An actual "#insidescoop" forum

[Jumpman16**]

Much of this is directly at chaos since he asked for it. The fact that i have to post about this issue here, when it's a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with "moderation", is not a coincidence. We do not currently have a forum that mirrors our IRC's #insidescoop, which, according to you, is:

"a channel for quick discussion of issues. we should have meetings in there every once in a while to discuss shit, theres always stuff that needs to be done.

results of the meetings should be posted in here for logging purposes."

Though you posted the "#insidescoop" thread from where this definition comes in Inside Scoop, there are times when issues become too heated to be discussed but do not necessarily have anything to do with moderation, and therefore should go in Inside Scoop but do not. This is one of a few. A lot of times, these issues, which include Justin, MoP, ET and badge-related stuff among others, start out in #insidescoop, where you have granted users access on a case-by-case basis. This is fine, but then why are we not allowed to talk about ET in the Inside Scoop forum? Or in #smogon? Why do Badge threads have to be made in Moderator Discussion, given that you said they should be posted in the Inside Scoop forum? You already know the answer to this — they are extremely touchy subjects. #insidescoop may have started out as a forum to briefly discuss issues that should be reported back in Inside Scoop, but this is obviously not the case now.

This is my issue. #insidescoop and the Inside Scoop forum are obviously not equivalent, otherwise you wouldn't have said this:

"[15:57] <chaos> also, the trial people arent given #insidescoop access"

if #insidescoop exists to discuss issues that can then be discussed in the Inside Scoop forum, then everyone you give trial access to should be privy to goings-on in the IRC channel that is used to talk briefly about site-related issues that will later be documented in the Inside Scoop forum. You don't want to do that though, because they are not the same arena of discussion. The issues of "carrots" and "badging", again, have nothing to do with moderation, and were brought up in #insidescoop, so technically are supposed to be posted about in the Inside Scoop forum. They aren't though. Do you guys kind of catch my drift with this? A forum where "the entitled", or whatever you want to call them, can talk about sticky, would go a long way in helping us discuss them civilly, without the confusing nature of #insidescoop where my point was evidently lost.

Therefore, I propose a forum where subjects like this and the ones I listed above can be discussed, with the benefits of structure and archiving that only a forum can grant. You can rename "Moderator Discussion" if you want, because let's face it — this is the real "inside scoop", as evidenced by the three "touchy subject", non-moderation-related threads posted here today.

Anyway, you want to encourage people to contribute. You want to dangle "carrots" in front of them in the interests of getting them to further contribute. That is fine. I am still not seeing why this carrot has to grant them access to a forum that, right now, contains some touchy subjects that have nothing do with what they (the people to whom you are granting temporary access) are supposed to be concerned with, which is the contributions they've promised to the site. Arti's thread delves into this subject a little more though, so I'll talk about it more in there.

Finally, your statement:

[16:49] <chaos> if we went by what you appear to be advocating as "entitlement" the core group of smogoners would never grow
[16:50] <chaos> and i would, just like i have to do now, constantly harp and beg for people to actually help
[16:50] <chaos> because all of the people who are "entitled" want to hang out
[16:50] <chaos> and chat
[16:50] <chaos> and not actually do anything for the site


I hope this was something you just said in the heat of the moment and you don't actually feel this way. Only in the last week do we now have the ability to start working on the site, now that you have finished teh beta version. You just made the thread about editing the rb analyses in C&C. if you indeed feel that you have to "constantly harp and beg" for existing contributors to help out, then you will have no problem listing the instances where you've have to do so. Because as it is, I'm confused as to where that even came from if not just a product of frustration, and I'm not the only one who was inclined to take that personally or at least feel the venom behind your statement (as Misty did on IRC when you said it).

[chaos**]

How do you decide who gets to participate in these discussions or not? After further consideration it's possible to restore Inside Scoop to this state and exclusively use C&C for such matters, but at this point it's sort of arbitrary who actually gets to be apart of the community and who doesn't.

[Articuno64]

Originally Posted by Fat chaos

How do you decide who gets to participate in these discussions or not? After further consideration it's possible to restore Inside Scoop to this state and exclusively use C&C for such matters, but at this point it's sort of arbitrary who actually gets to be apart of the community and who doesn't.

This, to me, is the problem. It's like you need to quantitatively justify when somebody matters enough to be given inside scoop access.

[Jumpman16**]

Originally Posted by Fat chaos

How do you decide who gets to participate in these discussions or not? After further consideration it's possible to restore Inside Scoop to this state and exclusively use C&C for such matters, but at this point it's sort of arbitrary who actually gets to be apart of the community and who doesn't.

Same way you decide who gets #insidescoop access, or something very similar to that. It's subjective, but there's really no other way of determinig who is fit for these discussions and who isn't.