| abstract
| - __NOWYSIWYG__ Hello, I'd like to propose that we change the current way fanon subscriptions are given out. In the current system, the author has to message many users one at a time telling them that the new chapter has been released. This takes a lot of time, and leaves the Wiki Activity flooded. I have an alternative to this system that may work: Fanon Subscription Notices go on the General Noticeboard (or a completely new forum), and are highlighted, this would work similar to the way the BSST notices work. This would go to every user, however it is easy to make go away, simply a click of a button (mark all read). Therefore, the system would be cleaned up, and some fanon may get more attention than previous. -- 19:36, February 20, 2013 (UTC) No, even with the temporary and easily ignorable RC flood the current subscription messages provide, it is still to be preferred over messaging every user each time a new chapter of some fanon comes out. That is not what the highlighting function is for. You cannot ignore those messages without receiving it first. If the current subscription comments annoy you, I advice to just adjust you RC settings to no longer let message wall messages show up, which would be a more effective system to get rid of the message flood than annoying every user each time with a wiki-wide irrelevant post for like 99% of the users getting it. 19:44, February 20, 2013 (UTC) Per Lostris (who can, as always, say it better than I ever could). Those messages can easily be bypassed on any RC feed. We don't need the use of a community-wide noticeboard every time a fanon chapter comes out (especially so in using the general noticeboard; which would totally take it off its intended purpose). 19:51, February 20, 2013 (UTC) Per Lostris snd KFB. A similar idea to this was proposed and it was decided that the best thing to do is leave it alone for now. The RC flood can be dealt with, most authors that do so don't mind sending messages and the readers get the notifications they want. Another point to add is that this would turn on highlights pretty much all the time, which would eliminate their value by making people used to clicking away from them routinely. 20:34, February 20, 2013 (UTC) I have another solution. Via javascript, it can be possible to create an app on wiki that will be able to mass post a certain message set by a user (i.e for the purposes of subscriptions) on the message walls of other specified users. I can then mark the mass edits as done by a bot to clear up the RC flood. However, since this would be prone to misuse, I would suggest that either a) permissions to use the app would be given by an admin from a case to case basis or b) you have a trusted checklist of authors who would be permitted to use the app (similar to the AWB checklist). This is by no means a completely formed idea as of yet, so further suggestions or additions would not be amiss. KettleMeetPot • wall 00:33, February 23, 2013 (UTC) I'm for Kettle's idea. Just a thought though, after a fanon has say 7 subscribers then a Subscription licence is requested and if it is approved, the app can be used :) I agree with plan "b" of KMP's idea. I don't think it would be wise to require permission to use the app every time you released a chapter, but rather of a list of approved authors. Actually, it might even be better for every author to be approved when creating a new fanon, and then they're allowed to use it for every chapter of that fanon, so a list of fanons vs. a list of authors. 03:13, February 23, 2013 (UTC) I like the idea of having more of a trusted author list, have more people prove that they are able to use the system the right way and help newer authors carry out their subscription messages. But also, I like TF's suggestion that at least have a standard for subscriptions, we shouldn't need to go to the system for 1-2 subs every time. 03:28, February 23, 2013 (UTC) I think this sounds like a great idea, though I would like a successful demonstration before anything is agreed upon. -- 04:39, February 23, 2013 (UTC) You'll definitely get your demonstration in the next few days, ARG, if things go to plan. Also, you should come onto IRC, since I hear there are WLS matters to discuss. EDIT: As of the 24th, you can find the early version of the app here. No functionality as of yet, however. Also, another update: now only users marked on the checkpage will be able to load the module. KettleMeetPot • wall 04:41, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Is it possible for us to test it somehow? When the module is ready, you'll receive due notification for testing. Otherwise, no. KettleMeetPot • wall 11:37, March 1, 2013 (UTC) I think we can flesh out how access to editing the module will work in advance of it actually working. :P I'm assuming we're going on the idea that editing rights are a permission that is given out by putting people on a list. Based on that, the fairest way to work out under when someone can be added is just to make another request page. Obviously, because editing rights for the module can do much more damage than practically anything rollback users can do, we have to make the standard reasonably high. I think that there should be a request, and then it should be seconded and thirded by other users. Then, it will be considered by an admin, who will then add the user to the list if successful. Does that sound reasonable? The 888th Avatar (talk) 12:30, March 3, 2013 (UTC) More than reasonable imo. It suits the system perfectly - the use of the module is akin to having your own bot specifically for message walls. The standards must be high - as well as the trust. A lot of damage can be done by a few uses of the system, and as such, I will also be implementing a max cap of messaging 50 users per use and, perhaps, a cooldown after each use would be prudent. Furthermore, for moderation purposes, each use by a user will be logged on a page containing the date, time, list of users to which the message was sent, and finally the message itself. KettleMeetPot • wall 12:38, March 3, 2013 (UTC) That sounds agreeable to me. Since it would be dangerous in the wrong hands, we’ll clearly have to keep a close guard on it. When someone is approved, we should make clear that they’re getting this privilege for subscription purposes only. Any sign of abuse or unauthorized usage should result in the suspension of their ability to use the module (hopefully it won’t come to that, since we’re setting high standards for usage.) The log will help us keep track of it all better. As far as other criteria go, there should obviously be a subscriber minimum for one of the user’s active fanons. Right now, I’m leaning toward five. You can save time doing it this way instead of sending five messages. -- 15:40, March 3, 2013 (UTC) I'm on board with the set criteria, though I'd say at least a minimum of ten subscribers should be considered as it really isn't all that hard to leave five messages and ten subscribers already sort of builds in a guarantee that the author is trusted by the community and is serious about their fanon. 15:56, March 3, 2013 (UTC) I think ten is too many. Sending seven, eight or nine messages is a place where the module can be beneficial. The standards of admittance are pretty solid if we include the two other users supporting the user before they get approved. Since this is for only trusted authors, a minimum of five subscribers definitely does not mean that every author with five subscribers would be approved. -- 16:30, March 3, 2013 (UTC) Five is way too easy to obtain for everyone, opening the door for possible misuse. If the author does believe that it is way too straining for them to send out six messages, they can always request the help of someone who does has the required amount of subscribers to send the messages for him/her. Any author can easily request 2 friends to support his/her fanon, so what real protection measure does that have? The two supporting votes and the ten subscribers minimum is way more solid than just five. 16:39, March 3, 2013 (UTC) Like I said, getting five subscribers does not necessarily mean they will be approved. Far from it. If an author requests 2 friends to support his/her fanon, the admin looking it over can take that into account and their application may be denied. This can still be useful with only nine subscribers. While ten subscribers and the two supporting votes provides an extra threshold, it's not needed when the admin can ultimately deny it at his/her discretion. -- 16:44, March 3, 2013 (UTC) And thus you lay everything in the hands of "admin power" as opposed to a more neutral and completely objective criteria of ten subscribers. Why open the door to possible accusations of admin power abuse when you have a perfectly workable and feasible alternative? 16:47, March 3, 2013 (UTC) Because that's not a workable alternative. Having ten subscribers for a fanon says absolutely nothing about who that author is as a person and a user. Someone can be a great writer, but not someone that we would want to trust with this. There are plenty of places where people can already point to "admin power abuse". It should not be based around a number and nothing else. We don't automatically set a certain number of undo edits for one to get rollback and we don't set another number of edits being undone for a block. If we stopped making decisions altogether and just attached a number to everything, this would be a much different place, which I'm very glad it isn't. -- 16:54, March 3, 2013 (UTC) You are losing track of the use of the module: getting to use the module has nothing to do with how great a writer someone is, that's not the point. The point is that the module is a way to help an author who has many subscription messages to deal out to do that quickly. What's the dire need for automated messages for someone with barely five subscribers? It's not that hard to open 5 tabs and copy/past the message. Someone with 15 on the other hand is already in more need to have the module. So what is not workable about it? Just out of sheer curiosity, where else do we have such "admin power abuse" possibilities as you propose we set with this admission board as well? As for the rollback references, that's really a moot point as even thought there is no set number of edits made, that does not mean that the amount of edits made is not being taken into account. As well as the continuation of that point saying that the number would be the only merit, as again, there would still be the required votes as would be the case with five. I really just completely fail to see the use of the module for someone with just five subscribers. Again, being able to use the module is not a status symbol, it's something to aid authors with many subscribers. Anything less than 10 is not many. Five is not many and thus, there is no need for the module. 17:02, March 3, 2013 (UTC) The possibility for power abuse is present in anything an admin does. Blocking and deleting can be used poorly in the wrong hands. The same can be said of the Bureaucrat task of granting and revoking rollback. Each of these has been pointed to in the past, so adding one extra decision here is not going to add or subtract much to the possibility of accusations. “Great writer” was an error in choice of words. Someone with a lot of subscribers is not necessarily someone who can be trusted with the module. The principle is the same in different cases. There is a use for something, and certain users would be trusted based on their history and a set of criteria. Quality as well as quantity matter, as well as they’re character. It’s true with getting user rights, and it also applies here. I still argue that there would be some use for the module at five, though admittedly there would be much more use for it at ten. How does eight sound? -- 17:13, March 3, 2013 (UTC) I do not agree on the examples that you provided on the possible admin abuse, but it would be irrelevant to debate about that. Indeed, someone with a lot of subscribers would not necessarily be someone we can trust with the module, thus they can be withheld on the request page. However, someone with a lot of subscribers is indisputable someone who could be benefiting of the use of the module as opposed to the trusted writer with only six subscribers. Quality and quantity are important here, so why are you so set on ignoring the quantity of the criteria? Since five is not a quantity. Sending five messages is not a hassle. Sending five messages does not require any help from a module. The higher the number the better. I don't see what's wrong with ten as a minimum. 17:25, March 3, 2013 (UTC) I find it absurd that the granting or revoking of this privilege provides more possibility for “admin abuse” than other duties, and it’s hard for me to believe someone here so long would think that. Anyhow, like you said, that’s irrelevant. Quantity, noun: “a determinate or estimated amount.” Yes, five is by definition a quantity. I’m not ignoring quantity, that’s why I wouldn’t support this for someone with three or four subscribers. A “hassle” is a subjective term that depends on the person. Even if copy-pasting is quick, on some computers it takes time to load up five message wall pages. By picking a higher number, we’re failing to avoid a lot of hassle which can be avoided. -- 17:34, March 3, 2013 (UTC) With the other instances that you provided, there is not really an other way to do things while still remaining practical. Here, there is: just up the very low standard of five subscribers to ten and voila, you avoid admin power abuse in most cases. Five is more than three, so when compared to that, five is a quantity. Compared to the goal of the module, making the distribution of subscription messages easier, five is not a quantity. Five messages is nothing, it's not even considered an RC flood. There is no need for the module for five subscribers and we have to keep an eye on the reason why this was created in the first place. One some computers it's already a hassle to send three messages, so per your logic, they too should be able to send automated messages as that is also a hassle that could've been avoided. We have to look at this as objectively as possible, taking the possible dangers of the module and the possible protection measures into account, and when you compare everything, five is just a ridiculously low number that will often depend on the administrator's decision to withhold a user from using the module. I for one am a fan of setting reasonable and objective criteria that would limit administrator intervention as much as possible, and that would then mean having at least ten subscribers. 17:45, March 3, 2013 (UTC) On the subject of “RC-flooding”, it’s not uncommon at some hours to see multiple fanon chapters being posted around the same time. Five to nine messages would then become ten to eighteen, which can be avoided. Even if the trouble is less with five subscribers than ten or fifteen, we should use the tool to avoid the trouble wherever possible to maximize it’s effectiveness. So you’re essentially saying that because making decisions in cases where an author has five to nine subscribers poses such a distinct possibility that people might shout out accusations at us that we should shy away from making those decisions? I like to think the seven admins are made of stronger stuff than that. My feelings don’t need protection, thank you very much. -- 18:02, March 3, 2013 (UTC) Again, moot point as the same could be said about three messages being a nuisance when multiple people post at the same time. Besides, let's now not pretend like that scenario is incredibly common around that it has to be dealt with immediately by lowering standards. As pointed out above already, by a logic of "we should use the tool to avoid the trouble wherever possible to maximize it's effectiveness", then our entire discussion here is without point as the "maximum effectiveness to avoid trouble" is allowing everyone -regardless their subscriber's amount- to use the module. It's not about "being made of stronger stuff", it's about avoiding giving "power" to administrators and again putting them in the place of making a decision that affects the abilities of another user when it is not necessary. There is no need to give administrators a decision power that they do not need since it can easily be avoided. So I don't really know how you interpreted that, but it was never about "protecting the feelings of administrators". It is about avoid unnecessary administrator intervention as putting an administrator in charge like you plan to do unnecessarily do again put more emphasis on the power an administrator could have and the division in the community that stands for. Having such a low threshold to apply for the usage of the module opens the door to users being able to use it based on "administrator's grace" as opposed to actually having a need for the module. 18:11, March 3, 2013 (UTC) Multiple cases of 3 subscribers don't add up as much as multiple fanons with 7, 8 or 9 subscribers. Whether you consider it significant o not, there is a value for using the module to handle these fanons. Therefore, there is a cost to raising the threshold all the way to ten. That cost shouldn't be the wiki's to bare for administrator's sake. Yes, there has been quite a bit of hype in the past regarding the role of an administrator, but I stand by using it here. It's no reason to shy away from using it where it might be useful. I don't really consider this an expansion of "power." It's just deciding whether users can use this after two supports. -- 18:23, March 3, 2013 (UTC) ARG, you really are completely missing the point. It is not and never will be "for the administrator's sake". You really think that I believe any administrator "should be protected"? That any one of us isn't capable of making a "yay" or "nay" decision on something like the module? As I have said multiple times already now, it is about the unnecessity of giving an administrator that task, rather than the incapability of any of the administrators to be able to perform it well. It is about avoiding putting more decision power on the shoulders of an administrator, rather than thinking that the administrators wouldn't be capable of handling that decision power. I really don't see why you are persistent in interpreting it all that way as that was clearly not how I meant it. There is indeed no reason to shy away from using it. However, there is no reason at all to even use it when there are not many messages to be send, thus rendering the point of the module useless when it sends less than 10 messages. 18:28, March 3, 2013 (UTC) If I may weigh in, this: "What's the dire need for automated messages for someone with barely five subscribers? It's not that hard to open 5 tabs and copy/past the message." pretty much sums it up. Every other argument to support five and dispel ten is really just extrapolation of a lot of "what if" scenarios. What is they have a slow computer, what if more than one author notifies their subscribers at the same time, in the same moon cycle, planet alignment... ARG, listen to your arguments; you're using odds to sustain your argument that five subscribers can be too many for the author to handle. This is where discussions start to derail off the objectivity track. Five is hardly too many at all to require the module and ten sounds reasonable as per Lady. Also, I oppose to any measure that dumps more responsibility on an admin or relies on their discretion and subjectivity that otherwise could be avoided with simple agreed upon guidelines. ― Thailog 18:50, March 3, 2013 (UTC) @Lady: Nope, I haven’t missed the point. I’ve been responding to your point about opening the door to accusations of admin power abuse this whole time. If you scroll up to the third messages you and I left today, at 16:47 UTC, you’ll see I made no mention of it prior to that. @Thailog: Using odds in an argument is not unobjective. This is going to be a wiki process from today-on, so possible scenarios should be considered. And this is going to rely on admin discretion for fanons more than ten subscribers, so if the whole subscription process can be more efficient by having it for fanons with five to nine subscribers, it’s not much of an extra step to have it there. -- 23:03, March 3, 2013 (UTC) You are missing the point if you keep dismissing the need for the module for their being a convenience for it. There is not discussion about the fact that the module can be helpful and efficient for every fanon author. However, that does not mean that every fanon author has the need for it, meaning, has enough subscribers to actually warrant the use of an automated messaging system. As Thailog said as well, there is even less need to be giving administrators more subjective decision making power when it is just not necessary. There will indeed be some administrator discretion, but it is always preferable to keep that at a minimum and with a low limit like five, we cannot do that. There are always hypothetical situations that one can dream up with to stave a point, but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily completely relevant. Since you made a reference to the rollback process above already, I'll make one now as well: let's take Minnichi as an example. She a trusted and nice user, no contest about that. I don't think that anyone would mind her being a rollback user due to that. However, she is not one, and if she were to apply now, I would not grant her the rights. Why not? Because she doesn't need them. If she would be granted the rights, would there be situations in which the rights could come in handy to her? Definitely, but still, a convenience on some few occasions don't warrant the rights for all the time. Same could be said for those "trusted authors" you referred to that have less than ten subscribers. Yes, they may be trusted authors that would not misuse the module, but that would not change the fact that anyone with less than ten subscribes simply does not have a need for the module. Would it come in handy? Definitely. Being able to do something automated is always easier than having to do it manually. Does that create a need for said authors? No, absolutely not. 23:15, March 3, 2013 (UTC) I have a proposal. Let's make 5 a minimum, but 9 or 10 a recommended number. If you have 5 subscribers, you are going to need consent from say, 3 subscribers (over 50%) saying that, this user has not spammed us with subscriptions and we trust him with the tool. Alternatively, we can have two/three /reputable/ friends vouch for the user in questions. Just my two yuans. And that is an objective set of criteria . . . how? That's basically saying "get your friends to support you regardless the need". That's not the point of this module. It is there to serve a need, not a lazy convenience. 23:22, March 3, 2013 (UTC) I never denied that the need for the module is the convenience it. We’ve agreed to use it for fanons with 10+ subscribers, so using it for authors with 5-9 alleviates more hassle with simply following the same process. Your definition about how fanon authors with more than 10 subscribers “need” the module and authors with 5-9 “don’t need” the module is subjective. Sending the messages automated versus manually is exactly what this module is about. There is nothing to back up that a fanon author with 10 subscribers “needs” the module and a fanon author with 9 subscribers “doesn’t need” the module. Technically, a fanon with 30 subscribers doesn’t need it either. They can copy the same message manually. It’ll take longer though, and time can be saved by using the module. Time can also be saved for 5 subscribers and 10 subscribers. -- 23:27, March 3, 2013 (UTC) I'm not saying without rhyme or reason, they have to provide a valid reason, just like in Admin Elections. If it is provided from an unbiased POV then the admin can make the decision. ARG:That's the thing about limits, those who just fall outside the scope of the limit are always considered as "why not them, they're only one less, one year younger, one this, one that". You have to draw a limit somewhere and that limit needs to be objectively drawn as best as possible. In the end, every rule will always have a certain subjectivity about it since it is a man-made rule, but you can try to limit the subjectivity as much as possible and seeing as how the ten-limit subscribers would leave less discretionary decision power to the administrators than the five-limit rule, it is obvious which one of the two is the least subjective. As for your bit about nitpicking about the "need" for something, that's just grasping straws, cause if you want to play it that way, why even bother with the module at all? We have coped thus far, we will be able to cope without in the future as well? So why even think about creating this as it can be possibly misused. Since no one truly needs it anyway, why risk anything, right? TechFilmer: The entire point is just to keep the need of an administrator's intervention and decision making at a minimum. 23:36, March 3, 2013 (UTC) Can I add a suggestion here, on how perhaps this could be judged more objectively? To my mind, a fanon author with 5 subscribers but who posts a new chapter every week has greater "need" of the module than an author with 10 subscribers but who only posts a new chapter every 2 months. I think a better way to judge its necessity would be as a ratio of the average length of time between chapters over, say, the last 5 chapters, and the number of subscribers. So, 5 subs, 1 week average would be 7/5 = 1.4, whereas 10 subs, 3 weeks average would be 21/10 = 2.1. The requirement would then be that this number fall below a certain value, and the admin would only need check the author hadn't added lots of users just to boost their subscribers, and that they hadn't done anything to suggest they would abuse the use of the module. How does that sound? 23:52, March 3, 2013 (UTC) That sounds fine by me. Does 3.0 sound like a good number? A posting rate is incredibly flakey as it greatly depends on external influences like how busy someone is or writer's block, or whatever, so their ratio can easily fluctuate. I still don't see what's wrong with an easy to use criteria of "ten subscribers". Everyone reads the sentence and immediately knows whether or not they're eligible to use the module or not without anyone having to make some calculation. 00:04, March 4, 2013 (UTC) If the module is used for posting subscriptions when new chapters are posted, then the frequency with which chapters are posted is relevant. Someone with 9 subs posting every week would get a greater advantage from using the module than someone with 10 subs posting every two months. If a fanon author isn't posting new chapters very often (on average), then clearly they wouldn't have such a great need for the module. The usage of the module is not just beneficial to those with a large number of subs, but also those that post regularly, so in my opinion, the judgement of whether someone should be allowed to use it should reflect both those things. 00:12, March 4, 2013 (UTC) I find the minimum requirement of ten subscribers to be perfectly reasonable. As was argued earlier, the line has to be drawn somewhere; we could debate on and on regarding the most reasonable number of subscribers required to use the module and never will we achieve that perfect number because everything is subjective to some point - there will always be those what-if scenarios, etc., that can be considered. So, with that being the case, I find ten to be quite suitable - as others have argued, there really is no urgent need for a user with five subscribers to use the module. 00:24, March 4, 2013 (UTC) No, just because of the possibility of misuse is not a reason not to make something that can provide conveniency and efficiency. If the convenience it provides is worth it, we can take the jump while doing what we can to minimize risk (the approving of users and the log of its usage.) There’s clearly some extra benefit to making the number lower than ten, and making sure the right users get it and keeping an eye on the log will minimize any supposed con at making five the minimum. I don’t think a number based on how often someone posts is practical, since that can fluctuate, but that can always be factored in when making a decision on whether a user needs it or not. I don’t see the need to give up some efficiency to minimize admin decision making. We’re reasonable, so we can use our judgement. -- 00:29, March 4, 2013 (UTC) Having taken time to see things go back and forth, I am also on board with a pure limit of ten. A solid number with the elimination of subjectivies and objectivies, no need to ponder on how much the need is at a certain number or not. As has been argued above by Thai, there will always be what-ifs in every scenario. That's where subjectivity comes in and makes it a bit harder to work with a set standard. Five is really too low a limit, I don't think it would be too troublesome for manual messaging even in the case of a slow computer/internet. While 8-9 might take some time, I don't think it's too much of an issue and can be done much faster with a straight copy/paste. So, ten sounds just fine with me. 00:33, March 4, 2013 (UTC) Well, this forum certainly exploded. Long story short, I am convinced more by Lady Lostris' arguments - ten is indeed a reasonable number. Personally, I always thought of the concept of the module was to help out fanon authors on the bigger end of the scale with their tedious management of subscriptions, and less about the RC flooding - that was really just an afterthought of convenience. I really see the main aim of the module is to ensure that our bigger and more popular authors - as well as upcoming ones - remain interested in doing what they do best... writing their fanons. They should not daunted by the mass number of subscriptions they will have to post each time they release a chapter - I would say for authors with single digit subscribers, this is less of a problem. Anyway, if it does not work out the way it was envisioned and your concerns on efficiency stand in practice ARG, then you can always just make another War Room thread in the future. KettleMeetPot • wall 08:05, March 4, 2013 (UTC) I also believe that 10 subscribers is a reasonable limit for the module. I know that things like "need" are highly subjective and depend on the author, but one thing I want to point out is this: notifying multiple subscribers is not naturally seen as a "task" that evokes any feelings of need. Far from it. It really has to take a drastic number of subscribers to start causing any negativity for the author, because they're literally fans of your writing. Authors want them, and the "trouble" of notifying is probably the last thing on their minds. Therefore I think it's safe to use the following as a measure of how many subscribers becomes "a lot," or how many are suited for the module. I've read a good amount of fanons since my time here, and I can say that probably 90% - if not more - of them have at least 5 already. I also remember the authors who seemed stuck at that amount; some beg for readers, or comment on their own chapters to ask for feedback. I saw more posts begging for more subscribers than I did posts actually notifying subscribers. In other words, the consensus seems to be that 5 isn't enough - and this is dealing with pride, which is usually more influential than any "mass-posting troubles." Therefore I find it very unlikely that those with <10 subscribers would ever feel a "need" for the module. Those who actually feel dissatisfied at their exclusion would be authors that I question. Any natural writer should be concerned with improving their work and getting more feedback, not finding convenient ways to notify their fans. No one with less than 10 subscribers is being deprived of anything. Why grant the module to a group of authors who probably aren't even satisfied with the amount of subs they have? This isolates the module for eligible authors who are more likely dedicated to writing (which usually leads to success). Setting it to an automatic number like 5 - yes, five subs is pretty much automatic from what I've seen - means having to deal with the requests of writers who probably don't care enough about writing at all, if they seriously want the module. One can argue that this precaution also makes the trustworthy writers with <10 subs suffer as well...except they probably won't stay <10 for long. Authors who prioritize writing itself - the trustworthy ones - will usually gather more than the automatic. I'm honestly not too concerned for them when it comes to "exclusion." Finally, any what-ifs can be solved by asking an author with access to the module to post instead; what-ifs are rare anyway, and honest writers technically shouldn't care who has the right to post - only that it's posted in the first place. So a limit of 10 really doesn't seem to be a problem, if you ask me. --MinnichiFile:Dai Li Sprite.gif 11:58, March 4, 2013 (UTC) Even though I will not gain anything from this for a while (7 & 8 subscribes on my fanons) I still think that 10 is a solid number. (I just realized, if we had 4 fingers on our hands we would choose 8 because we would operate on base 8 making it easier for me :)) Well...looks like it's going to be 10, then. But what happens after one gets the module? Do they keep it indefinitely or do they lose it the day their fanon is completed/discontinued? -- 14:24, March 4, 2013 (UTC) I'd think that once the fanon is completed/discontinued, they're taken off the list since then they have no purpose anymore for it. Though it has to be officially discontinued on the main page etc, not just on limbo. 14:26, March 4, 2013 (UTC) Sounds about right. If it was discontinued by someone else for inactivity then they can always get it back if they re-continue the fanon. -- 14:28, March 4, 2013 (UTC) I'm a bit late to this but I think 10 is too high for a minimum. Having a high minimum encourages authors to annoy people about subscribing in order to get their number up, and I don't see a problem with allowing more people to use the module. It doesn't hurt someone with 20 subscribers if someone with 5 is using it, but it does help the one with 5 and everyone else trying to view the RC. Omashu Rocks (talk - contribs) 23:56, March 4, 2013 (UTC) As I said, the chances of someone with five subscribers feeling a true sense of "help" from the module are very low. Subscriber notifications are hardly a bad thing for writers; the joy of having fans in the first place should overpower that "need" for a good while. In my opinion, a minimum of five isn't preventing annoying behavior, it's basically handing the beggars a more convenient way to beg. The rules can specify that notifications *must* contain chapter updates, be once a day max, or even have a word minimum - but honestly, annoying behavior has always existed here; easier access to the module will not change that. It's in an irritating author's nature. One example is someone who uses the module as often as possible without straying from guidelines; they may purposely cut off chapters at the word minimum, just to keep pestering the subscribers every single day and getting more exposure in the RC. Of course, those who grant access will use their judgment to keep out these writers, but I'm just saying: the higher the minimum, the less likely the requests will be from untrustworthy authors. On that note, I still think it's pretty rare for an honest writer to stay below 10 subscribers for long - and to tackle these rare occasions of "need," they can always ask someone with access to post instead. With that in mind, a minimum of 10 isn't stopping anyone from being helped. It just eliminates many chances for beggars to pester on a large scale, and nothing more. --MinnichiFile:Dai Li Sprite.gif 01:48, March 5, 2013 (UTC) If we're concerned about having trolls abuse the system despite other restrictions and the fact that someone still has to approve them, why not have a statute that says annoying users of the module are banned? I really don't see how having a higher minimum subscribers requirement eliminates the accessibility of the module to irritating people any more than the rules we already have in place are. 02:10, March 5, 2013 (UTC) A high minimum is a more reliable way to keep out annoying users than the judgment of users, in the end. No matter who's deciding on whether or not someone is trustworthy, the fact is still that good authors will usually be more successful than beggars, and therefore probably have more subscribers than 5. Setting a minimum of 10 at least creates an automatic "obstacle" for annoying users, because they have to be more successful writers to even be eligible for the module now. Placing the minimum at five creates a greater dependence on pure judgment, regarding who's "too annoying" or "too suspicious." And as always, we're trying to avoid subjective decisions whenever possible. Since they're made by humans, there's always going to be a chance of wrong judgment for every bad author's request. At least with a minimum of 10, we can eliminate a good amount of bad requests ahead of time to reduce that risk. --MinnichiFile:Dai Li Sprite.gif 02:26, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)