The Elder Scrolls Wiki:Moot/Log February 2021

19:04: Rupuzioks: Moot is about to start, somehow I don't see an option to send a message to verified members
19:05: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: @Verified Members
19:05: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: seems that doesn't work
19:05: RenzXVI: I wish there was a moot role for pings.
19:05: RenzXVI: Pinging pretty much everyone might be bad lol.
19:06: Rupuzioks: @Verified members moot is about to start
19:06: Rupuzioks: got it
19:06: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: how did you do that?
19:06: Rupuzioks: added permissions to myself
19:06: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: ah
19:06: Vlad8599: ?
19:06: Vlad8599: whats going on?
19:06: Cyrodiilic Khajiit: Moot
19:06: Rupuzioks: we'll wait a few minutes and then start
19:07: Vlad8599: -_-
19:07: Rupuzioks: The Elder Scrolls Wiki:Moot
19:07: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: @Examon the moot is a monthly meeting where we discuss wiki policy
19:08: Vlad8599: Okay. Sorry, its without me.
19:09: Rupuzioks: @Ashley I think you should be one to start, since the topic I am going to present is not mine
19:09: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: sure. which of my topics shall i start with?
19:09: Rupuzioks: doesn't matter
19:09: RenzXVI: The chat one isn't that important.
19:10: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: right, i'll start with the eso books one
19:10: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: are we done waiting for everyone?
19:10: Rupuzioks: probably
19:11: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: cause i don't get the feeling that a whole lot of folks are present
19:11: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: anyway, i'll just start
19:11: Rupuzioks: I'm sure some of them will join during the discussion
19:15: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: recently, as i was reading the book "The Coldharbour Compact" i noticed that the pages it linked to were Molag Bal (Online), Sotha Sil (Online) etc, rather than the lore pages of these entities. people then informed me that this is also the practice in many other ESO books. this does not make sense to me, as while the books have only appeared in ESO so far, their contents have little to do with that those entities are doing in the story of ESO, but rather they're about the lore of those entities. i therefore think that books from ESO should link to the lore pages of entities like Bal or Sotha, rather than to their ESO pages. after all, the 36 lessons don't link to Molag Bal (Morrowind) either.
19:17: Rupuzioks: hmm, I thought all book articles, no matter from which game they are, are already linking to lore articles
19:17: Rupuzioks: at least at some point it was mentioned that it is our practice
19:18: Rupuzioks: not sure about the recent discussions though
19:18: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: that is certainly the case for pre-ESO texts, but i've been informed that there are other texts like the one i linked where the Online pages are linked
19:19: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i haven't checked how common this is though
19:20: Rupuzioks: not sure about others, but I always try to change links to lore pages in book article's content section
19:20: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: so i guess my requested change is already policy
19:21: Rupuzioks: well, if there was no such official decision earlier, then I don't see a problem to make it now
19:22: Rupuzioks: I'll just check some other moot summaries if it was mentioned earlier
19:30: Rupuzioks: I think it was just an unofficial policy to link only to lore pages on book's content
19:30: Rupuzioks: so we can make it official
19:30: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: sure
19:31: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i think we're in agreement, so we might as well start voting
19:34: Rupuzioks: sure, so the proposal is: "On book articles in 'Contents' section all links should link to lore pages first, including ESO books. If the article is not created then it still should link to lore page as a red link, so someone could create it later."
19:34: Rupuzioks: is that right?
19:35: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: there should probably be a clause for when the source refers specifically to the events in that particular game
19:37: Rupuzioks: yeah, like a reference or an entire new section below "Contents" section?
19:37: Rupuzioks: maybe under "Trivia" section?
19:38: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: what i mean is for example, if a source from ESO were to say "we're not happy with molag bal opening all these dark anchors", then there would be no problem with linking to Molag Bal (Online) rather than his lore page, as it refers specifically to what he's doing in that game
19:42: Rupuzioks: maybe it is good idea, since I am not familiar with the game events, so I would know it then from the links
19:42: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i have no idea what happens in ESO either. i just know molag bal does some shit with dark anchors
19:43: Blademaster Jauffre: I disagree. When I read a book in ESO, in the timeframe of ESO, I want to see how the faction/character/entity it relates to is relevant, and the game articles typically go more in-depth for the game specific ordeals, than their lore counterparts.
19:44: Rupuzioks: but then we would need someone to confirm it, and at that point at least I would be useless as a patroller on those edits
19:44: Blademaster Jauffre: Like, when I play ESO and I read a book about Sentinel, I don't care about what Sentinel was doing during the events of Daggerfall or Arena, I want to read what Sentinel is doing in ESO
19:45: Rupuzioks: for consistency it would be better for all links be the same
19:45: Rupuzioks: not sure on this point
19:45: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: true, i guess, but a book about the coldharbour compact isn't relevant to ESO's timeframe, for example
19:46: Blademaster Jauffre: I suppose so
19:47: Blademaster Jauffre: I just think that, generally, people don't want to read about lore when they look for a book which only appears in one game.
19:47: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i agree that a book about what sentinel was doing in ESO's time should refer to Sentinel (Online) rather than the lore article
19:49: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: but books that are specifically relevant to the lore should link to the lore page, regardless of how many games they appear in
19:49: Rupuzioks: game specific events in a book could link to the game specific page, but most of the books talks about unrelated lore anyway, or at least about the past and what led to game specific event
19:50: Rupuzioks: maybe it's different for ESO books
19:54: Rupuzioks: the linked book here talks more about lore in general than a game events, so at least here it should link to lore articles
19:57: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i should add that if we were to consistently link books that are relevant to that particular game to a specific game article rather than the lore, then we should also do stuff like link the Commentaries to Mehrunes Dagon (Oblivion)
19:57: PuceAardvark: Wait is the moot today
19:57: Ottoman Hold: Yes
19:57: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: yes
19:58: PuceAardvark: I don't think I have anything to talk about.
19:58: PuceAardvark: At least, not anything anyone would agree on. lol
19:58: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: that's fine; you can just debate the topics others present
19:58: Ottoman Hold: Ashley is currently presenting atm
20:00: Rupuzioks: well, in the end I am leaning to have all links to lore pages
20:01: Ottoman Hold: In general I agree that pages should generally link to lore pages, yes. There is merit to linking to game-specific sources on some occasions, although they are generally pretty rare outside of say certain letters
20:01: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i think we should link to lore pages except when the book is about the specific timeframe surrounding the events of the game
20:02: PuceAardvark: What are we talking about rn?
20:02: Ottoman Hold: "recently, as i was reading the book "The Coldharbour Compact" i noticed that the pages it linked to were Molag Bal (Online), Sotha Sil (Online) etc, rather than the lore pages of these entities. people then informed me that this is also the practice in many other ESO books. this does not make sense to me, as while the books have only appeared in ESO so far, their contents have little to do with that those entities are doing in the story of ESO, but rather they're about the lore of those entities. i therefore think that books from ESO should link to the lore pages of entities like Bal or Sotha, rather than to their ESO pages. after all, the 36 lessons don't link to Molag Bal (Morrowind) either." - Ashley
20:02: Blademaster Jauffre: Book pages linking to game or lore articles
20:03: PuceAardvark: Game of course, unless the page is not game specific.
20:04: Blademaster Jauffre: That's what I was thinking
20:04: PuceAardvark: Well it seems we agree on something for once.
20:04: Rupuzioks: and if the book appears on multiple games
20:05: Blademaster Jauffre: Depends on the book
20:05: Rupuzioks: also if the book does not talk about any of the events in a game
20:05: PuceAardvark: If anything appears in multiple games it should link to a disambig
20:06: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: our lore pages always double as disambigs i think
20:06: Rupuzioks: yes
20:06: Rupuzioks: they were merged as per one of the moot decisions
20:08: Rupuzioks: so even if the link is to the lore page, there are always all other links for a specific game to check
20:08: Blademaster Jauffre: I suppose that's true
20:08: PuceAardvark: So you want to turn diambigs into lore pages? with something like "By game" at the top?
20:08: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: in my opinion, what a book should link to should depend on the contents of the book, not on which games it appears in. a book about Sentinel during ESO's time should be linked to Sentinel (Online) even if it reappears in TES 6. similarly, a book about the lore should link to a lore article, even if it's only in 1 game.
20:08: Rupuzioks: and lore page should have more broader info anyway than the game specific page
20:09: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: this is already the case
20:09: PuceAardvark: Ok.
20:11: PuceAardvark: There is a ton of maintenance categories that need to be retired IMO but lets wait for the next moot since I don't have it typed up or ready to present.
20:13: Rupuzioks: it is ok to present even if you do not have listed, but you have to wait to discuss about that, now we are discussing about different topic and other topics are waiting too
20:14: PuceAardvark: Im not this time anyway
20:14: Rupuzioks: @Ashley so, I do not have any more points, should you propose the voting phase then?
20:15: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: sure. i guess the proposal is that book articles should link to lore pages unless they're specifically about the events surrounding a specific game
20:15: Rupuzioks:
20:16: The Beautiful Princess Ashley:
20:16: Rupuzioks: @(Ryan) PuceAardvark you need to type the support emoji
20:16: PuceAardvark:
20:16: FrisyN:
20:16: Blademaster Jauffre:
20:16: Rupuzioks: 5-0-0
20:16: Rupuzioks: any others?
20:17: RenzXVI:
20:17: Rupuzioks: 6-0-0
20:18: Rupuzioks: I guess that's it then, @Ashley next topic then?
20:18: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: yup
20:18: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: which topic shall we do now?
20:18: Rupuzioks: your other one
20:18: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: ok
20:19: Ottoman Hold: whoops
20:19: Ottoman Hold:
20:19: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: that still counts imo
20:19: Blademaster Jauffre: No Otto, the count has ended :kappa:
20:19: Rupuzioks: 7-0-0 then?
20:20: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: yes; it's very important that it passes woth 7-0-0 rather than 6-0-0
20:20: Rupuzioks: I guess it counts until the next topic is presented
20:20: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: anyway, i guess i'll begin my other topic now
20:25: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: so, as most people here are probably aware, since the migration, our wiki no longer has a chat. however, we still have 2 chat mods, whose task is now to look after the wiki's Discord channel. it is illogical to name a staff function after a duty they no longer perform, and it creates confusion surrounding what said mods actually do. for this reason, we should rename this function to something like "discord moderator". we also need to rework this page The Elder Scrolls Wiki:Chat Moderators so that it discusses what we actually do rather than what we used to do in the now-defunct chatroom.
20:25: GreyFox06: I'm late.
20:25: GreyFox06: Just woke up.
20:25: GreyFox06:
20:25: GreyFox06: For last vote.
20:26: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i don't think that still counts
20:26: Blademaster Jauffre: :person_shrugging:
20:26: Blademaster Jauffre: I like the idea for the new topic tho
20:26: Rupuzioks: it passed anyway
20:26: Blademaster Jauffre: Staff page is one of the ones which should be kept up-to-date at all time.
20:27: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: the forum mods page also needs to be updated due to the merge, but that's less pressing imo
20:27: Blademaster Jauffre: Forum mods are also in charge of the /d now, right?
20:28: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: always were
20:29: Rupuzioks: I'm neutral on this one, discord is like a chat, the role name is a subjective in my opinion, but the policy and description page needs indeed to be updated
20:31: Blademaster Jauffre: It's more accurate to have a title represent the actual function, imo.
20:31: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: hmm well on the other hand /d is a forum and discord is a chat but it would be nice to update indeed
20:32: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: the /d is a forum, so keeping forum mods is accurate imo. i do think that "discord mods" is better than "chat mods" though
20:32: GreyFox06: I think since there are people who are familiar with the pre-UCP Chat that no longer exists, it would be more appropriate for their role to be named after the platform that they actually moderate now.
20:32: RenzXVI: I am also leaning on Discord mods.
20:33: PuceAardvark: yes
20:33: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i think that the fact that both of our chat mods agree on this should also mean something
20:33: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: yeh
20:34: RenzXVI: I was the last ~~Airbender~~ chat mod. :frowning:
20:34: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i'm also a chat mod...
20:34: Rupuzioks: as I said, subjective, so I'll agree on what the actual mods will decide
20:34: RenzXVI: You're forum mod too. Lol
20:34: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: it was nice being chat mod
20:35: Blademaster Jauffre: lol, was just about to say that^^
20:35: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: lol
20:36: RenzXVI: So we're just deciding on a rename? It's going to be a bit more complicated after...
20:36: Rupuzioks: on that note, should the role color be changed here on discord too?
20:36: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: yeh
20:36: Blademaster Jauffre: Why?
20:36: Rupuzioks: though it will be just for you @RenzXVI
20:36: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: so far, all mods have had the same colour. i don't see this as a problem per se.
20:37: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: then again, patrollers also have a separate colour so i guess something can be said for separating all the staff by colour
20:37: RenzXVI: I dunno about colors. It could just be the same if it's renamed.
20:38: RenzXVI: The more complicated thing is revamping the page, the rules and all. It would seem like the requirements to apply might be unnecessary for Discord mods. Do they really need to edit since Discord seems too distant to the wiki now?
20:38: Rupuzioks: related to this template {{StaffNav}}
20:38: Blademaster Jauffre: I think they should. Even though it's on Discord, the main platform remains the wiki itself.
20:39: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i'd say yes. the primary focus of the wiki is still accumulating knowledge; its function as a social group is secondary
20:40: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: though admittedly, i do personally use the wiki primarily for social interactions
20:40: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: me too
20:40: Blademaster Jauffre: Social interactions? What are those? :kappa:
20:40: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: I do have to say I am much more active nowadays on the discord
20:40: TinyClayMan: oh no, I've missed the moot and the topic I've wanted to vote against
20:40: GreyFox06: Hey, no social interaction, only editing!
20:42: PuceAardvark: lol
20:42: GreyFox06: At least you didn't vote the second after the next was presented. :disappointed:
20:42: Blademaster Jauffre: Tbf, I didn't even know the Moot was going on when I opened Discord, only reason I looked was because of the ping lol.
20:43: Blademaster Jauffre: What was the topic again?
20:44: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: renaming chat mods
20:44: Blademaster Jauffre: Oh right.
20:44: RenzXVI: If chat mods should be called Discord mods.
20:44: PuceAardvark: bruh
20:44: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: I'm never at moots cuz they're literally at midnight but happened to see this one
20:44: GreyFox06: I think we're ready to vote now unless there are other points someone wants to make.
20:44: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia:
20:45: RenzXVI:
20:45: The Beautiful Princess Ashley:
20:45: Rupuzioks: vote not started yet
20:45: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: oh lol
20:45: Rupuzioks: the summary?
20:45: GreyFox06: Let the moot leader summarise.
20:46: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: the proposal is to rename chat mods to discord mods. the wiki's page on chat mods shall also be rewritten to reflect our current duties rather than our past ones.
20:46: Rupuzioks: I am letting the moot topic presenter to do it
20:47: Rupuzioks:
20:47: PuceAardvark: so now can we vote?
20:47: TinyClayMan:
20:47: GreyFox06:
20:47: Rupuzioks: yes
20:47: The Beautiful Princess Ashley:
20:47: FrisyN:
20:47: RenzXVI:
20:47: PuceAardvark:
20:47: Blademaster Jauffre:
20:47: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia:
20:47: Rupuzioks: 9-0-0
20:47: Rupuzioks: anyone else?
20:48: Rupuzioks: @Ottoman Reich you were late before
20:48: Ottoman Hold: Bah I wasn't paying attention, my bad. one minute
20:50: Ottoman Hold: For the rename, I
20:50: Ottoman Hold: Though I personally don't mind if they stay as Chat Mod either
20:50: Rupuzioks: 10-0-0 then
20:51: TinyClayMan: Sounds as
20:51: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: not the same thing as neutral
20:51: Ottoman Hold: I support the revamp of the Chatmod page though
20:51: Rupuzioks: I don't think there could show up anyone else
20:51: TinyClayMan: Next topic?
20:52: Rupuzioks: yes
20:52: Rupuzioks: it is my topic then
20:52: Rupuzioks: partially
20:57: Rupuzioks: The proposal is to merge "ProfileInfobox" "Character Infobox" "User infobox" and "OnlineInfoboxProfile" templates as they are all only used for User Pages. "ProfileInfobox" is one of the most recent and the most used, so leave this one and transfer additional parameters from others.
20:58: Rupuzioks: others are used on very few pages
21:00: Rupuzioks: also "Character Infobox" uses {{T}} template with multiple calls which causes appear in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls
21:00: Elite Daedra: Woah
21:00: TinyClayMan: >OIP is used on only two pages
21:00: TinyClayMan: Why does it even exist
21:01: Elite Daedra: I'll just act like I know whats going on
21:01: Sub2Foot0195: same
21:02: Blademaster Jauffre: I don't know a whole lot about infoboxes tbh
21:02: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: the first two and the last one seem to be identical in function, as they serve to record your in-game characters. i think user infobox is different though; its fields seem to suggest it was made for users to share info about themselves, rather than about their characters
21:03: TinyClayMan: Judging by a quick look,
21:03: TinyClayMan: OIP is based on OnlineCharacters
21:03: TinyClayMan: PI is based on SkyrimCharacters
21:03: TinyClayMan: Other two are roleplay-based
21:03: GreyFox06: I don't see why they shouldn't be merged into a single infobox. Having all three seems redundant.
21:04: PuceAardvark: Aye.
21:04: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: he listed four of them...
21:04: Rupuzioks: some of them were replaced by the first one at some point too
21:04: GreyFox06: *Four. Sorry, the original topic was three.
21:05: TinyClayMan: ahem
21:05: TinyClayMan: Turn on the ability to send images
21:05: Rupuzioks: I guess unofficially it was the one to be used on profile pages now
21:05: Ottoman Hold: I think they exist as duplicates because of their different styles and "usages" when it comes to the games. I personally don't use them so I have no qualms with them being merged into one
21:06: Rupuzioks: you can now
21:06: TinyClayMan: >OIP's summary What is it about?

21:07: TinyClayMan: Alternative to using OnlineCharacters?
21:07: Ottoman Hold: Yes that what it seems like
21:07: Rupuzioks: people were using "OnlineCharacters" before
21:07: Rupuzioks: I assume
21:07: Ottoman Hold: Like if someone wanted to use the OnlineChatacters infobox for their own character but wouldn't add the default categories
21:08: Rupuzioks: maybe after the merge the theme and color should be changed into generic lore color: dark grey
21:08: Ottoman Hold: That's what I meant by "usage" in terms of the games, and what ClayMan mentioned about some being based on the games as well
21:09: Ottoman Hold: But yeah merging them all to be based on none of the above specifically seems fine
21:10: TinyClayMan: PI is the most widely used template, so it will be used as a base for the merge
21:10: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i think "User_Infobox" is unique enough to preserve it, but the others should defs be merged
21:10: Rupuzioks: maybe even include it into welcome message, so new users will know what to use for their profile page?
21:10: Rupuzioks: so there will not be confusion later
21:11: Ottoman Hold: It's basically like with userboxes, so if we include profile infoboxes in a welcome message then userboxes might as well be included as well...or neither
21:11: TinyClayMan: One more link here?

21:12: TinyClayMan: Probably a small guide to tell people about the character infobox and maybe userboxes
21:12: Blademaster Jauffre: Makes sense
21:12: Blademaster Jauffre: imo
21:12: Rupuzioks: or even better, add it to Category:User Page Templates and add the category link
21:13: PuceAardvark: hm
21:13: Rupuzioks: userboxes are there already
21:13: TinyClayMan: yeah, that works too
21:13: Ottoman Hold: People ask about the infobox and userboxes enough that it's probably worth linking all of that in some fashion, so that might work
21:15: Rupuzioks: "Character Infobox" and "User infobox" are almost the same, in regards of parameters
21:15: Elite Daedra: :yagrum:
21:15: Rupuzioks: so it wouldn't be a problem to merge, since some parameters will need to be copied over anyway
21:16: TinyClayMan: "Infoboxes by userpages count:
21:16: TinyClayMan: OIP (2) < UI (10) < CI (18) < PI (51)"
21:17: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: character infobox and user infobox were clearly created with different goals in mind though
21:18: TinyClayMan: One infobox can be used for different goals
21:18: MaRsHaL The Wise: Where is Atvelonis :pensive:
21:19: GreyFox06: Looking at plants.
21:19: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: Atvelonis couldn't make it today
21:19: Rupuzioks: so then another proposal, merge OIP with PI, and UI with CI, but all updated with neutral color and to portable infoboxes with same parameters
21:19: Ottoman Hold: Atvelonis is currently busy and asked for us to perform the moot without him. EDit: lol
21:20: TinyClayMan: >merge OIP with PI, and UI with CI
21:20: TinyClayMan: Leaving two templates?
21:20: Rupuzioks: yes, a compromise
21:21: PuceAardvark: :bird: Partying
21:21: TinyClayMan: The first two were probably created as a less heavy version of the second two
21:22: TinyClayMan: And people can also look up how to fill those by looking at npcs' pages
21:23: Rupuzioks: still the code is outdated on those role-play ones
21:23: TinyClayMan: If UI/CI docs were more clear on their usage (parameters, specifically), OIP and PI wouldn't have been needed
21:23: TinyClayMan: Yes, that is a problem
21:26: Rupuzioks: so the question is are they still needed for different purposes (leaving 2 templates), or not (leaving only 1 template)
21:27: Rupuzioks: in my opinion, the original proposal is better, since a lot of other infobox templates have more than one purpose too
21:28: TinyClayMan: If I got it right, UI is more about the real person behind the userpage and CI is about a roleplay character
21:29: TinyClayMan: OIP and PI are for roleplay characters only
21:29: Blademaster Jauffre: I think that, given how little they are used to begin with, having them all merged into one is probably the best idea.
21:30: Rupuzioks: I think that was the original purpose, but later were used for any of those characters
21:31: Rupuzioks: so, anything else or should we go to vote phase?
21:32: Rupuzioks: merge into one, preserving all parameters from all templates, changing theme and color to neutral, and the template being portable infobox
21:33: TinyClayMan: >portable infobox?
21:34: Rupuzioks: <infobox> vs being <div class=infobox>
21:34: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia:
21:34: Rupuzioks:
21:34: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: vote
21:35: TinyClayMan: >all parameters
21:35: TinyClayMan: Preserving |imageBG and |userboxBG is kinda meh
21:35: The Beautiful Princess Ashley:
21:35: PuceAardvark: i support for everything rupuzioks was talking about
21:35: PuceAardvark:
21:35: Ottoman Hold:
21:35: GreyFox06:
21:35: TinyClayMan: also c1 c2 c3
21:35: Rupuzioks: I mean all meaningful parameters
21:36: FrisyN:
21:36: Rupuzioks: these are for the infobox design, which are obsolete in portable infobox
21:36: Blademaster Jauffre:
21:36: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: 6-2-0
21:36: TinyClayMan: Alright then
21:36: TinyClayMan:
21:37: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: 7-2-0
21:37: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia: is there more topics?
21:38: Rupuzioks: only one of Atvelonis
21:38: Rupuzioks: in list
21:38: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: didn't puceaardvark have something?
21:38: MaRsHaL The Wise: He had a topic few months ago :vivecthink:
21:38: Rupuzioks: I guess this is it unless anyone else wants propose something still?
21:39: Rupuzioks: @(Ryan) PuceAardvark
21:39: PuceAardvark: No. Not for this Moot.
21:39: GreyFox06: Reminder that we need a CT for Moot/December 2020.
21:39: TinyClayMan: Yeah, for his topic
21:39: Rupuzioks: ok, anyone else?
21:39: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: we need to make a policy on how to do CTs i guess
21:39: TinyClayMan: ?
21:39: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: unless we already have one
21:39: Ottoman Hold: Yes that's my bad. I haven't gotten around to formalizing a CT yet. Had more homework than anticipated this last month.
21:40: Shockstorm: We have a policy on consensus
21:40: Ottoman Hold: I think we're just going to use the 1.0 forums
21:40: Ottoman Hold: It's gonna be a bit funky, but there are old CTs there that we can use as a guide
21:41: Ottoman Hold: I just don't know how it'll work if several people are trying to speak at once
21:41: GreyFox06: If nobody minds an impromptu topic... Ashley brought up in my admin application that rather than vote neutral she will just comment because a neutral is de facto an oppose. Should we codify that neutral votes going forward should not be reckoned in the determination of a supermajority?
21:43: Rupuzioks: @Ottoman Reich Help:InputBox can be used for comments
21:43: Ottoman Hold: I see
21:43: Rupuzioks: @Grey Fox I agree, neutral and comment is similar
21:44: Ottoman Hold: As for Ashley, I think what she was referring to was that in general neutrality is commonly misconstrued as someone who opposes rather than someone in the middle
21:44: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: no, that's not what i meant
21:44: GreyFox06: `I would have voted neutral, but the way the system is set up, neutral votes are de facto the same as opposing votes`
21:44: GreyFox06: Verbatim.
21:45: Ottoman Hold: I guess I need to check up on my reading comprehension lol
21:45: Rupuzioks: the only difference is that comments don't count to majority
21:45: Blademaster Jauffre: How do you even get to CT via the main site?
21:45: Ottoman Hold: Do staff applications require a super majority? For some reason I don't remember that
21:45: GreyFox06: Yes.
21:46: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: admin applications do
21:46: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: idk about other staff
21:46: Ottoman Hold: I see
21:46: GreyFox06: "A staff vote requires a supermajority (2/3) of votes to be supporting in order for the vote to pass."
21:46: GreyFox06: From TES:Patrollers.
21:47: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: neutral votes and comments are very different. one can add comments while voting either in favor or in opposition. by voting neutral you make clear that you are in the middle.
21:47: Ottoman Hold: In that sense yes, neutral votes can be taken as opposition even if they are not in our current system, which is not ideal
21:48: GreyFox06: I think this should equally apply to other votes, including the moot. Eg. a 10-7-1 vote would still pass.
21:48: GreyFox06: Not that we would ever have 18 people in a moot. :kappa:
21:49: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: a 10-7-1 vote would get a majority regardless of whether neutral votes are seen as "not in support"
21:49: Ottoman Hold: Then again neutral votes are sometimes people who are legitimately in the middle, so having no weight at all is the same as not participating at all. Perhaps neutral votes are weighted like a 0.5 support for this? Otherwise you might as well not vote at all
21:50: Rupuzioks: maybe half of neutral votes should count as support and other half as oppose
21:50: Rupuzioks: or 2/3 of neutral count as support
21:50: GreyFox06: Or a 6-8-1 for a simple majority.
21:51: TinyClayMan: >maybe half of neutral votes should count as support and other half as oppose
21:51: TinyClayMan: >or 2/3 of neutral count as support
21:51: TinyClayMan: Unnecessary complication
21:51: GreyFox06: This seems like adding votes from people who are neither supporting or opposing.
21:51: GreyFox06: Why not just disregard the neutrals in reckoning?
21:52: TinyClayMan: Neutral can either be considered "All support" or "All comment"
21:52: Ottoman Hold: Like I said, this causes people making good points to be completely ignored
21:52: Ottoman Hold: Neutral is for people on the fences, so having it being semi-weighted accounts for that
21:52: Rupuzioks: this should allow moot topic or a promotion to be proposed again, overriding the rule that no same moot topic should be presented twice
21:53: TinyClayMan: This is more interesting
21:53: GreyFox06: There's already a policy remedy for changing moot decisions: "If a decision is made in the moot, and a user later wishes to reverse or significantly revise that decision, they may only do so through a Consensus Track thread to present overly-frequent policy changes." From TES:Moot.
21:53: Ottoman Hold: In the case of teh 6-8-1, for instance, it can be considered a 10-5
21:54: Ottoman Hold: Rather than a 6-1 which is honestly a tad inaccurate
21:54: Rupuzioks: that's the rule I meant, the neutral majority could override
21:55: Rupuzioks: make neutral majority do something than just be there
21:56: Ottoman Hold: Yes that is of note too
21:56: Ottoman Hold: Disregarding all neutral votes, for instance like with the 6-8-1, makes it seem like a mass support for the proposal when it was a bit more contested
21:56: GreyFox06: A half split of the neutral votes between support and oppose doesn't change the proportion of the vote, does it?
21:57: Ottoman Hold: Well, it does show that it was not near-unanimous support
21:57: GreyFox06: The neutral votes are still recorded.
21:57: GreyFox06: They just don't determine the pass/fail outcome.
21:57: TinyClayMan: If a person votes neutral then that means they don't have any reason to be against the proposal. Counting it as "against" sounds strange
21:58: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: he's counting it as half-for, half-against
21:58: TinyClayMan: Counting it full-for still makes more sense
21:58: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: no, it doesn't
21:58: Rupuzioks: that was just a poor example what could be done
21:58: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: a neutral vote is a vote that isn't really for or against
21:58: Ottoman Hold: Full for? No not exactly
21:59: GreyFox06: It doesn't make a practical difference in the outcome, but recording it as 10-5 rather than 6-8-1 is more inaccurate.
21:59: Ottoman Hold: For instance I vote neutral whenever I can't explicitly support or deny or I support some parts but disagree with others
21:59: Ottoman Hold: I'm not saying change the recording. I mean change what the votes mean
22:00: GreyFox06: But changing what they mean doesn't change the outcome of the votes.
22:00: Ottoman Hold: In that example it would be a defacto 10-5 but a de jure 6-8-1
22:00: TinyClayMan: >that's the rule I meant, the neutral majority could override
22:00: TinyClayMan: >make neutral majority do something than just be there
22:00: TinyClayMan: This could probably exist parallel to changes-through-CT policy, as CT is something that can be too long for some minor changes
22:00: GreyFox06: There is no difference in pass/fail between 10-5 and 6-8-1.
22:00: GreyFox06: Assuming neutral votes aren't reckoned.
22:01: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: honestly, this doesn't matter for simple-majority votes. the neutral votes can just be ignored in such a case. our policy towards neutral votes only matters in cases where a supermajority is needed.
22:01: Ottoman Hold: I feel that [ignoring them] discounts the neutral vote too heavily though. At the very least they should mean something, whether that gives say a half-and-half or results in a failure due to a neutral majority
22:02: TinyClayMan: >failure due to a neutral majority
22:02: TinyClayMan: That just makes them
22:03: Ottoman Hold: In that example it does. But that's because there was a neutral majority
22:03: Ottoman Hold: The majority of users chose not to outright support a proposal/nomination/etc, which should say something
22:04: Blademaster Jauffre: But they also chose not to outright oppose it.
22:04: GreyFox06: ^
22:04: Ottoman Hold: So they should be completely ignored? I don't understand that logic
22:05: GreyFox06: They're not ignored.
22:05: Blademaster Jauffre: Like, imagine a staff application. People who are neutral may consider the staff member checking the boxes, but think they just need to work a little bit on (x) to get their full support.
22:05: GreyFox06: People still see and consider their vote.
22:05: Ottoman Hold: And so that is not a support, nor an oppose. A mass neutrality however shouldn't be ignored in one way or the other
22:05: Blademaster Jauffre: I agree
22:06: Rupuzioks: this is more for a CT, but this is a CT procedure :kappa:
22:07: Ottoman Hold: Were you not considering them null in the vote though? As it stands neutral votes mean literally nothing in one way or another, when it really should mean a mix of opposition and support
22:09: GreyFox06: It doesn't matter in outcome weather neutral is not reckoned or reckoned as half for each, but 10-5 belies the actual vote of 6-8-1.
22:09: Rupuzioks: and that goes to supermajority
22:10: Ottoman Hold: In the case of a majority, it has less effect, but with the super majority it does
22:10: Blademaster Jauffre: It also doesn't accurately depict how the community sees the topic if you remove the neutrals.
22:10: Blademaster Jauffre: Or at least, not as accurate
22:10: Ottoman Hold: What I meant was it was de facto 10-5 rather than de facto 6-1
22:10: GreyFox06: Do you mean if you don't count the neutrals or show the vote as 10-5?
22:11: Blademaster Jauffre: If you don't count the neutrals
22:11: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: 10-5 is de facto the same as 6-1
22:11: GreyFox06: What is someone leans more to oppose than support but not enough to outright vote oppose? Their vote is being taken as 0.5 for each? Or vice versa.
22:11: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: both are a win for the supporting camp, and the vote will be displayed as 6-8-1 either way
22:12: Ottoman Hold: In that example yes, but it needs no further explanation that there are other examples that it wouldn't
22:12: Ottoman Hold: Mainly with a super majority as noted
22:12: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: aye, this stuff only really matters with a supermajority vote
22:12: Blademaster Jauffre: Like, if the real stance of support is ''10-20-1'' and you remove the 20 neutrals, it looks like the proposal passed with blatant support and little opposition, which, while technically true, does diminish the fact that 20 people didn't fully support the proposal either.
22:12: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: in which case i support the "half-half" approach
22:13: Ottoman Hold: Well then we should change our voting system to include a spectrum of support/oppose then. Personally I don't think that applies enough to be of note
22:13: TinyClayMan: If we are juggling numbers, lets consider 1 3 2
22:13: TinyClayMan: And make it 2D, not 1D
22:14: GreyFox06: I can defer to half-half if the representation of the vote remains 6-8-1 for example rather than 10-5.
22:14: Ottoman Hold: I didn't mean change the documentation. I meant the weighting
22:14: TinyClayMan: Yes
22:14: TinyClayMan: "Neutral"" is more like a reminder for future that this decision was generally [not] accepted, but not fully decided on, so it is open to further discussion
22:14: GreyFox06: Yes, if the reckoning is treated as being 10-5 de facto but recorded as 6-8-1, I can support.
22:15: TinyClayMan: Or simply because people didn't know about the discussed subject and voted neutral. That happens too
22:15: Blademaster Jauffre: I'd vote neutral on a topic which I kind of agree with, but consider still needs alteration of some kind, but I'm too unfamiliar with to propose a change.
22:16: Ottoman Hold: Indeed. I did not mean to come off as pretending neutral votes were cast different; only that they were considered as mixture votes rather than disregarded
22:16: RenzXVI: I wonder what's gonna happen at the end of this topic if all of you can't agree on what neutral means and vote neutral...
22:16: The Beautiful Princess Ashley:
22:16: TinyClayMan:
22:16: TinyClayMan: definitely
22:17: Blademaster Jauffre: :kappa:
22:18: GreyFox06: Do we want to vote to make neutral votes weight equal support and oppose in reckoning (without changing the documentation of the votes)?
22:18: TinyClayMan:
22:18: Ottoman Hold: If there are no more points to address then voting time it is
22:18: PuceAardvark: I was gone what are we voting for? Sorry.
22:19: TinyClayMan: That was a summary? :thinking:
22:19: Ottoman Hold: Basically covers it yeah
22:19: Blademaster Jauffre: :kappa:
22:20: Shockstorm: What if we introduce the radical neutral (centrist) option
22:20: Rupuzioks: voting for neutral votes to be meant split in half among support and oppose votes, without changing vote representation?
22:20: PuceAardvark:
22:20: Ottoman Hold:
22:20: PuceAardvark: I have no clue what I'm supporting but there
22:20: TinyClayMan:
22:20: PuceAardvark: lol
22:20: GreyFox06: Basically yes, I can summarise more aptly.
22:21: Blademaster Jauffre: (legitimate)
22:21: Ottoman Hold: Well it may be best not to vote in that case, or go neutral if you have insufficient information
22:21: TinyClayMan: That is what neutral can be used for
22:21: High Goddess Venus-Afrodite-Finelia:
22:21: Rupuzioks:
22:21: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: wait, are we voting already?
22:22: PuceAardvark: ok I read it and I'll stick with support
22:22: The Beautiful Princess Ashley:
22:22: Blademaster Jauffre: 4-1-2
22:23: TinyClayMan: ugh
22:23: TinyClayMan: I hope someone counters it with a CT
22:23: RenzXVI:
22:23: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: feel free to do so once they are set up
22:23: GreyFox06: The question is on the motion: That neutral votes be given half weight to supporting and opposing votes in the reckoning of a majority or super-majority. For example, that a vote of 6-8-1 shall be taken to be as 10-5 - that half the neutral votes are taken to be "oppose" and half are taken to be "support", but not insofar as to change the documentation or representation of the vote as having neutral votes.
22:23: Ottoman Hold: I don't see what's wrong with the proposal. Care to re-iterate now on the record?
22:23: GreyFox06:
22:24: Blademaster Jauffre: It basically forces neutral votes to either support or oppose when it comes to the voting itself.
22:24: PuceAardvark:
22:24: Blademaster Jauffre: From what I understood of it, at least
22:24: TinyClayMan: Why can't a neutral vote be considered "a reminder for future that this decision was generally [not] accepted, but not fully decided on, so it is open to further discussion"?
22:24: Blademaster Jauffre: While technically keeping the ''vote'' neutral, it supports both.
22:24: Ottoman Hold: Why not both lmao
22:24: GreyFox06: What was made can be unmade (in CT).
22:25: TinyClayMan: And I guess that this moot topic affects both Moot and CT?
22:25: Atvelonis: Can neutrals not just be abstentions?
22:25: FrisyN:
22:25: GreyFox06: That was what I was proposing originally.
22:25: GreyFox06: Oh, hey.
22:25: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: no. then you might as well not vote.
22:25: Ottoman Hold: That seems like one shouldn't vote then
22:26: Rupuzioks: 7-1-2
22:26: GreyFox06: @Atvelonis How was your plant venture?
22:26: PuceAardvark: I'm so confused.
22:26: Atvelonis: Magnificent
22:27: Rupuzioks: this is official moot
22:28: GreyFox06: City's closed with the voting about, official business only.
22:28: SlayerOfTheBad: I approve of this thing
22:28: Atvelonis: I personally feel like a neutral vote has the specific purpose of being neither in support or in opposition, and applying it to either side is just not what the vote means
22:29: SlayerOfTheBad: Sorry just ignore me. Definitely still exist, definitely not as active anymore.
22:29: Ottoman Hold: I personally disagree
22:30: GreyFox06: Personally I agree, but for the sake of concession so that a neutral vote isn't taken as totally opposed, I can support it.
22:30: Ottoman Hold: I think that's changing a potential four options of voting (support, neutral, oppose, abstain) to just three
22:30: Atvelonis: I guess I would prefer that neutrals not be treated like opposes for the purpose of counting
22:30: Blademaster Jauffre: But splitting the votes in half? I mean, ultimately that doesn't really change the outcome, does it?
22:30: Atvelonis: But for the official tallies we should still record neutrals as neutrals
22:30: TinyClayMan: Applying it to either side just serves the purpose of passing the decision on the moot topic right after it was proposed
22:30: Blademaster Jauffre: If 10 votes are neutral, then 5 go to support, and 5 to oppose
22:31: Blademaster Jauffre: Ultimately not changing the outcome.
22:31: Atvelonis: If it's like 4-4-0 then technically there is only 50% support so the resolution would fail
22:31: Ottoman Hold: Otherwise those 10 votes are completely disregarded, or at best maybe considered in a future discussion way down the line
22:31: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: not in the case of a simple majority vote, no. it does matter for supermajority votes though.
22:31: Blademaster Jauffre: Is the topic just for supermajority votes?
22:32: Ottoman Hold: No, that would be considered a de jure 6-2, so it would succeed [Post-moot edit: de facto 6-2, not de jure]
22:32: Ottoman Hold: And then those neutral votes would be considered down the line as part of discussion as well
22:32: Atvelonis: Yeah with the system being proposed
22:33: GreyFox06: It would apply for both, but have a naturally disproportionate affect on votes for a supermajority.
22:33: Ottoman Hold: And so the problem is?
22:33: Ottoman Hold: Otherwise the four neutral votes are utterly ignored without question in the current system
22:33: Atvelonis: 6-2 just isn't what was voted
22:34: Ottoman Hold: But 4-0 was? I disagree
22:34: Atvelonis: No, 4-4-0 was
22:34: Ottoman Hold: Again, the recorded value is 4-4-0
22:34: Atvelonis: It needs to be recorded as a neutral vote and then... not counted as affecting the supermajority
22:34: Ottoman Hold: This is how those neutral votes are considered
22:34: GreyFox06: We would still record as 4-4-0, but I think it being reckoned as 6-2 is fairer.
22:34: Atvelonis: i.e. as an abstention
22:34: Blademaster Jauffre: Wouldn't 4-4-0 not be a majority vote though?
22:35: GreyFox06: I would rather treat a 4-4-0 as a 4-0 de facto, but if we're trying to reach a mutual solution, I can live with half-half.
22:36: Blademaster Jauffre: I think having a neutral-voting majority (or tie) should result in the topic being covered in a CT thread in the future.
22:36: GreyFox06: And if the CT results in a neutral majority?
22:36: Blademaster Jauffre: :person_shrugging:
22:36: Blademaster Jauffre: Keep it open until there's a winner, I guess?
22:36: Blademaster Jauffre: Or well ''winner''
22:36: Blademaster Jauffre: I mean, neutral votes can change if the topic is altered.
22:37: Blademaster Jauffre: That's why they're neutral instead of support or oppose
22:37: GreyFox06: Did we already vote 7-1-2 for this?
22:37: Ottoman Hold: Yes
22:37: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: we were voting, but then atv came back and the discussion opened up again
22:38: Ottoman Hold: We can add an adendum that if there are more neutral votes than both support and oppose combined, then it automatically fails
22:38: Ottoman Hold: But then that causes neutral votes to be considered oppose
22:38: TinyClayMan: Why don't you leave neutral votes be?
22:39: Ottoman Hold: Leave them as nonexistent and ignored? Again, they should be considered in some way, not just ignored outright
22:39: Blademaster Jauffre: Which is why I said: neutral majority = CT to make the neutrals vote.
22:40: GreyFox06: In the Washminster system, there is no neutrality. I propose we become a bicameral parliamentary democracy and hold a proper division. :kappa:
22:40: Blademaster Jauffre: :kappa:
22:40: Ottoman Hold: Neutrality doesn't exist there I see :ulfric:
22:41: Blademaster Jauffre: Neutrality = Hostility says Ulfric, so neutral votes are oppose :kappa:
22:41: Rupuzioks: so, is the moot still will be going?
22:41: Blademaster Jauffre: We're still on the neutrality topic
22:41: Blademaster Jauffre: sort of
22:42: GreyFox06: I think we agreed 7-1-2 for half-half.
22:42: Rupuzioks: if you will close it later, I would like to go now
22:43: Ottoman Hold: Motion passes then
22:43: Rupuzioks: if Atvelonis will not come back to close it, you know how to do it I assume?
22:43: TinyClayMan: "Moot presenter brings end to neutrality"
22:44: The Beautiful Princess Ashley: i think we're pretty much done here. let's just end it.
22:44: GreyFox06: "Time for the division has expired. Lock the doors. Serjeant-at-Arms bring the shotgun" - House of Representatives, 1975
22:44: Rupuzioks: ok then
22:44: GreyFox06: :kappa:
22:45: Rupuzioks: The next moot will happen on Saturday, March 6 at 8:00 PM UTC.