involved, and i'd like to hear more on that. that is all i have to say.
  • 22:51: Ironwestie: I should know, I wrote the logging script lol
  • 22:51: Ironwestie:
iron brought up that he was working through systems that are less human-involved, and i'd like to hear more on that.
sure, we can start with that
  • 22:51: Pokemonfreak777: basically if it will make the logging process easier i could share my script similar to how iron shares his
  • 22:52: Mick the Squirrel: oh yeah
There is also the issue of the logs not really explaining the results of the discussion. A lot of the discussions have specific changes that aren't explained with just [[File:Voting-support.svg|20px]] , [[File:Voting-neutral.svg|20px]] , [[File:Voting-oppose.svg|20px]]
i only turned it back to this to make the table width on the logging page shorter
  • 22:53: Ironwestie: Regarding making logging easier, I am investigating whether it is possible to use the Discord API to transform Discord messages into wikitext logs. This would require the use of a custom Discord bot that would do the logging of posts in the forum channel
  • 22:53: Mick the Squirrel: [in reply to: Pokemonfreak: "basically if it will make the logging process easier..."] sure
  • 22:53: Ironwestie: I know autologging is possible for thread channels, as I have seen scripts like DiscordChatExporter (https://github.com/Tyrrrz/DiscordChatExporter) do this
  • 22:53: Ironwestie: I don't know exactly how forum channels work, but I expect them to be functionally identical
  • 22:54: CorbCreates:
 I am investigating whether it is possible to use the Discord API to transform Discord messages into wikitext logs.
This would be awesome, probably
  • 22:54: Ironwestie: I haven't done too much investigating at present, but I will make it a priority in the next couple of weeks. I anticipate that there may be privacy concerns, too, so I will investigate those first
  • 22:55: Ironwestie: Meaning I don't want to autolog the whole server (since no one asked for that), and I don't want the bot to be abused.
  • 22:55: Pokemonfreak777: yeah i think there are privacy concerns about this to consider cuz iirc these things require you give higher level permissions
  • 22:55: CorbCreates: I do know threads do have some impact on bot functionality. In Siivacord we could not react to a message to automatically assign roles because of it being a thread
  • 22:56: CorbCreates: How and in what ways, I am clueless
  • 22:56: Ironwestie: That's good to know. I'll do some digging
  • 22:56: Ironwestie: Anyway, that's all I have to say on the subject for now. Assume that the moot_compact.py script is all we have for now.
  • 22:57: CorbCreates: We will also be using a forum, which is an even more new function of Discord, so I am unsure how bots will be interacting with it.
  • 22:57: Ironwestie: To guide this discussion, I'd like to talk about:
    • Who is going to do logging?
    • How is logging going to be displayed on the wiki?
  • 22:58: Ironwestie: (again, assuming we're sticking with the Python script for now)
  • 22:58: CorbCreates: Can you link to any example of logging as it has been done previously?
  • 22:58: Ironwestie: SiIvaGunner Wiki:Moot/Log 2024 December 14
  • 22:59: Pokemonfreak777: this is the (only) log on the meme discussion page SiIvaGunner Wiki:Meme discussion/Undertale & Deltarune are memes, the individual songs in their soundtracks are not (mostly)
  • 22:59: Ironwestie: It uses the same script as the moot logs, which is moot_compact.py: User:Ironwestie/Bot/moot log compact.py
  • 23:00: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to: Pokemonfreak: "this is the (only) log on the meme discussion page..."] although it should probably change to using utc and 24 hour format
  • 23:01: Ironwestie: It total, it usually takes me like 10 minutes to make the log itself, and 15 minutes to do formatting (including adding replies, which takes the longest)
  • 23:02: Ironwestie: I think it is a lot for one person to do, especially if there are 20+ discussions like there are now
  • 23:02: CorbCreates: [in reply to: ironwestie: "It total, it usually takes me like 10 minutes to make..."] Don't use replies, got it
  • 23:02: Ironwestie: 😠
  • 23:02: Notascryptic: I kind of avoid using replies because of that
  • 23:02: Ironwestie:
Corb: Don't use replies, got it
(jk) I use this format lol
  • 23:02: CorbCreates: LOL I'm sorry I couldn't resist
  • 23:03: Ironwestie: I don't think there's an easy answer right now, so we can table "Who is going to do logging" until we get to talking about the Vote approvers role
  • 23:03: Ironwestie: and maybe until I get that bot working
  • 23:04: CorbCreates: Seriously, though, I do not have much opinion on any of this, the wiki and discord backends I know next to nothing about and I do not have the willpower to start learning them anytime soon
  • 23:04: Ironwestie:
How is logging going to be displayed on the wiki?
Moving on, I think there needs to be some kind of summary about decisions that isn't just the , , , or Null entry in the Decision column

[Forwarded message from Mick the Squirrel:] oh yeah 

There is also the issue of the logs not really explaining the results of the discussion. A lot of the discussions have specific changes that aren't explained with just [[File:Voting-support.svg|20px]] , [[File:Voting-neutral.svg|20px]] , [[File:Voting-oppose.svg|20px]]

i only turned it back to this to make the table width on the logging page shorter

  • 23:06: Mick the Squirrel: the above Legend was a temporary compromise
  • 23:06: Ironwestie: Wiki staff was discussing this last week, and @pokemonfreak777 had an idea of having a collapsible under each row
  • 23:06: Mick the Squirrel: interesting
  • 23:06: CorbCreates: The current table looks very nice, I would hate to ruin it
  • 23:06: Ironwestie: 20+ summaries would look like a wall of text, unfortunately
  • 23:07: CorbCreates: Maybe a redirect to a lower portion of the page, under the table for summaries?
  • 23:07: CorbCreates: It would still be a wall of text but it can at least be navagable
  • 23:07: Ironwestie: Like SiIvaGunner Wiki:Moot/Archive?
  • 23:07: CorbCreates: Yeah pretty much
  • 23:08: Mick the Squirrel: [in reply to: ironwestie: "20+ summaries would look like a wall of..."] summaries shouldn't be too long? just a sentence or two
"We killed Mario, but let Ground Theme live. Discussion into the status of Green Hill Zone is pending."
  • 23:08: Ironwestie: It would have to be sorted by date instead of alphabetically, since the title could be anything
  • 23:08: CorbCreates: Or like any of the references to composers, shows, etc lists
  • 23:08: CorbCreates: Yes date would probably be necessary
  • 23:08: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to: ironwestie: "Wiki staff was discussing this last week, and..."] wait wasnt this Memmy's idea lol
  • 23:08: Ironwestie: Oh sorry, yes, that's right (sorry Memmy)
  • 23:10: Ironwestie:
Mick:  summaries shouldn't be too long? just a sentence or two
Using the undertale thread as an example: This is how the summary looks like:
Decision: Approve
We will remove the categories (and if not a freqrip, pages) for:
* Another Medium
* Death by Glamour
* Dogsong
* His Theme
* Hopes and Dreams
* It's Showtime!
* Once Upon a Time
* sans.
* Temmie Village
* Your Best Friend
* Don't Forget
* Field of Hopes and Dreams
* Rude Buster
And will keep / create pages and categories for:
* Bonetrousle
* MEGALOVANIA
* BIG SHOT
* THE WORLD REVOLVING

summaries shouldn't be too long? just a sentence or two
I do not think so, some things lie the Undertale restructure will need more than a few lines to summarize everything. Anything with subcategories or other kinds of nuance will be difficult to summarize so briefly
"we let Bonetrousle, MEGALOVANIA, BIG SHOT, and THE WORLD REVOLVING live."
  • 23:10: CorbCreates: Even like the Gegagedi meme page will not be that brief
  • 23:11: CorbCreates: It will also not be the last
  • 23:11: Mick the Squirrel: hmm
  • 23:11: Ironwestie: I prefer the Moot archive / list of references format that Corb was discussing earlier as a result. We can't control how long summaries are
  • 23:11: Mick the Squirrel: eh ok
  • 23:12: Ironwestie: I think it should also be on another page, like the moot archive is
  • 23:12: Ironwestie: The page will get very long over time
  • 23:13: CorbCreates: It will also grow significantly faster, most likely
  • 23:13: Ironwestie: We could just link to the section on that summary page next to the emote in the "Decision" column
  • 23:13: Mick the Squirrel: icons can be links
  • 23:13: CorbCreates: That would be a good location to place it
  • 23:14: Ironwestie: Like this
  • 23:14: CorbCreates: I am worried that making the icons links will not be obvious that they will redirect there
  • 23:14: Mick the Squirrel: add it to the legend
  • 23:14: CorbCreates: Adding the summary link like is shown in the screenshot I prefer
  • 23:15: Mick the Squirrel: im saying seeing "summary summary summary" down the whole list could be solved by the column just being called that
  • 23:15: Ironwestie: Like this?
Corb:  I am just worried it will not be obvious the icons will link at all
Right, exactly.
  • 23:17: Pokemonfreak777: yeah i like the first format (icon then separate summary link) better
  • 23:18: CorbCreates: maybe you could do a sort of annotations format where its just [1] in a superscript?
  • 23:18: CorbCreates: next to the decision
  • 23:18: Ironwestie: The numbers would need to be done manually (since it's not actually a reference), but that is possible
  • 23:19: Pokemonfreak777: that seems like more work than its worth
  • 23:19: Ironwestie:
ok nvm then, non-icon links seem more popular...
Ideally they would be links, it is just the average wikigoer would not know
  • 23:21: Ironwestie: I think we're all good with the idea of having a link summary in general. Whether it's a 1 or "Summary" is something we can change later
  • 23:21: Ironwestie: I'd like to make sure that we have time to address the Vote approvers role today
  • 23:21: CorbCreates: This is fair
  • 23:22: Mick the Squirrel: yep yep yep need this decided asap
  • 23:22: Ironwestie: For now, I will do a vote to add the "<emote> Summary" format to the table
  • 23:22: Ironwestie: Summary: We will create a subpage for summaries of meme discussions. The discussion list's table will be updated to add a link to each proposal's summary.

====

Voting closed.
  • 23:23: Ironwestie: 6-0-0
  • 23:23: Brunocoolgamers: sorry i couldnt contribute much here this sort of thing is not my strong suit
  • 23:24: Ironwestie: Last topic of the night: Vote approvers role. We've discussed about how difficult logging is, and we don't quite have a solution yet.
Still, the meme discussions need to be moderated, and we need to figure out who is going to maintain it.
  • 23:24: Ironwestie: @Mick , did you have something to share about this? You're the only vote approver right now.
  • 23:25: Mick the Squirrel: yeah
  • 23:25: Mick the Squirrel: so this entire thing would not be feasible resting only on my shoulders
  • 23:25: CorbCreates: I would be fine with moderating (closing polls and summarizing decisions), I just don't know anything about logging and can not do that.
  • 23:26: Mick the Squirrel: the recruitment process is just something i never got to, and nobody exactly signed up?
  • 23:26: Mick the Squirrel: well eden did but nothing happened afterward - ⁠meme-discussion⁠
  • 23:26: Ironwestie: Do you have a list of the responsibilities of the Vote Approvers?
  • 23:26: Ironwestie: I think you've sent something to me in our DMs
  • 23:26: CorbCreates: There is a list somewhere
  • 23:27: Mick the Squirrel: yep its on the meme discussion page
    Closing threads after a week
    Extending threads, if requested
    Manually reading over and determining if threads came to a natural agreement
    Logging chat discussions onto the Archive page
    Warning proposers if any rules (listed below) are accidentally ignored
    Locking proposal threads if the rules are intentionally ignored
  • 23:27: Mick the Squirrel: everything except logging is "are you capable of reading and using discord"
  • 23:28: CorbCreates: That is also the one point scaring most people off
  • 23:28: Ironwestie: If logging is the issue (and we don't have a solution right now), could we change that to "writing summaries"?
  • 23:28: Brunocoolgamers: logging is defently the biggest thing that prevent me from applying yeah
  • 23:28: Brunocoolgamers: otherwise i totally would
  • 23:28: Mick the Squirrel: [in reply to: ironwestie: "If logging is the issue..."] thats a lot easier
  • 23:28: Ironwestie: We just added summaries as a requirement. They aren't that difficult - you just summarize the thread in the discussion, and then copy-paste that into the wiki page
  • 23:29: Ironwestie: It's the same process I use when summarizing moots. I look for the "Summary:" sentences I write.
  • 23:30: CorbCreates: That I can probably do, unless there is something I am missing in format requirements
  • 23:30: Mick the Squirrel: ooh another thing i wanted to get to: bots should probably close the forums
  • 23:31: CorbCreates: Would it be worth the effort?
  • 23:31: Ironwestie:
 ooh another thing i wanted to get to: bots should probably close the forums
I'll have to look into that. I don't know how forums work at the moment
  • 23:31: Mick the Squirrel: because if someone decides to make a thread at 4am in your timezone you dont want to have to be awake to close it at the exact time
  • 23:31: CorbCreates: Mick what timezone are you
  • 23:32: CorbCreates: maybe we can get a non-american to help
  • 23:32: Ironwestie:
 because if someone decides to make a thread at 4am in your timezone you dont want to have to be awake to close it at the exact time
That's totally fair. Even if it's not 4 am, it's a lot to ask for someone to be available at exactly 7 days from whenever the thread is created
  • 23:33: Ironwestie: I'll look into it
  • 23:33: CorbCreates: I don't think it is a big deal if the forums are open for a little longer than intended
  • 23:34: CorbCreates: Also if someone wants to give a last minute opinion they won't get cut off by a bot
  • 23:34: Brunocoolgamers: my timezone is gmt-3 if that helps
  • 23:34: Ironwestie: I'll leave that to the Vote Approvers to figure out. Let's loop back to that topic before we end the moot
  • 23:35: Ironwestie: I'd like to suggest that we change the logging requirement to "writing summaries"
  • 23:36: Ironwestie: and I'll privately message Mick to see if we can sort out some more support for the Vote Approvers, whether that be bots, moderation channels, or something else
  • 23:36: Ironwestie: We definitely need a team to accomplish this work
  • 23:37: Mick the Squirrel: yeah....
  • 23:37: Ironwestie: Anything else regarding Vote Approvers before we vote on changing the logging requirement?
  • 23:38: Ironwestie: Summary: We will change the responsibilities of Vote Approvers slighly. Instead of logging chat discussions, they must instead write summaries of the discussions.
The full list of responsibilities is now:
    • Closing threads after a week
    • Extending threads, if requested
    • Manually reading over and determining if threads came to a natural agreement
    • Writing summaries of the discussions and posting them to the archive page
    • Warning proposers if any rules (listed below) are accidentally ignored
    • Locking proposal threads if the rules are intentionally ignored

===

Voting closed
Retrieved from "https://www.siivagunner.wiki/w/index.php?title=SiIvaGunner_Wiki:Moot/Log_2025_January&oldid=673519"
Debug data: