(Forums and Discord)
Line 104: Line 104:
While this still shows sponsorship, it helps by not allowing users the post their name, usernames, or personal info. But through that sponsorship it helps us still be a central community centered around everything Fallout. [[file:Fo4Sword of Wonders.png|125px|link=User talk:Achilleus-of-Thessaly]] [[user:Achilleus-of-Thessaly|That's why no one will remember your name...]]
While this still shows sponsorship, it helps by not allowing users the post their name, usernames, or personal info. But through that sponsorship it helps us still be a central community centered around everything Fallout. [[file:Fo4Sword of Wonders.png|125px|link=User talk:Achilleus-of-Thessaly]] [[user:Achilleus-of-Thessaly|That's why no one will remember your name...]]
:But we’re not that. We’re primarily a fact/Canon based wiki. Adding even CC content was overly controversial. I don’t think the main wiki should be showcasing what will effectively be fan content. [[User:Agent c|Agent c]] ([[User talk:Agent c|talk]]) 18:21, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
===Forums and Discord===
===Forums and Discord===

Revision as of 18:21, September 4, 2018

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > New rule for discussions discussion

As Fallout 76 fast approaches, there's something that I feel we need to address on the discussions forum. That being codifying in our official rules the de facto rule we have been enforcing about folks using /d to post topics creating "groups", "clans" and/or "factions" for use in game. We already have a de facto rule about these types of groups specifically for use on the board itself, but nothing in our policies stipulate that topics looking to create groups is proscribed. I think we need to discuss these types of topic and groups on /d and get ahead of the surge I expect as release day nears.

The first thing to discuss is SHOULD they be excluded. One of the most important aspects of this is the protection of private information of minors. I personally feel it is a very real danger to promote minors giving out personal information of any sort, to include gamer tags, etc. If someone who is a minor decides they want to advertise their gamer tag, they can always add it to their bio. But allowing topics specifically for others to solicit this personal information I feel crosses the line between a minor's personal choice to display that info and goes into our site's officially sanctioning folks soliciting that info from minors. The second part of my issue with these types of topic posts is that they are not in the vein of what /d is supposed to be. Topics like these would elicit no discussion, other than making us a place for people to coordinate assembling on a server for the game. I expect a ton of topics like this and they will probably drive all real discussion topics off the front of the feed. If we had the room to add a separate category for these topics, that would be better, but that still does not alleviate my concerns about soliciting personal info and the fact that the topics really do not belong on /d as they generate no discussion.

What I propose is that we codify in our rules that topics soliciting people for groups of any sort (on wiki or off, including discord servers, kik, you tube, etc), except those for official Nukapedia products, be proscribed and add that very clearly near the top of the /d guidelines. What I would like to hear is there anyone who can come up with reasonable reasons why we should allow this, in spite of the two factors I outlined above? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 16:53, September 2, 2018 (UTC)

Comments pro adding a rule proscribing topics to create groups

I believe /d should only be used for discussions. I think we should create a channel at our discord for people who want to look for a group. Jgrsoto (talk) 21:05, September 2, 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposed to creating factions in general, but I'm not opposed to creating a system that allows for faction creation. In other words, I oppose the creation of factions at will via random posts (and therefore I wish that a rule be added blocking said faction creation), but I'm not opposed to us setting up alternative measures, such as: (as JGR said) a special discord channel; a special category on /d dedicated just to group creation; a general-created topic on /d that people can reply to in order to form groups with others; or a revival of the Nukapedia Steam Group for sake of Fallout 76. We will have to wait and see how some of this plays out. I'm not hardline opposed to faction creation - it is possible that we may have to allow it in some way or another. In general, though, I agree with Gunny and JGR's sentiment on this topic. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 00:37, September 3, 2018 (UTC)

The discussions board isn’t a social media site where you can hook up with friends, it’s a place for discussion. Factions and soliciting personal information are both already forbidden, so creating “groups” for Fallout 76 should also be forbidden. There are plenty of other alternatives, and we can always make our own alternatives as well. Laat the Survivor (talk) 15:50, September 3, 2018 (UTC)

Comments con adding a rule proscribing topics to create groups

Yes, /d should only be used as a platform for discussions and not advertising. However, I believe an exception has to be made for fallout 76 groups as we know, it's a multi-player online thing, I think they ought to get some people they are familiar with, but ultimately if this doesn't work, then I completely agree with this rule.Overseer X (talk) 00:09, September 3, 2018 (UTC)

Other comments

Separate system

Hi Everyone. As you may know Saka and I are working on other projects. One idea he’s had is to create a register of f76 groups under the auspices of our private company, a sort of Yellow pages of Player guilds/Factions/etc to help link people with groups. Still early stages but we’d love to be able to look at that as a sort of linked or affiliated service, which could also be potentially linked to other Fallout fan groups as well. Would this potentially solve the problem? Agent c (talk) 19:01, September 3, 2018 (UTC)

If we were to create a Nukapedia-endorsed method to create groups, then I think that would definitely solve the "that's not what /d is for" part. I don't think it would solve the issue with minors though.
- FDekker talk 19:47, September 3, 2018 (UTC)
Minors to be short aren’t the nukapedia admin teams problem. On Wikia report to Wikia, on Discord report to Dis ofc, and of this directory goes ahead report to our company.Agent c (talk) 20:06, September 3, 2018 (UTC)
If you consider a listing of users like the one under consideration that which only stores the essentials to the listing would do a lot towards protection. User name, avatar, servers, game platform(s) and factions (the latter three can be hidden from public) are the only items available to public viewing. Email and IP would be company side only and kept secure. We can also section off minors from adults via DOB registration with provision of false information being grounds for terminating an account is another option
Faction listings would be faction name, objective/cause, platform availability and key faction users, again there would be provision to show hide much of this information. Similar system for servers and toss in a ratings/review system.
Obviously reporting tools will be available to report users, factions, servers and reviews. What I want to do focuses on safety first and I'll be willing to take input from anyone on measures that can be taken. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 20:15, September 3, 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I think this would indeed solve the problem.
- FDekker talk 20:24, September 3, 2018 (UTC)
This seems to me to be a way to point folks to somewhere they can do it rather than just say "don't do that shit here." If you guys are gonna support this, then I don't see why we can't make it an official affiliated service and link directly to it from the /d rules in the same space we forbid them on /d. It's a shame they still don't have sticky posts. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:36, September 3, 2018 (UTC)
That was the thought behind it, it was this forum that actually gave me the idea. Making an official service to supplement an official rule might be more productive than just the rule. It might draw away the attention from /d in the long term. My support would sit with enforcing a rule.on this regardless, purely on the grounds of user safety and preventing solicitor of personal information. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 21:53, September 3, 2018 (UTC)
So, wait, hold up here for just a second. I dunno if we're referring to the Exodus project right now, but what I just read is that a "private company" is to be integrated onto Nukapedia, and the response to that doesn't seem to suggest that we need to be having any sort of formal discussion/vote regarding the matter.
If it's Exodus, that project did not garner a receptive community consensus, and finding ways to subvert that and push that project onto the wiki anyways, doesn't exactly sit right with me. If this is some other "private company" that only certain rights users are apparently privy of, then I think that's something that should be made transparent before discussions can be started as to whether or not it can be integrated with the wiki in any form.
Maybe I'm just reading things weird here, but this forum just had a rather large escalation involving outside factors and implications that I imagine the layman is not going to be immediately aware of. Especially since, last time I checked, there has to be a formal process involved with establishing affiliations. 寧靜 Fox 22:52, September 3, 2018 (UTC)

( You're reading too much into it. It is something that is being offered away from things as a means of mitigating the problem, no official affiliation status is being sough, no requests to use branding etc. The idea is just being put on the table as a means of saying "if you want to chuck this in the rules as a supplement you can't"

Besides, considering this is a rule change discussion it would mean it most likely be thrown in with the rule vote anyway.

Exodus was a means of going to independent, this has nothing to do with MediaWiki or the Exodus project. It is a separate project in its entirety. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 08:05, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

P.s. I haven't actually been working on anything Fallout related or for Nukapedia since quitting, been enjoying my own thing. I'm just seeing an opportunity here for myself (and it might work nicely for the community), so Chad thought it would be worth bringing it to the table. I'm just enjoying having something to work on, regardless of outcomes here. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 08:11, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I'm just seeing things like "private company," "official affiliated service," and "Nukapedia endorsed method," which is all concerning since it seems like a lot of jumping the shark for something that has not even been discussed through the community yet. 寧靜 Fox 08:35, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Just to correct some Fake News. Exodus was endorsed as a method to extend and enhance the wiki through an affiliated off site wiki, and remains in policy. After discussing it with Richie, is going to continue and it’s first fruit, PiPView will be available to access soon. The mirror of the main wiki has been taken down. Agent c (talk) 08:41, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
What I'm reading is that Exodus failed in one aspect, and so it's going to be forced through in another aspect without any sort of community consensus, or, at the very least, some sort of pre-content PSA?
I'm trying to understand why due-process is being ignored here, when I personally know of the loops that other users with less friends in high-places have had to go through to do any sort of third-party affiliation program on Nukapedia.
I'm not arguing that what's being proposed here isn't a helpful feature. But I am arguing that due-process isn't being respected, and that you and others are pushing through a personal project without respecting the community's right to discuss and decide themselves. I find this especially necessary in this case, since you have talked about having ads on your off-wiki projects to cover server costs (not saying that there are any at this given moment). 寧靜 Fox 09:44, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
I’m not going to respond with anything more than you should read my previous comment because your continued ignorance of the situation and claims that we’re “trying to push through exodus” show you clearly haven’t actually read it... and I won’t respond to any further comment from you unless it shows signs that you have. Agent c (talk) 09:47, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
Exodus ain't even relevant, nor have I necessarily stated that there's a direct connection to Exodus and this "private company" that you talk about - what's relevant is that a third-party website is claiming affiliation, when there's no community consensus to back that up. And going ahead of that, there are plans already in works to integrate said third-party website onto the wiki, also without any sort of community consensus.
Something that damn near no one else on this wiki would be able to get away with, and not get hit by our advertising policies regarding the matter. 寧靜 Fox 09:58, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to blunt. I don't give a shit if this is official or affiliated with Nukapedia. Nukapedia will do what it does for the better of the community. The offer was not to force some unagreed affiliation or seek to use branding or make false claims. Besides we are talking about creating a rule and the only way this would get into the /D's rules is via a vote.
So how would that be circumventing rules, considering rule changes have to go through a vote? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 10:04, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
If leon is referring to this proposal: So now a third party website that doesn’t yet exist (and may never exist) is apparently claiming affiliation... based on an suggestion in an early discussion about an issue that if such a site was to be launched it might solve a problem here and a relationship of some kind might be advantageous... There’s putting the cart before the horse, and then there’s Leon.
If leon is referring to interactive : I refer back to my previous comments.
Does anyone have anything actually on point? Agent c (talk) 10:09, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
I've seen enough to have my doubts.
To digress, my suggestion is to be open with the community and draw out a roadmap for these external projects - because, as it currently stands, there is a circle of users privy to everything going on here, making these long-term plans, and everyone else is expected to find out at a leisurely pace as everything is already in the works, and talked about as if it's already all a done-deal. 寧靜 Fox 10:18, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am aware this idea has existed for less than 48 hours. I don’t appreciate suggestions of bad faith on this or any other matter. Agent c (talk) 10:24, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Ain't talking about this specific idea - talking in more general terms of external projects being integrated onto the wiki, with this idea being a symptom of that. 寧靜 Fox 10:29, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

While the idea of Exodus being the locale for faction discussion is a tempting thing, I think this may drive a wedge further through the community. I mean, look at the comments here (between both parties) and each of your followers on each side. Exodus is promising for whatever you decide to use it for. Look at your Divinity Wiki (I am told this runs on Exodus, correct me if I am wrong). Great for you guys to use, you got to break away from Fandom which is what you wanted. But right now I think the bigger picture is what do we do about the issue of Factions on THIS wiki. As Gunny pointed out, a main concern is protection for users who are minors. Fandom already has rules on sharing private and personal information, but with the influx of users waiting for FO76 to roll out, we are going to have the inevitable happening in /d.

I say we put a disclaimer (such as the one for the Forced Videos) up with the notice that all group or faction creating topics will be deleted due to the ToU of Fandom and that if users wish to create such groups they move to Discord or utilize their user and talk pages. Another thing that was brought up was that these faction post will end up clogging up /d and that these post will have little to actually discuss. I agree, this is a problem. I only see a handful of options.

One would be to create a section for Factions for 76 in /d. Even though it would be tedious to manage and administrate it would help from clogging up the main discussions. The problem here is that if minors utilize this section it violates the ToU. But how do you know they are truly a minor without them coming out and saying it? You don't. If they violate that rule, then remove them (and if possible, to protect them, remove their post). Another option I see is creating a Discord Channel for Factions and Clan. The same rules apply. This would keep /d clean(er than it would be), but make it easier for Mods to tend to. We need to face the inevitable anyways, a lot of users here (especially the younger ones) do not even read the rules for these things. They will make post about creating groups and such either way. If we can funnel it into one area over time (or until the hype for 76 dies down) we can stay ahead of this thing. Those are my thoughts on the whole topic.

I feel instead of building a wall to stop a flood we build a canal to control the waters.

This is just how I interpret and view things and as such this is just my opinion. Fo4Sword of Wonders That's why no one will remember your name... 17:30, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

we have already maxed out the categories I. Discussions. There are already going to be painful compromises to fit in F76 general, there’s no capacity for another one. As for divisive, I don’t take Leon being leon as a sign of anything other than that. Agent c (talk) 17:37, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Look, I don't know the history between you, Saka, and Leon, but I do know enough to stay out of it. I also believe that this really shouldn't be the spot for bickering (on both sides), but rather for an actual discussion and progression. As for the faction situation, there is still Discord to work with. Or maybe opening up a collective faction page where the community can list there factions for people to join without giving personal info. Kind of like how Call of Duty allows groups to be sponsored or showcased, but in it's own section and requires no one to gather personal knowledge from an individual. Such as....

"Join the West Virginian Knights on FO76: click here for more info!" (link out).

"Join the WV Minutemen on FO76: check us out at..."

It can be a collective, open community page that would allow us to support the Fallout community even further.

While this still shows sponsorship, it helps by not allowing users the post their name, usernames, or personal info. But through that sponsorship it helps us still be a central community centered around everything Fallout. Fo4Sword of Wonders That's why no one will remember your name...

But we’re not that. We’re primarily a fact/Canon based wiki. Adding even CC content was overly controversial. I don’t think the main wiki should be showcasing what will effectively be fan content. Agent c (talk) 18:21, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Forums and Discord

Would this rule also apply to the forums and Discord?
- FDekker talk 19:47, September 3, 2018 (UTC)

I would like it to apply to /d mostly since that's where it will be problematic. I don't see a huge potential problem on our forums here, to be honest. We have a lot more freedom and space to do something here than on /d without it creating feed problems. We still have the issue of folks giving out their personal information, but they could just as easily make a personal blog to do the same thing. I also don't think we could effectively control it in discord either. I'm open to hear if people think the personal information bit is important enough to think about discord or the forums/blogs. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:36, September 3, 2018 (UTC
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.