| rdfs:comment
| - I would like to write an essay which suggests that users avoid clogging decisions, processes and policies with an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy. Several times in YG discussions, I have seen proposals, or sub-proposals, which I believed would impair something on the site with a lot of red tape. Examples of this include: I really wish I were posting a better initial proposal, but it's been a long day and I wanted to drop this idea I've just had before I forget about it. Discuss. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 09:47, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
|
| abstract
| - I would like to write an essay which suggests that users avoid clogging decisions, processes and policies with an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy. Several times in YG discussions, I have seen proposals, or sub-proposals, which I believed would impair something on the site with a lot of red tape. Examples of this include:
* Excessive scrutiny over minor changes or decisions
* Requiring entirely new proposals for something rather obvious (for example, whether the policy regarding wiki blocks and clan chat blocks also applies to our IRC channel)
* Bickering over technicalities
* Others I'm sure I'll think of (it's late here) I have not actually written this essay yet; I will try to have a copy ready in a day or two. Part of the point of the essay will be that we ought to trust users who are in positions of responsibility (which ties into RuneScape:Assume good faith), and not constantly and vigilantly watch over them to make sure they're doing their jobs. Policies and guidelines should be as broad as possible, and not attempt to set solid yet arbitrary definitions (such as "You must do X every 14 days") unless it's necessary for some reason. Don't try to win an argument or debate by citing a technicality (such as "I only reverted his reverts twice, so we didn't violate 3RR") as this is gaming the system. I really wish I were posting a better initial proposal, but it's been a long day and I wanted to drop this idea I've just had before I forget about it. Discuss. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 09:47, February 7, 2011 (UTC) Okay, I've got some of it completed; you may find it here. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:50, February 8, 2011 (UTC) Strong support - I love the idea. I find that the wiki is getting mired in instruction creep, which is becoming evident as we have more and more rules and red tape proposed (I admit that I myself am guilty of increasing red tape). I think this will be a nice wake up call that we should really only set red tape when it is needed, and not throw it out on a whim. --LiquidTalk 23:30, February 8, 2011 (UTC) Support - Oh, the amount of times people have opened debates over the most trivial things. I think that some people may not fully understand the word 'bureaucratic' though - how about we rename it Don't Argue Over Everything or Procedure Isn't Everything? I prefer the second, partly because the acronym is RS:PIE (not intentional File:Lol.gif) and partly because it ties in with the nutshell bit. 21:49, February 10, 2011 (UTC) Lmao! RS:PIE. I'll think about that. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:58, February 10, 2011 (UTC) As there has been no opposition to this, I'm going to exercise my powers as Supreme Dictator for Life and close this discussion. RS:PIE will be live shortly. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 08:32, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)