21

As moderator election are coming to an end, I would like to invite members of the community to take some time to review all the policies we've made in the past and see if they are still relevant, but need revision, and see which need be deprecated or better clarification.

This is intent to take action on some of the more discussed topics from this election, as well as open for discussion previous. This way, the elected moderators will have a chance to review and make any necessary changes to improve over user satisfaction and experience.

Please considering use the following template for your replies:

Policy: (and what it needs) (e.g., , , , , , etc.)

{{Brief description and link to relevant meta (if applicable). If two or more policies are contradictory to one another, post links to all of them where applicable.}}

Reason:

{{What needs to be brought to attention}}

Remarks:

{{Optional, any personal remarks or suggestions on said policy}}

After sufficient review, analysis, and discussion, a meta with compendium of our site policies with their last review date will be create for easy browsing and reference to these policies.

Clarification: The intent of this meta is to collect problems areas our site, particularly with it's policies, so that we can build proper queuing system to address these problems one by one, instead of dividing our attention across multiple issues. This way, we give the users a transparency and clarify behind the state of policy making for the community.

The end-product is intended to be a general how to use guide (probably will be hosted on Trello) for Anime.SE detailing our current policies, those that we're working on, and known problems we looking to address.

  • 1
    Should we use this question to index all policies (even those without need of revision), or should it belongs in a different meta post? – nhahtdh Aug 24 '15 at 6:04
  • This is a meta to collect feedback. Consolidation is for another meta afterwards. – кяαzєя Aug 24 '15 at 16:18
  • It might be better to collate our current policies first as it's hard to get a full picture by skimming through many meta posts, and it'll be easier to pinpoint adjustments then too – Toshinou Kyouko Aug 24 '15 at 18:39
  • Instead of going through them all I'd prefer to address the more problematic ones first and deal with them pragmatically before moving onto the other. – кяαzєя Aug 24 '15 at 20:53
11

Policy: Future Unannounced Events

Our current policy is closure for Unannounced Future Events.

Reason:

There are conflicting metas on what exactly Unannounced Future Events means.

The original Meta post :

"What is to happen in the future" is something that should be kept off-topic.

2013 FAQ Proposal

Questions on future events with regard to the production of an anime or manga are off-topic

The 2014 Meta Post

I suggest, much like @GraceNote's post on What do we do with questions about future events/releases? back in '12, that we leave future events to new sources such as ANN or Crunchyroll.

I can't find anywhere where we actually define that future announced events are on topic. It seems to be in some fuzzy space between 2013 and 2014, and the title of the 2014 post stuck.

This leads to some confusion when closing posts - "When will X happen?" is only on topic if someone can find a news post about it? I think our policy should be that any future events should be off-topic.

Remarks:

I brought this up before in a previous meta, but it's still unchanged and has caused confusion with close votes a few times.

  • Why do you think our policy should be that questions about all future events should be off-topic, aside from it causing confusion about close votes? – senshin Aug 26 '15 at 18:12
  • 3
    @senshin rather - why should announced ones be on topic? These are a news sources field, not ours - and these questions go out-of-date and also - who can say for sure it hasn't been announced, but in an offline capacity? – Toshinou Kyouko Aug 26 '15 at 19:03
  • @senshin also by their very nature - future events are uncertain – Toshinou Kyouko Aug 26 '15 at 19:06
  • Many classes of questions can become out of date. For example, "Why did X do Y?" in any manga. At the point the question is asked, the answer might be "A", but then ten chapters later, we find out that the answer was actually "B", and twenty chapters later, it turns out the real reason was "C". – senshin Aug 26 '15 at 20:14
  • "These are a news sources field" is both true and irrelevant. I do not think that "news", as we typically encounter it, is so fundamentally unlike the rest of the questions we get as to warrant removing it altogether. – senshin Aug 26 '15 at 20:18
  • 3
    I agree that nobody can say for sure that a given thing hasn't been announced in an offline capacity, and that this is a significant issue with trying to discriminate between announced and unannounced events. My preferred approach would instead to be to let all non-egregious questions about out-of-universe events remain open for a suitable period of time (a month, say), and then closing them if by that point nobody has produced evidence that the thing in question has been announced. – senshin Aug 26 '15 at 20:21
  • I think this kind of questions can still be on-topic, if there's at least strong evidence to backup them. Let's say, if I ask "When will Natsume Yuujinchou season 5 come?", it's obviously off-topic since there's no official announcement if they will continue the series. Next, if I ask "What is the release date of Shingeki no Kyojin season 2", if at that time there's only rumor about the date, then it's off-topic. However, when there's an official announcement that clearly mentions the date, then it becomes on-topic. .. (cont'd) – Aki Tanaka Aug 27 '15 at 8:11
  • 3
    However, I think that a disclaimer is important when answering such question, since as you have already mention, future events are unpredictable (such as Kizumonogatari movie) – Aki Tanaka Aug 27 '15 at 8:13
11

Explicit and Borderline Content:

We've had a lot of run-in media on the site that would be considered either explicit or borderline (even though they are hidden behind a spoiler and/or have a NSFW warning). It's sometimes hard to tell if the piece of media is explicit or not. A set of guidelines and set procedures would probably help streamline things.

Reason:

Due to individual circumstances we're can't all agree on what's lewd and not. In the fine art, there's a (fine) line between art and pornography. Our personal upbringings shape how we think about these things. We need to find some point where we can agree on at least.

  • 5
    Can we take ID requests out of the picture for the purposes of this post? There is obviously no way to determine (a priori) whether an ID request will generate explicit content. This discussion will go significantly better if we focus on drawing a line for non-ID content. – senshin Aug 26 '15 at 18:16
  • @Senshin Okay. I removed that bit. – кяαzєя Aug 26 '15 at 18:18
  • 1
    One point I think needs some clarification--are we talking about guidelines for the discussion of works which contain sexual material, regardless of whether such material appears in the actual post, or are we talking about guidelines for material which actually appears in the post? I've not seen this distinction made much in previous metas on this topic. I think the two cases call for different approaches, and that we can afford to be more lenient in the former case. – Torisuda Aug 28 '15 at 19:21
10

Policy: ID Requests for image

Reason:

As mentioned on chat a few times, image id-requests are hard to "provide more information for" if all the user has is a single image.

Is the requirement an image + 2 items?

an image + 1 item (making 2 items)?

Remarks:

As part of this I'd like to review our approach to closing image id-requests as per Should we be closing image-only id requests differently? - meaning we would have greater coverage of one rule - and few duplicates

Also: Does a gif count as one image? What if someone takes frames from the gif, or has several images but no external info?

8

Where do we draw the line with derivative and loosely anime/manga/novel related content

We've need a clearer stance on how to handle derivative content beyond AMV and doujinshi (i.e. what would be considered off topic) and very loosely related content such as Vocaloids and games (w/o a direct anime/manga/novel tie-in). While we've talked about AMVs and especially doujinshi, we haven't talked about other derivative works such as remixes or identification request for dervative content such as a gameplay video with some sort of Jpop-like lyric.

For now we support (please add if you feel that any are missing):

  • Vocaloid (to what extent is unclear)
  • Plot-related to 2d/3d games (those that are "anime-styled" at least; however, there is no specific criteria)
  • Original anime/manga style self-made/publish works (i.e. Doujinshi)
  • Live-action series based off anime/manga/novels (we don't get many aside from plot comparisons atm)

Some examples of derivative content can be:

  • A non-anime/manga gameplay video with some Jpop-esque music in the background
  • A random anime-like image on a video music playlist
  • A game or character skin with anime/manga-esque character or design

Reason:

It's a given that much of these issues involve fringe cases. but having a blanket policy to address them can save time and effort. We can still address any unique cases when they come up, but a there should at least be a more streamline way to handle questions for these types of media.

Remarks:

I believe that by putting a little effort here, we avoid doing more work later on. As much as we'd like to address everything and anything related to anime/manga/novels, not everything that is a good fit. We should start looking at where to draw the line sooner rather than later.

  • 2
    I don't think it's possible to streamline our handling of these issues, since the problem domain itself is not "streamlined", so to speak. If we don't opt to set a firm cutoff at "only questions about anime or manga" (which I don't think anybody wants to do), I don't see how we can go about this other than on a case-by-case basis. – senshin Aug 26 '15 at 18:22
  • 1
    @senshin We can at least give it a try. If we fail we fail, we'll at least learn something from it. For an example, one way of handling the a music req is to make sure the OP ties it back for something related to the subculture. If as sure can offer sufficient proof that the song they are trying to find is indeed someone's remix or revocal of a vocaloid song, then it's fine. Otherwise it would be off topic because it can be any ol' jpop mix. In other words, we try to makes sure that the OP understands that if they can't demonstrate that this work is related to the subculture, it's not on-topic – кяαzєя Aug 26 '15 at 18:29
  • I don't think this is a priority, but it'll be good for the future – Toshinou Kyouko Aug 26 '15 at 19:45
8

Policy: Definition of an identification-request?

Reason:

Several users have brought up the issue of the identification-request tag being inconsistently applied. When do should it be applied?

Some possible answers:

  • Whenever something is being searched for (Very Broad)
  • Whenever a series is being searched for (through some information/media)
  • When a series title or is not known (e.g. character, music)

    Remarks:

See also: Creating a tag specifically about identifying music

5

Policy: Duplicate closures on identification requests

When do we close id-requests as duplicates, and when do we not?

Reason:

This is something that doesn't really come up, but going through a few old ID requests, I'm unsure of whether I should be closing id-requests that have the same series outcome

Remarks:

Should it always be dupe-closed? Or perhaps only when the question is looking via the same features (e.g. both describing the main character) as opposed to different ones (e.g. This anime has a cat with a moon symbol vs I think they referred to themselves as senshi or love warriors)

This is probably the lowest priority of the any items posted here

3

Make site policies easier to read (Our words are too complicated. Let's make them simpler.)

From time to time we get frustrated when users don't read the rules and post thing however they like. But should we really be blaming these people and just put out some blanket policy without attempting to see the bigger picture?

Not all fans of anime and manga speak English well. Despite being a primarily English language site, we're not always accommodating to ESL user. I believe that our site policies could use a once over to be more accommodate the reading level of these users. We should establish some simple criteria such as what the recommended reading level for the site to be and having a place where users can get a brief summary on our site policies in simple English.

Reason:

Let's say you're someone from a non-English speaking country that just got into anime or manga, and you want to know more about the world of anime and manga. You find this site and realize that it's in English, you've had some exposure to it from school, but you haven't used it much. It's hard to grasp because the structure is different from your native language. You try your best but your question is not well received. You try to find out why, but your English is not good enough... so you just give up.

Some of our policies are a bit wordy (I myself am to blame for some of it). Having to read through them can be a bit of a hassle to younger users and a bit of a struggle to ESL users. We should try to find ways to provide more simple explanations to these users. Hopely this will get them to better understand how our site works and how to go about using it. We should try to simplify our policies and by doing so hopefully it will make the site more accommodating to new users.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2564/lets-take-a-look-back-at-our-site-policies-2015-edition?noredirect=1
anime.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-04
207778
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:63VAT3P4LEONYJRQE2YM6LJFOHTLLH3A
<urn:uuid:3d8d0eec-d770-4f16-9428-fd15a1307af3>
2021-01-26T19:10:57Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:LFGPSGYUXQUUORJTLBQAJLD3SJHYTNKS
<urn:uuid:04523ac4-fd8c-4b31-9b59-4d4b0fefafcc>
https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2564/lets-take-a-look-back-at-our-site-policies-2015-edition?noredirect=1
response
<urn:uuid:65026e54-6442-48e8-9f25-a192477b47da>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-04
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-250.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/