Put Player's Club-like restrictions on Policy Discussion upgraded

[Tearling]

Coders do not provide interesting or relevant discourse to the future health of the server. They are, at best, off topic or misinformed, and at worst, actively harmful to the discussion. The Player's Club intentionally limits posting (but not viewing) only to those who have played recently, of which what is considered "played" is fairly generous (even oranges got in, har har). I don't see any reason to let people who have removed themselves from the game, or worse--headcoders, try to push against administrative changes.

I would exclude coder-admins from these restrictions, as they are more likely to have their finger on the pulse of what is a good/bad change, especially if they're an active admin. I know a handful of admins who don't meet Player's Club restrictions but are still very active administrators, and would not like to see them lose their voice.

I don't mind if the time considered "player" for policy discussion is increased by a lot, I think Player's Club is already fairly generous, but I wouldn't mind.

On an unrelated question, is plagiarism in policy discussion unethical?

[Mothblocks]

If the point of this was a jab at me and the thread I made, I play quite often and was the one responsible for implementing the Player's Club in the first place. Not sure what you meant by this

[dragomagol]

Apparently this is a serious thread, carry on.

[Tearling]

If the point of this was a jab at me and the thread I made, I play quite often and was the one responsible for implementing the Player's Club in the first place. Not sure what you meant by this

It was not. I agree with your initial post, and believed that replacing "banned players" with "coders" would be just as effective.

Apparently this is a serious thread, carry on.

Thank you

[Timberpoes]

Very much disagree.

If maintainers were restricted from policy discussions, then naturally admins would be restricted from code discussions too.

Afterall, admins do not provide interesting or relevant discourse for the future health of the codebase. They are, at best, off topic or misinformed, and at worst, actively harmful to the discussion. Might as well disenfranchise them from the GitHub as well and prevent them contributing their views as well. Don't want to taint the purity of the codebase with the ignorant views of a team containing some 80-odd people who have never contributed a single line of code to the codebase.

Obvious hyperbole aside, I think it's pretty obvious how short-sighted and ultimately how incorrect the above is.

I argue the same is true that maintainers do have interesting and relevant discourse seeing as they are responsible for designing, reviewing and merging features and implementations to the very codebase that the policy discussion is so often founded upon.

Were you aware that the admin and maintainer teams have been cooperating on code and policy for as long as I've been a maintainer? I suspect they have for many years before that too. It is a symbiotic relationship, not parasitic. And the benefits flow both ways.

If you cut out the maintainer team from policy, then the maintainer team has very little real incentive to consider policy when designing and merging changes. The relationship becomes antagonistic instead of symbiotic.

Some policy concerns can be more effectively addressed via code solutions. Some code solutions can be better implemented with support from policy. Both are improved when we all work together.

[RaveRadbury]

I'm not interested in this and I doubt my colleagues are. Alienating the coding team is a great way for everything to become terrible(er).

Gonna dismiss this for incendiary and low-quality