If there is one thing I am not really known for, it is public speaking. Most of you know me as a comedian and part time contraversal (Heh, Pickleseller), Loremaster and Theorist. I never really get involved in serious stuff. I'm just here to provide the laughs. But a while ago when I entered chat to promote the newly released Wabbajack Grinding Season 4 Episode 1 blog (Be sure to check it out), I engaged in a discussion that led me to reeavaluate the status of this wikia. Most of you may think there is nothing wrong with it but as I go along, you may feel that a change is necessary as well. Keep in mind that this isn't just one person complaining. A large majoirtity of a near 20-person chat today had their voices heard and told me the situation. Brace yourseles wikians, for this is a very long blog, going from a simple change to a complete upheavel.
How Chat Corruption Sparked A Revolution
Before I had entered the chat, I had noticed a blog by ShawnHowellsCP stating that some members of the wikia, including a EmperorJohnson and Stendarr (Whenever you go on chat, they're usually there), were to be put on probation. That didn't seem like a big deal to me, but I noticed EmperorJohsnon was personally in chat at the moment. My curiosity peaked and I went in and walked headlong into an argument between a User, Zippertrain85, and EmperorJohnson himself. It was mostly EJ spouting his "Corrupt" Chat stuff again and Zipper arguing with the user about spamming. I never really paid attention to EJ at first howeevr. Still, I asked what the commotion was about and Pelinal Whitestrike, who was also present, told me that tere was a fued between EJ and Stendarr, who were both recently nominated for the position of chat moderator.
Ej went on to say that chat was "Corrupt" in the way it worked. I was confused. I never had a problem with it. But EJ decided to go a little more in-depth with his point, thus drawing me into the argument. It wasn't so much an argument as us standing around and listening to EJ bash chat and that it needed reeavluation. I suggested that since "Corrupt" chat was such a provokable problem that someone should make a thread to debate the topic. Zippertrain85 readily agreed, as did EJ. My initial suggestion however was a bit larger in scope than a simple thread, my suggestion being an entire forum set up solely for debate of important topics that decide the policy of the website. It was said that an administrator was the only one who can set them up, and this is where the chat took a turn from mere suggestion to radical. But first, this new system I have come up with in regards to voting demands at least some feedback and is actually quite a compicated system.
So my idea for a Debate Forum wasn't discussed that much, but as I got the idea to write this blog, it all started to come to me. It will require much collaboration and effort, but it could ultimately be a renaissance for the average wikia user.
1) Debate Setup- This part will often require the most help to create. While an entire new forum requires an admin's consent, which is unlikely for various reasons, any thread on a chosen forum will do. The debate on the subject at hand is actually a times session of 24 hours. I know that sounds crazy, but hear me out. The debate thread is not just one, but three full times threads, spread out over the course of a week and a alf. For example, the first round of the debate begins on Monday at 5:00 PM and ends the next day the same time. Fast forward to next week and the second round will begin Monday 5:00 PM, ending the next day, 5:00 PM. The third and final round will begin two days after, on Tursday 5:00 PM, ending Friday at 5:00 PM. The three threads and week long span is to give people time to prepare arguments and let the voting audience think about their decisions. If these debates shall decide the policy of the website, a well thought out and careful argument should be in place. Each debate has three sections within the time limit of 24 hours. The first section lasts for thirty minutes after the thread has been created to let people come in and for the Overseer (more on that in a second), to write the sypnosis of the subject people will be debating. The second session begins with the Overseer's say-so and this will last up until two hours before the designated time limit is up and the Overseer will stop the debate and call for a vote. The vote is not for the side you want to win for the first two rounds however. No, at the end of round one, ten nominee's will be voted for each side to debate on each side's behalf, ten representatives on the PRO side, ten representatives on the CON side. The second round vote will have the audience vote for one representative for each side, who will be the only two people debating within the final round. Only at the end of the third round will the audience vote for a decision to be made. In the event of a forfeit, the Overseer will present the audience with a vote to let the other team win or reschedule another debate for a later date. The winning decision will be put into effect.
2) Participants- Now that we have covered the basic scheme, it will only come to frutition of all parties involved cooperate, building team effort and sportsmenship within the site. Everyone involved has a specific purpose that is vital to the debate. Let's start with the most important position: The Overseer. The Overseer is the one that creates the debate thread, writes the sypnosis of the subject matter in the first comment of the thread (He/she does this all three rounds), and makes sure everything goes smoothly. The Overseer can be selected from Forum or Chat Moderators by popular vote or poll. The Overseer is completely nuetral, only writing a total of three comments in the enetire debate round. He/she must only speak up when someone is getting out of hand and enforce the rules of the debate, which will be looked over soon. One of the Overseer's jobs is informing people that there will be a debate soon via chat, blog, or forum, and set up a time frame for when it will take place. The Overseer must ask around and gather the best times that work for the majority. If the Overseer fails in his/her duty te runner up will take is/her place. He/she must keep a close track of time, ending the debate when it needs to end, and call for a vote from the audience when time runs out. At the end, the Overseer will tally the results, reveal the winning votes, then end the debate. Every sentence given from the Overseer must be clear and precise.
Let's move onto the bulk of the debate, Users. For the first round, anyone is welcome to voice their opinions and coordinate arguments for as long as the first round is running. Each debate should have two very distinct sides that you can easily tell apart seperated into the categories of PRO and CON, and every debater is required to put PRO or CON before whatever they are are going to say. This will eliminate confusion for which side the debaters are on. Every person involved must follow a set of rules that, again, will be discussed soon. At the end of the first round, ten representatives will be elected by the supporters of PRO's and CON's to debate round two on their behalf. This is to increase incentive to formulate good arguments so they will be nominated by their peers. This is also to make it easier to organize the arguments. In the end of the second round, the audience will vote for two representatives, one for PRO, one for CON. People who are not nominated representatives are not allowed to comment within the thread until voting commences. It is ultimately the vote of the normal users that will determine the outcome of the debate. At the end of round one, twenty representatives in total should be nominated, ten for PRO, ten for CON. If a representative is unable to make it to another round, they can pass on the responsibility to someone else through talk page so it can be verified. This is to prevent random people walking in. However, once the responsibility is passed, the original representative cannot show up. At the end of round two, two representatives will be chosen from among the twentty to debate the final round. The representatives are not allowed to vote. Forfeiting the second round will require a majority of the representatives consent, and the Overseer will offer the choice of the other side winning or a reschedule. The average User can vote on all of this.
3) Rules-The rules here are pretty much the same as every forum. There is a five strike rule. If one violates the rule five times, they will ave their comments removed and asked to leave the debate.
A. Everyone must maintain proper language, grammar (small mistakes are fine), and behavior. No cursing allowed. Anyone who doesn't abide by these rules will have the comment deleted.
B. The Overseer must not talk unless stepping to calm a rising problem. If the Overseer does not do his/her job, they will be removed.
C. Representatives breaking the rules will be disqualified.
D. All minor debates are to be settled elsewhere.
Ok, all that wasn't even close to what the radicalness of what we in chat were talking about. In fact, the discussion to open a new way of debate lasted only two minutes. No, our discussion took a turning poinjt when we started talking about Admins. One might look at my idea and think this is WAY overblown for just a way of debating when we could just put up a damn poll, but that's the point. It's to get their attention. The Admins. The Chat Corruption problem pales in comparison to the one we face now. Let me explain. As I requested EJ to ask an admin about making a new forum devoted to debating, a surprising number of people stated their resentment of the way things were run by the Admins. At first, I was skeptical, but then I started to hear the stories people were telling me, starting with this one.
The Admins Just Don't Care
This seems like a trivial problem, but it's true. When's the last time an Admin personally helped you with your problem. I remember a certain Admin, *Cough*Jimeee*Cough*, completely ignored my complaint about a bullying wikian. I understand Admins have jobs to do, but part of their job is to help with any trouble their users have, and not helping them is unacceptable. Not all Admins are bad, of course not, but a lot of them can be snooty. Have the reason we were discussing Admins in the first place is when someone told me the admins woun't go for something that seems difficult, like my forum idea. A great idea blown because someone was too lazy. Here's another story.
The Zipper Schism
Many of you might have heard of the Zipper Schism, you knowm when Zipper was de-modded for insulting Jimeee? It wasn't just a quick thing, no, it was practically an event that nearly threw everyones good vibes out of whack. Because of disagreements with the leadership, Zip was banned from the wikia, or at least suspended, by Jimeee simply because the Admin couldn't take a little backtalk, because the internet is not supposed to be comprised of any of that apparently. Banning someone simply because they got a little cross with you is an abuse of power.
The Jimeee Thread
Forum and Chat Moderators alike detest this particular piece of garbage. This isn't just a random account of some randon user complaing that the leadership here is corrupt, no, this is a real thing you can look up and see Admin AutoBlood insult every Chat and Forum person there ever was by stating te opinions of Main Editors and Admins are worth more than theirs, something I seriously detest. For those of you who don't know, Administrator is just a job, much like the Overseer in my idea, that serves as the mediator and makes sure things run smoothly. However, unlike the Overseer, these Admins straight up insult other people who cannot do anything back or risk suspension form their account. If there is anything I have taught you people, it's that everyone has the right to b*tch and moan and not get punished for it.
The EmperorJohnson and Stendarr Fued
This one wasn't particularly interesting at first until I heard the ending, which is infuriating when you want to fight for equality between everyone here while the Admins treat things like a feudal dictatorship. It was standard stuff, EJ got nominated for Chat mod, Sten got jealous or mad or something, and requested that he be a mod too. Request. It's a rule, I remember, that in order to become a mod, you have to be nominated by a higher up because of work force and skill, but Stendarr gets a free pass I guess.
While most of these seem small, these small events build up and up into a great big pile of what the f*ck. And I am not the only one who feels this way. This is injustice to the highest degree, at least on internet, to just strut your stuff like a peacock and flaunt your little admin badges into the faces of everyday wikians. To make our internet hub (Not PornHub), into a dictatorship. Well, I SAY NAY! As do others. The answer is with us people, it's time to make the admins change. If you support my ideas, please let me know below. If you've noticed a flaw in my idea or just disagree, comment anyway! Let me know! And VIVA LA REVOLUTION. Also Stay Ranty.