Transparency

I have read a few comments about staff transparency or lack there of. Opening up such forums for reading/viewing on decisions. I wanted to take a moment a seriously discuss.

First I would like to start with fears and concerns.

1. I believe such actions can lead to bashing certain staff or trying to ruin their credibility with comments about who voted for/against what, who said what this way or that way. Heck even staff discussing each others behavior.

2. I believe it would promote certain member biased, when someone disagrees, the vocality of it can become extreme. Especially given egos and some peoples inability to believe they are/can be wrong. Myself included

3. Member unarranted input, either through the pm system, or through member forum discussions.

That is what is currently being discussed, we even made archives readable, and bashing occured.

As such, I open it for discussion? Fears, concerns, insight? I personally would like to try it, but I stuggle with a yes vote for the above. What do you think?

I can't see how full transparency wouldn't fail tbh. All of the concerns you listed are valid and I believe if we brainstormed a bit we could find a dozen more.

However, people are voicing their opinion against full secrecy. They also have fears and concerns, some of which are most certainly valid. I think a compromise is necessary in this situation.

I suggest the following: create a public board where the summary of WIP staff-work is posted and updated (updated is the new sexy). Even allow the members to voice their opinion on it (again, staff isn't required to answer to any of those queries because it would increase the workload, drastically). This is very similar to the suggestion I made about members voicing their opinions on staff rulings. It would increase the communication between staff and members. Not only that, staff would (from time to time) most certainly find decent suggestions.

tl;dr if you treat members with respect you will be respected

Edit 2: Posting in such areas is a privilege that could/will be taken away if abused.

Negative up, positive down.

Staff should deal with negative stuff privately and share any positive that comes from their discussions publicly.

That's what leaders do... I personally don't see any good coming from discussing negative subjects with members. (Honestly, what's the point? Is it going to lead to anything upbuilding?)

I don't see employees voicing their opinions during a board of directors meeting. There is a time and place for it, but not in the parliament.

I think that anything negative involving a member, such as a banning ruling, should not be made public. I just see drama all over that if people knew what might be said. I think the rest can be viewable by members, but not postable. Honstly i have experience that staff topics can be long and there will be back and forths with things, so having members make that topic even longer and more clogged can be discouraging. Rather make a reaction forum for these staff topics, where members can have some input and get replies from staff on current staff topics.

Most issues that go public are due to vocal members who inturn build a following. Ive tried the closed door method and transparency method and both work situationally. It really comes down to the community as a whole. Which is why I feel it best if staff take a less leadership role (beyond doing the typicals of checking shit and being informative). It sounds pointless but i think trials should ne held for the big disciplinary decisions like banning. The community is allowed to see the evidence and hear out the one being charged. And most importantly we keep discussions of these things out the cbox. Zero tolerance rule. I made a post on this particular issue in more detail in the thread about punishment for rule breakers.