Concrete Proposal #1: Patch Notes Channel + Anonymous Feedback ThreadsWe envision a two-part system that lets members stay informed about what staff are up to. First, there is a Discord channel dedicated to sharing decisions that are being made but not yet finalized. We'll call these updates "patch notes," like in video games. They're blurbs outlining basic updates about what's to come.
Only staff are allowed to post in this channel, to avoid clutter. However, everyone, both staff and non-staff, can view it. Alongside each patch note is a URL to a thread on site. This thread contains a copy of the patch note details, and members are free to share their thoughts on ideas still in development.
There is an option to reply anonymously using guest accounts. This is to prevent members from fearing backlash. Yes, staff can still see IP addresses of guest accounts. I was told it's an extreme hassle to match IP address to member, and I trust staff not to dig that info up.
Still, in case people feel more anonymity is helpful, the feedback thread also has a URL linking to a Google Doc. This doc contains a copy of the patch notes and is set to Suggestions Mode. This means members cannot directly edit the content, but they can make suggestions and comments. As long as you're not logged into a Google account, there is no way (afaik) for anyone to determine who commented what.
Each patch note has its own feedback thread and Google Doc. The thread and doc are open for a set amount of time, during which everyone is free to give their thoughts. Once time's up, the stuff will be locked, though people will still able to access and read the feedback.
Afterward, staff will proceed as usual in the decision-making process, now with more information about how members feel. They will release the final decision at some point. There will be no official process to provide feedback on the final decision.
JustificationIn the voice chat conversation, participants overall agreed that members should have more access to information that, at present, only staff have. As in, we'd like more visibility on staff decisions. There wasn't complete alignment on exactly how much, but we felt that it's sometimes jarring to see announcements and being like "uhhh where did that come from?" Our first concrete proposal addresses this issue of member input during the decision-making process.
We are fully aware of the risks of having too many cooks in the kitchen. It'll be slower to get ideas jumpstarted, yes. I argue it's better to patch leaks before embarking than to scoop water out of a sinking ship. No idea is foolproof, and having more brains involved decreases the likelihood of unintended consequences.
We also don't want staff to be enslaved by non-staff. It's totally fine if staff don't implement everyone's ideas. We just want an avenue to voice them, so that if staff take ideas in a different direction, we'll know it's for good reason and not because they overlooked something.
Plus, let's say a new feature comes out and many members dislike it. This has never even come close to happening on TP, but what if? That'd suck for everyone, both the staff who pushed it forward and the members who are frustrated. By letting members pitch their thoughts before commitments are made, that gives everyone the opportunity to reorient themselves, which saves a lot of of grief.
Whoa whoa whoa, no feedback on the final decision? Dafuq?I hear ya. Lemme start by saying that Proposal #1 is a preventative measure, instead of a reactionary one. We're used to seeing finalized updates and having to DM staff if we take issue after the fact.
However, if this proposal is implemented, then we ideally sidestep the whole "taking issue" part. After all, anticipated issues will likely be brought up before final decisions are made, which gives staff the chance to sort them out before they get pushed forward.
Plus, every member is welcome to speak up during feedback collection. So if you don't like the final product, that means you either didn't voice your concerns well enough, that it wasn't a common sentiment, or that staff chose to go in a different direction for very specific reasons.
I trust that if staff go against popular opinion, then they will recognize the situation and provide clear reasoning. After all, what people want isn't always what people should have.
Still, if people are deeply concerned by a decision, we hope the 3rd proposal provides a way to raise those points.
Concrete Proposal #2: Make Feedback Threads Created by Non-Staff More Visible on DiscordThis one's easy. If a non-staff member really wants to bring to the forefront an idea or issue that's not addressed in patch notes, they can make their own feedback thread. Anonymous and everything.
Afterward, the thread gets linked somewhere on Discord. Either pinned, made an announcement, or posted in a channel kind of like #group-finder, except for feedback threads instead of open threads. Let us know what you like best. For the third option, i.e. a dedicated channel, note that members can bump their threads, like how people bump open threads in the server.
JustificationIt's late at night and I don't wanna. I'll add a justification if people insist, though.
Concrete Proposal #3: Periodic Meetings with Staff and Non-StaffWhether in voice chat or some other avenue, we envision staff periodically holding small meetings, similar to the one we had that gave rise to this thread. We didn't decide exactly how often, whether it's every month, every three months, etc. We didn't decide which staff members would host them, although I know at least one has volunteered. We also didn't decide how big these meetings are, if there's an attendance cap, a sign-up sheet, first-come first-serve, etc. Give us your thoughts below.
Regardless, these meetings are to help members talk with staff about, well, anything related to TP. Primarily meta topics, like policy, staff structure, community guidelines. Things that don't often appear in patch notes.
These meetings also serve as opportunities for members to discuss past decisions they still don't agree with. Our hope is that these meetings are more of a quick back-and-forth, making it easier for members to get answers to questions and raise complex points without having to write essays.
There's a lot of details to figure out with this one. What if meetings are too big? What if they're too small? What about time zones? How is the agenda set? Who takes notes? Anonymity yes/no?
Oh, speaking of anonymity, an idea just popped into my head. There's a
website that lets you make private, anonymous chat rooms quickly and temporarily. If people prefer it, maybe these discussions can take place there, where you can either use your Discord name or call yourself Anon#420. What do people think?
As a final point, Please remember that everything is an experiment. We can try things for a while and toss them if they don't work, then take what we learn to develop a better system.
Thank you to everyone who spent hours with me figuring out what we wanted to see! I don't wanna name names without people's permission, so lmk if you'd like to be credited, I'm happy to do so!
From,
Chary
Kyou
Perry
Psi
Pug
Yumi
+ People I Will Add Once I Have Their Permission
