These are some rule changes, additions, and site suggestions Babylon and I, Lindenbree, have come up with. If you would like to review proposed behavioural guidelines, I direct you here to this post by Mas.
We hope the changes listed here will better the site and prevent more drama in the future. This proposal has been reviewed by other members as well, and the specifications of the text has been modified to ease their concerns. It is now ready to be reviewed by anyone willing. If you have concerns about the proposed rules or would like to add to it, please let me know so that this proposal may be modified into something we all agree upon.
Green text has been added on after the initial posting of this.
An amendment to Rule 11:
A staff member is allowed multiple accounts, so long as they attribute their rank to only one account. For example, a mod can only be a mod on one account, and same goes for admins and bureaucrats. There is but one staffed account per staff member.
The only exception is the "spy" account. If for some reason a staff ranking to one's "spy" account is deemed necessary to resolve a problem, then the account holder must inform the other admins of this decision and why it's necessary. If they agree to it, then the spy account will be allowed to temporarily hold a staff ranking until the issue is resolved.
1. When promoting a user, other staff members must be informed and approve of it first. There should be at least three votes in favour of that user's promotion. Additionally, temporary staff positions are not allowed. If another staff member is needed, go ahead and promote someone as any other promotion would be handled.
2. If a user is banned, either from the wiki or the chat, and there is substantial proof that the banning was unwarranted, the banned user may be allowed back for a second chance. Screen shots may be used as evidence, but it should first be confirmed as valid by eye-witnesses who saw the event. If the banned user was in clear violation of rules, or was blatantly instigating other users, there will be no second chance. Should their banning be deemed unwarranted though, they shall receive a second chance. The next time they earn a ban however, they are required to wait out the ban's time span and will not be allowed back on before then. Should ban circumvention be discovered and proven, the user will be permanently banned.
If there is a wiki dispute, where a member feels they require staff assistance, the issue should similarly be posted and discussed. Using screen shots in this situation is the same as ban appeals.
[The ban repeal is to be handled on an appeals page, and the wiki disputes on a separate Assistance Page (These pages have yet to exist)]
3. A pasta in "Needs Work" shall remain there only for a week before further action is taken. "Needs Work" should only be added by Mods or Admins, and means the pasta has some flaws, but will be accepted as a permanent page when fixed. "48 hours to deletion" on the other hand, should only be added by admins if the pasta is one of significant poor quality, if the one week probation time has not elapsed. Mods may add it to any page after it has been in ‘Needs Work" for over a week. Finally, ‘Marked for Deletion" means the page should be instantly deleted by an admin, and should only be added by admins or mods. Admins need only check the reasons for the deletion, which should be left in the edit summary, before deleting. All restrictions on adding categories would, of course, apply for removal of categories as well.
Finally, Admins and Mods should take responsibility for any pages they add to ‘Needs Work". In effect, that page becomes their ‘case", and it is said Admin's or Mod's responsibility to add "48 hours to Deletion" after one week has elapsed, and ‘Marked for Deletion" after that period, if they do not have the ability to delete pages. Any Admin or Mod should not remove any of these categories without first consulting the ‘Case" Mod or Admin. When "Needs work" or "48 hours to Deletion" is added, the mod or admin who added that category is required to post in a comment why they added it, and what the consequences of the story going unfixed are. If the author displays an effort or willingness to improve their story, they will be given an additional 2-3 weeks to fix it. The time span may vary or (in rare cases) exceed three weeks depending on the author's circumstances and availability to work on their story. It is up to the 'Case' mod or admin to decide.
Though it is the responsibility of the staff member to ensure the deletion process is carried out, and the author's cooperation will increase the edit time for the pasta, any user, regardless of status, may edit "Needs Work" and "48 hours to deletion" pastas to resolve the problems specified in the comment section. If the staff member who deemed the story in need of work believes the changes have fixed the story, regardless of who edited it, that staff member, and that staff member only, may remove the deletion categories. They are responsible for either the deletion process, or ensuring the pasta is saved if it is fixed.
1. Cut down on the number of admins. These may seem counter-productive right now, but a leaner staff pool will mean less disputes, quicker decision making, and more efficient work. I suggest we should keep six or eight admins overlapping across multiple time zones, so someone can be on call most, if not all, times of the day. Most admin duties regarding needs work can be delegated to any mods who volunteer. It’s a simple task of adding two categories. Admins would only be necessary for the final deletion of a pasta after 1 month and 48 hours have elapsed without improvement. Admins would be kept for large decision making, banning of users, and reversing the effects of spam.
TO BE DISCUSSED *
2. Improve the Creepypasta of the Month competition. Voting should be made easier; the complicated form is not encouraging new users to vote. Secondly, remove the arbitrary edit minimum. If someone was abusing multiple accounts, they could easily reach twenty edits in under a month, so all that rule serves to do is prevent user who mainly engage in the community through chat and comments from taking part in voting. Thirdly, there should be greater incentive for voting and entering stories. I appreciate Mutuhar has a schedule, and is bound to choosing pastas that will both make successful videos and fit the overall tone of the channel, but nevertheless, some kind of guarantee of reading would greatly improve both the content of submitted stories, and the frequency of nominations and votes.
What if Mutahar didn't have to read the stories alone? He often neglects to read the stories and CPotM winners are left with an unfulfilled promise. But what's the importance here, having Mutahar specifically read the pasta, or having the pasta read on a popular YouTube channel? Why not promote other people, granted they have a decent mic, as a creepypasta reader for SOG? That way Mutahar won't have to do it himself, and the amount of to-be-read stories won't pile up.
3. Several things should be done to improve the system of quality control. First and foremost, reduce the time for needs work pastas. A month is too long, and just clogs up the system. One week is a better suggestion. It allows users sometime to fix the page, but should keep the number of ‘Needs work’ pages at any one time to a minimum. Secondly, a freeze on posting of new pages while the category is cleared out should be implemented. The category is currently in a ‘steady-state’ of refilling whenever some significant chunk is taken out. If it was reduced to zero, there would never be more than 10 to 15 pages in the category at any one time, making it significantly more manageable. No pages would be left to fester in the category for months at a time; admins could deal with pages as they appear, and have them deleted with ten days, if it comes to that.
4. We need to increase our user base. That much is obvious from declining visit and lack of involvement in wiki activities such as the Creepypasta of the Month competition. The obvious path to take is to tap into the larger YouTube channel fan base. This would involve cooperation from Mutuhar, who would be able to mention the wiki regularly in videos, and leave links in the description. As mentioned before, a reading of Creepypasta of the Month winning stories, on a regular basis, could improve interaction between the channel and the wiki, and increase involvement in the contest. Secondly, I think it’s important to increase our social media presence, to draw in users, and keep other users involved with the wiki staff. We already have Twitter and Facebook accounts set up and drawing moderate followings, which currently administrated by Cosmic, but I think scaling those up, with links on the wiki front page, and wider range of more interesting content posted. If you take the model of the Creepypasta wiki’s social media accounts, where content on a general theme is posted, theirs being the odd or creepy, we could easily create more interesting posts, and thus widen exposure for the wiki.
* The first suggestion under "Suggested Changes" in particular requires discussion, as it would involve a dramatic staff overhaul and require users to reveal their time zone. It should also be considered, that the amount of active admins is already quite small.
* Note: I believe the fourth suggestion should be put into motion after the other proposed changes are implemented (if they ever are), and the wiki has adjusted to the modified system.