[Decision] Establish Board of Historians

[Augustus Lucifer]

Proposer: Augustus Lucifer
Support (Current Version): rez, Raglan, Viking Prince, Ariovistus Maximus
Other Supporters: davide.cool, Legio, Major Darling, La De Da Brigadier Graham, Mr MM, Gaius Baltar

Decision

The Curia recommends the establishment of a Board of Historians to oversee certain aspects of the Vestigia Vetustatis, hereafter abbreviated VV. The Board will act to resolve prevalent issues in the VV with the powers afforded it. It will further serve as an experiment in debate community self-assisted managing, which if successful may be extended to other areas of the forum pending future decisions.

After a period of three months, the Board of Historians will be subject to a one-time ratification vote by the Curia, which will pass or fail on a simple majority. This vote is to insure that the work done by the Board is in accordance with the intent of the decision, and has been effective in that endeavor. If the ratification passes, the Board shall remain unless removed by another procedure. If the ratification fails, it's recommended that the Board cease operations at that time.

This decision consists of multiple provisions which govern related matters.

Provision 1. Creation of 'Quality' Forum

A new forum shall be created within the VV, the purpose of which is to contain quality discussions which are currently being discussed. The name of this forum is negligible, and can be established by the Board upon its creation. The following sub-provisions govern this forum:

1. Threads which start with a quality premise may be created directly in the 'Quality' forum, though they can be moved out if they fall below the standards. Threads which are initially started outside the 'Quality' forum can be moved there if they meet the requirements, but the thread must be copied, and all posts which occurred prior to the move are not subject to the enhanced standards.

2. The Board of Historians is empowered to create and alter a set of guidelines by which threads and posters are assessed for quality, as well as the process in which threads are approved. Rough consensus must be reached for creation and alteration of these guidelines.

3. The Board of Historians is empowered to decide whether discussions contained in the 'Quality' forum are time limited and relocated based on activity, or whether threads remain there unless they fall beneath the quality standard for archival purposes.

4. The Board of Historians is expected to maintain a sticky or series of stickies documenting any guidelines they come to. It is suggested that indexes of quality threads also be pursued.

5. All Full Members of the forum are initially afforded the privilege of posting in the 'Quality' forum. This privilege can be revoked by Staff, or by the procedure outlined in Provision 3, Sub-Provision 4.

Provision 2. Membership of the Board

The initial membership of the board will be appointed by the Curia through a one-time election. A period of two weeks shall be provided to gather candidates, and a notice will be posted in the VV for interested Citizens to come and apply. The vote will last one week and four initial members will be selected to establish the Board. These members should be selected by their level of contribution to the VV, and no other criteria.

After the initial membership has been established, those members are tasked with determining the best way to elect or appoint future members of the board. These may include but not be limited to: election poll in Curia, election poll in 'Quality' forum of VV, appointment by majority or unanimity of sitting members, or appointment in consultation with staff moderators.

The membership of the Board of Historians shall at no point exceed 10 members, and should seek to maintain a minimum of 4 members.

Any member of the site may sit on the board if appointed or elected to it. Staff moderators are considered for the board like any other member; the two capacities are separate functions.

Provision 3. Powers Afforded the Board

The board shall be afforded these powers, collectively or individually, to fulfill their function. The following sub-provisions describe these powers:

1. Local moderation powers within the 'Quality' forum for all Board members. These powers should be used to maintain stickies, move threads out of the 'Quality' forum, and delete posts which don't meet the standards for the 'Quality' forum. Posts which are deleted can be reviewed and overturned, pending observance of the standards. Posts which don't fall far shy should be noted to the poster so they can fix it.

2. If a thread outside the 'Quality' forum needs to be moved into it, a post should be made in a 'Thread Relocations' sticky in the 'Quality' forum, which moderators should check and comply with periodically by copying the threads in question over.

3. The ability to define its own guidelines for management, as outlined in Provision 1, with the exception of any express provisions outlined by this decision. As with all site entities, these guidelines can be altered by Hex, of their own accord or in accordance with a Curial decision. All discussions pertaining to Board policy should be completely transparent; the simplest way of doing so is to communicate via closed threads within the forum, as then only Board members will be able to post.

4. If a majority of members on the Board of Historians determines that the posts of any member within the 'Quality' forum do not meet the expectations for conduct in that area, they are empowered to recommend a temporary or permanent forum ban from the 'Quality' forum. This power extends only to the 'Quality' forum, not any other area of the VV, and should not be employed lightly or without forewarning.

Provision 4. The Board and Staff Moderators

The powers of the board are unrelated to the capacity of Staff Moderators. This provision suggests some guidelines for the relationship:

1. If at any time a Staff Moderator or other member witnesses a Board member overstepping their remit, such as by using their local moderation powers in a manner not allowed, they should inform Hex.

2. Staff Moderators should not move threads between the 'Quality' and main area, unless they are also a member of the Board, or in accordance with a post in the 'Thread Relocations' thread.

3. In the event that a majority of Board members recommend a temporary or permanent forum ban from the 'Quality' area, Staff Moderators should enact this after verifying unless there is a very compelling reason not to. If for some reason it isn't enacted, the reason should be amply provided to the Board for consideration. In this respect, the powers of the Board over the 'Quality' area should be considered in the same vein as hosted mods dominion over their forum.

It goes without saying that Hex arbitrates this relationship with impunity, and can overturn, append, or modify any of these suggested modes of interaction.

Provision 5. Musaeum

Given the large overlap in function with the 'Quality' area, it's advisable that the Musaeum is gradually indexed and then deprecated, at the discretion of the board. This is not mandated, however, and if there is discerned some utility in the presence of both forums, that can be determined by the Board in consultation with Hex.

__________________________________________________________

Since this proposal is very large, there's probably some oversights or errors. Feel free to suggest modifications to any of the various provisions. If it seems like certain sections are contentious, the proposal will be split into one vote for the establishment of the Board and some other votes to determine its functions.

[DAVIDE]

I support. Looks good to me

[Legio]

support

[Viking Prince]

As a Senior Moderator, I have my concerns with

The Board is not subject to Moderation directly, but like all site entities it is subject to Hex, and it is surmised that if an action is detrimental to staff performing its duties then Hex will take action on their behalf.

As to the idea as a whole, I am not certain yet. I will need more time to think this one through.

[pannonian]

As a Senior Moderator, I have my concerns with

The Board is not subject to Moderation directly, but like all site entities it is subject to Hex, and it is surmised that if an action is detrimental to staff performing its duties then Hex will take action on their behalf.

As t the idea as a whole, I am not certain yet. I will need more time to think this one through.

Establish it on a similar basis to the Symposium instead, as explained by Tac:

SYMPOSIVM: Grown up members - grown up rules

Therefore we have taken the decision that since the Civitates have proved that they are truly worthy of their badges, they should be given far more freedom to debate and discuss than non-civitates.

We are therefore implementing the following:

* From this point onward the Symposium is moderated by Strategos and above only.
* Questionable content is to be allowed, provided it is within an educational and informative context.
* You may aggressively debate with people in here, but the emphasis is on debate, flaming is still illegal
* No adult content, as always this is and always was a PG 13 site.


Please understand there will not be hard and detailed rules, moderating in here will be viewed as an art and that is why only the most experienced moderators will be active in here. We trust you to post intelligently and maturely, to be controversial and aggresive even, but to have enough sense not to cross the line.

Moderation staff retain ultimate moderation power, as elsewhere in the site, but they may allow additional latitude in certain forums. How this additional latitude works is as per the rest of AL's proposal.

[Augustus Lucifer]

As a Senior Moderator, I have my concerns with

The Board is not subject to Moderation directly, but like all site entities it is subject to Hex, and it is surmised that if an action is detrimental to staff performing its duties then Hex will take action on their behalf.

What is meant by that is that the members of the Board are answerable to Hex, in terms of being removed from their position or having actions within their remit curtailed. I don't know if maybe it was read without the capital 'B'? It certainly wasn't intended to say that moderators can't act in those areas of the VV, if that's how it was interpreted. Just that the Board of Historians derives their authority from Hex like most other site entities, and all other local moderators that I'm aware of.

Something else did occur to me though, which is that it's hard to insure there's quality in the 'Quality' section without some simpler recourse for individual posts than a forum ban. I suppose the ability to split off posts into a related thread which don't stack up could be a viable alternative to allowing posts be deleted in that area. Or post deletions could be allowed only in the 'Quality' area and those would of course be subject to moderator reversal. None of the current powers granted, which don't go through moderation already(forum bans), are something really contentious and in need of review. If deletion ability was afforded then it would need more direct review of that.

@ pann: Could work like that, though I'm not sure we need to go limiting action to strats. Anyways, how would your suggestion modify the main proposal?

@ Raglan: Well, forum bans is one way. But you're right that there needs to be some simpler way to mandate in-thread quality, which is what my second paragraph above considers.

[pannonian]

@ pann: Could work like that, though I'm not sure we need to go limiting action to strats. Anyways, how would your suggestion modify the main proposal?

Just take out anything that says that the forum is not subject to the moderation branch. Tac's definition is out of date anyway for the Symposium, as even seniors leave it to the curator, but the principle still holds - on the understanding that the discussion is kept at a mature level, moderators won't step in, but the mod branch retains ultimate moderation power as elsewhere on the site. Leave that bit out of the proposal, reach an understanding with the mod branch, and post something like Tac's intro thread, explaining how this new forum is going to work.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Just take out anything that says that the forum is not subject to the moderation branch. Tac's definition is out of date anyway for the Symposium, as even seniors leave it to the curator, but the principle still holds - on the understanding that the discussion is kept at a mature level, moderators won't step in, but the mod branch retains ultimate moderation power as elsewhere on the site. Leave that bit out of the proposal, reach an understanding with the mod branch, and post something like Tac's intro thread, explaining how this new forum is going to work.

I've removed the line in question. Left the first part of sub-provision 1 intact.

[Raglan]

stick my name down as support. I'm also willing to run as part of the board. Though i do have one question. How will we keep the 'quality' forum quality? How will 'less mature' posters be kept out?

[M D]

Support, I would apply if this passes

[M D]

Do we need to restate support?

Restated Support

[Augustus Lucifer]

Do we need to restate support?

Restated Support

I suppose so in a technical sense. Empirically nothing has really been altered, but *shrug*. This proposal may still undergo changes more substantial, pending further feedback. I'd prefer to get it 100% right the first time, rather than have to re-propose it in a month because some concerns were not addressed. This is contingent upon everyone with concerns voicing them and being helpful about solutions, of course.

[Viking Prince]

I appreciater the adjustment to the moderation.

I am still looking over the proposal.

I do still have some concerns regarding moderation though. The board is going to move threads. This is fine. Once the threads are moved to the 'quality' subforum -- are threads going to then be cleaned by deleting and editing the posts in the thread to meet the standards of the board? If so, I would suggest that the thread be copied and not be moved.

I would also suggest that local moderation powers be approved only to copy threads into the quality subforum. I am less concerned with what happens within the quality area than I am with allowing local moderation of a main TWC forum. I would oppose local moderation of the posts within the areas that Admin has entrusted to the Moderation Staff.

A real concern within the quality area: the threads have a link back to the original thread for context and historic concerns.

I am certain that I will have more observations after some more thought on this idea. Please do not consider these posts to be in opposition.

[M D]

Like the Scriptorium.. It could work

[Viking Prince]

Like the Scriptorium.. It could work

This is a bit more though -- local moderation, editing threads, possibly even editing posts. This is a far larger remit and editorial control than the Scriptorium would even think to do. If it was truly similar to the Scriptorium, I would suggest just adding this idea onto the responsibilities already entrusted with the Scriptorium. This is still a possability floating in my mind though.

[pannonian]

This is a bit more though -- local moderation, editing threads, possibly even editing posts. This is a far larger remit and editorial control than the Scriptorium would even think to do. If it was truly similar to the Scriptorium, I would suggest just adding this idea onto the responsibilities already entrusted with the Scriptorium. This is still a possability floating in my mind though.

Invite-only DD forums have been floated in the past. I remember Tac suggesting the idea in 2007, and my suggesting alternative ideas instead, which eventually resulted in me joining staff to put my ideas into practice (dark days for TWC). This is another edition of the board-moderated DD forum, only this time applying to the VV rather than the Mudpit, as had usually been the case in the past. In terms of function, the practice of local moderation has been further established than it was back then, with the Fight Club being the DD testing ground.

[M D]

AL, librarians simply quote the post/thread and then submit it.. Could the same b done here, that way the only mod powers they need would be in the quality forum?

[Augustus Lucifer]

AL, librarians simply quote the post/thread and then submit it.. Could the same b done here, that way the only mod powers they need would be in the quality forum?

It's still advantageous for the Board to have powers in the VV main so they can handle stickies and update information within them. Discretion needs to be exercised to use only some of those powers in the main area, subject to removal for purposeful breach. If they were afforded post deletion abilities, it would be only for threads which were relocated to the Quality area, and then only to keep the quality level up. The ability to delete posts can simply be removed in the main VV by assigning them as LM to each separately.

I would say that if a thread is caught early, such as a thread which has a really nice OP, it should be moved to the quality area wholesale. Once there, any further posts in the thread will be subject to the quality standards, though the ones before that will be left. If a thread is moved later since it attains quality through discussion, I suppose the option of copying it could be pursued. I don't think having two threads for every discussion is advantageous though, and would prefer a thread either exists in one or the other based on the premise and the current argumentation.

Another thing to consider is that an OP wants their thread to not be in the quality area. This is probably not going to come up much, but it's something to consider as well. Doesn't necessarily need to be addressed by this proposal, but it should be discussed by the Board and a suitable recourse determined when this happens. Ultimately a thread is dual property of the OP and the forum, so the most logical action would be to have two threads.

[Viking Prince]

My concern is deleting for the collective values of some board's defintion of quality. I understand what you wish to accomplish, but once a thread has been started, I do not think it appropriate to simply authorize local moderators who wish for a better quality discussion to rip a thread out of a forum and then snip away to their hearts content. If I were within Hex, that alone would convince me to veto the idea. The questions grow as you wish to grant local moderation powers beyond the confines of the subforum. I would discourage going in this direction.

If the purpose is for a tightly monitored area for discussion -- why not open another thread within the subforum controlled by the board? This is no differant than the Symposium having a similar thread to perhaps the Mudpit. Then, delete posts to your heart's content since all who enter to discuss have agreed to the rules for the special subforum.

As to having power to post stickies and other such on the main forum -- this will not be an everyday issue. Admin and Moderation Staff can be requested as needed. There is no need to give broad local moderation powers beyond the subforum for an occasional sticky.

Also -- who will be allowed to post in this quality area? What are the restrictions on admission? Will this board have the power to forumban? I am assuming something similar to what we already do with Garbarsardar's Fight Club . Except that Garbarsardar's Fight Club is under the general site rules and supervision of Moderation staff. It is a special area designed for one on one (with some exceptions) debate and with an allowance for all members to comment on each debate thread as well. The same structure was then used to modify TWC Member Blogs .

[Augustus Lucifer]

My concern is deleting for the collective values of some board's defintion of quality. I understand what you wish to accomplish, but once a thread has been started, I do not think it appropriate to simply authorize local moderators who wish for a better quality discussion to rip a thread out of a forum and then snip away to their hearts content. If I were within Hex, that alone would convince me to veto the idea. The questions grow as you wish to grant local moderation powers beyond the confines of the subforum. I would discourage going in this direction.

If the purpose is for a tightly monitored area for discussion -- why not open another thread within the subforum controlled by the board? This is no differant than the Symposium having a similar thread to perhaps the Mudpit. Then, delete posts to your heart's content since all who enter to discuss have agreed to the rules for the special subforum.

A simpler solution would be to allow threads to be created directly in the 'Quality' forum, and then they could simply be moved out of it if they didn't meet the requirements. This would enable an OP to start a line of discussion for quality input. Not sure why I initially stated that it should be closed for thread creation, but I obviously overlooked this scenario.

Threads which were initially started in the main VV would have to be handled differently. Either the thread would need to be copied and only the one copied to the 'Quality' area is cleaned, or if it was moved then all posts made prior to the move would have to be left alone, though all posts after the move would be subject to the increased guidelines. I definitely don't think that deletion of posts should be afforded outside the 'Quality' area in any way, shape, or form. The only real issue of contention here is what happens to a thread which started outside the 'Quality' area and is considered for a move there, and how that would be dealt with.

As to having power to post stickies and other such on the main forum -- this will not be an everyday issue. Admin and Moderation Staff can be requested as needed. There is no need to give broad local moderation powers beyond the subforum for an occasional sticky.

It's not the posting of stickies, but the maintaining of stickies. For example, the Best historical books categorized sticky was last updated by the OP in 2006. Staff Moderators have not attempted to upkeep it on behalf of the OP, and they shouldn't have to. Threads like that need to be kept up by someone though, as the only utility they serve is judged by how well their OP is indexed. The same problem has plagued the tutorials list in the workshops, which decayed whenever Trajan couldn't get around to updating it and became less of a utility as a result.

Local mod powers need not be broad. 'Can Delete Posts' is a permission given on a forum by forum basis. As is 'Can Open/Close Threads'. Both of those permissions should be set to 'No' for any non-Staff moderators in the VV main. And the 'Can Edit Posts' permission would be granted with the caveat that it's only to be used for informational stickies and nothing else. Since all posts maintain a post history of edits, the worst someone gone AWOL could do is mild and reversible, and the likelihood that someone untrustworthy like that would be suffered the position by Hex seems small.

Also -- who will be allowed to post in this quality area? What are the restrictions on admission? Will this board have the power to forumban? I am assuming something similar to what we already do with Garbarsardar's Fight Club . Except that Garbarsardar's Fight Club is under the general site rules and supervision of Moderation staff. It is a special area designed for one on one (with some exceptions) debate and with an allowance for all members to comment on each debate thread as well. The same structure was then used to modify TWC Member Blogs .

This is already outlined in the proposal. See Provision 1 Sub-Provision 6:

All Full Members of the forum are initially afforded the privilege of posting in the 'Quality' forum. This privilege can be revoked by Staff, or by the procedure outlined in Provision 3, Sub-Provision 4.

And the procedure in Provision 3, Sub-Provision 4:

If a majority of members on the Board of Historians determines that the posts of any member within the 'Quality' forum do not meet the expectations for conduct in that area, they are empowered to recommend a temporary or permanent forum ban from the 'Quality' forum. This power extends only to the 'Quality' forum, not any other area of the VV, and should not be employed lightly or without forewarning.

Which is accompanied by Provision 4, Sub-Provision 4:

In the event that a majority of Board members recommend a temporary or permanent forum ban from the 'Quality' area, Staff Moderators should enact this after verifying unless there is a very compelling reason not to. If for some reason it isn't enacted, the reason should be amply provided to the Board for consideration. In this respect, the powers of the Board over the 'Quality' area should be considered in the same vein as hosted mods dominion over their forum.