It's been quite a while since my last time here. Even though I was always around on discords I have been inactive on INT for a long, long time.

I'm here to put an end to this. I'm back, and ready to serve.

When I started INT back in the days with Grom, I quickly went out of free time to deal with it. And it has been my regret ever since. Since, I ve also retired from my Administrator role in FR due to the lack of free time. Which was a good thing, since I finally focused back on my writing.

But life moved on, and my new job and new life allow me to have way more free time that I had at the creation of INT or when I left the FR staff.

I ve seen Grom call the other day for new staff members, to resurrect a bit INT. This is my chance to finally do what I didn t have the time to do after its création : develop this international project I dreamed about since the Transatlanteam project in 2015.

As said I m still retired staff in FR for now. I m not replacing our current Primary Contact.

I dont know what you guys need here, but I ll gladly help to get it done. I ll let you put a name on that role whatever it will be.

Enjoy your day !

The Italian wiki already decided to create a parallel testing Mediawiki website as an archive for their articles and the French are working to setup a forum. This thread is an invitation for every interested branch to join this international collaborative project to try and develop all the tools and features SCP would need to work perfectly on Mediawiki. A dedicated Discord server will probably be created soon and shared on the Staff channels but it would be useful to know which branches would be interested in actively contributing before we start anything, so please take all the time you need to discuss it among your respective branches' Staff and let me know in #embassy if you are up for it. Thanks in advance!

Organization:

• Platform: EN and DE used Survio, a highly flexible platform but the free account can take max. 100 answers per month. Someone mentioned Google, but I for myself distrust and try to avoid that company. Maybe a self-hostable software?
• Financiation: We will probably need a pro account of sort
• Should we just let INT users participate, or should this be a survey among all branches?

Questions:
• marks multiple choice, […] marks a text field. Note that while all questions are optional, questions regarding private information have an explicit opt-out option for those who have not read the introduction.

Demographics:

Username
- Prefer not to say
- […]

Age
- Prefer not to say
- […]

Gender
- Prefer not to say
- Male
- Female
- Trans-Female
- Other: […]

Sexual orientation
- Prefer not to say
- Heterosexual
- Homosexual
- Bisexual
- Pansexual
- Asexual
- Other: […]

Educational degree
- (Have to research these further)

Country
- (the most common countries of the branches, each branch is asked to tell us where most of their users come from)

Primary language
- English
- Russian
- Korean
- Chinese
- French
- Polish
- Spanish
- Thai
- Japanese
- German
- Italy
- Ukrainian
- Portuguese
- Other: […]

Secondary language(s)
• English
• Russian
• Korean
• Chinese
• French
• Polish
• Spanish
• Thai
• Japanese
• German
• Italy
• Ukrainian
• Portuguese
• Other: […]

INT-related:

What branch(es) do you visit?
• The International Translation Archive (INT)
• English (EN)
• Russian (RU)
• Korean (KO)
• Chinese (CN)
• French (FR)
• Polish (PL)
• Spanish (ES)
• Thai (TH)
• Japanese (JP)
• German (DE)
• Italy (IT)
• Ukrainian (UA)
• Portuguese (PT-BR)
• An unofficial: […]
• None

What are your activities?
• Reading on the English wiki
• Reading on a branch
• Reading on the Translation Archive
• Writing on the English wiki
• Writing on a branch
• Translating for the Translation Archive
• Translating from English for a branch
• Translating from one branch to another
• Creating artworks
• Creating readings (e.g. on YouTube)
• SCP Roleplaying
• I am Staff of the English branch
• I am Staff of an official branch
• I am Staff of an affiliate or unofficial branch
• I do neither
• I do this: […]

What platforms do you use regarding the SCP Foundation?
• The wikis
• Discord
• IRC
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Youtube
• Reddit
• Tumblr
• DeviantArt
• Other: […]

Feedback:

Wiki-Feedback
Is there something you dislike or would change about the INT-Wiki?
• The appearance/theme/style elements
• The structure of the hubs
• The choice of translated articles
• The quality of the articles (not the translation)
• The quality of the translations (not the article itself)
• The Review Team is too slow
• The Review Team does not meet my quality standards
• The administration
• Specify/other: […]

Chat-Feedback
Is there something you dislike or would change about our Discord chat?
• The platform Discord
• Too lax moderation
• Too strict moderation
• Too many channels
• Too few channels
• Too much offtopic
• I dislike the bot KIRA
• KIRA has too few commands (please specify below)
• KIRA has too many commands
• I have a problem with some users
• Specify/other: […]

Survey-Feedback
Would you change something about this survey, or add or remove questions?
- No
- […]

If you could change one thing about the International Translation Archive, what would that be? (please make it short)
- Nothing
- […]

First of all i do not like the idea of "hard guides for ban lenght", more like "guides how we can do it", suggestions lets say. After all even now we are discussing ban lenghts, so i want to keep it that way. Of course with some sort of guide. In short: EN style.

Agree. As most cases are completely different, it would be a good idea to decide case by case how long the user gets banned, and when they can repeal it. As such, I also think that the possibility to repeal a ban is a good idea. How we can do it though is another question.

But i have no idea sadly how we can make appeals possible: second server will not work (tried), so maybe friend requests?

What did you try, exactly, and how did it fail? Friend requests/PMs may or may not be a good idea, I think we could just try it out and see if it works. In general though, I'd think that having some sort of system where the whole Staff team can look at the repeal would be better.

As Grom stated, permabans should be used carefully. In general, I don't support permabanning a user, but that should be decided case by case. Additionally, I think that Neders proposal is a good idea. Three years are a long time for a teenager, but again, we should decide case by case. In other words, the guideline should be clear on how to handle troublesome people, but still be flexible enough for us to decide individually.

Logging stuff in one place is a good idea. I'd think that the bigger part of the Staff is more active on the Discord and as such we should use that (same thing with voting).

We should be able to ban users based on their actions on other servers. As an example, DE had its share of assholes and raiders. Note the should be able.

Anyway, those are my two cents.

I would change permabanning. The maximum regular ban time shall be 6 month, after that, they are banned for indefinite time. After X months, e.g. 12, they can appeal their ban. We then decide case by case.

Permaban can stay, after all permabans are for trolls and bots mostly. So people that come there for one purpose only: to be trouble and be toxic. As for "troublesome but pretty normal" users we should of course do not ban them permamently, but maybe year? And yes, we need a way to handle appeals. I will try personally to add said users to my friend list to have contact with them, just in case. But i have no idea sadly how we can make appeals possible: second server will not work (tried), so maybe friend requests?

Also we should only log in one place, preferably Discord

We can keep kicks and short bans in Discord, fully agree. But any serious case should be noted here, i think. Lets say second ban of same user or very serious rule breaking.

I do not want any witch hunts. But if one user have ben banned for something in one place, and then they come here and they are NOT a productive, normal member, but decides to shitpost/ troll, they i think we have full right to remove them. We give new users privilage of doubt and we do not know them: this have no existance here.

In short i would want to have our disciplinary rules as simple as possible, but clear and fair at the same time. There are many staff members, not everybody need to vote/ take part in disciplinary actions. That said i would like if every disciplinary action would have agreement from at least 3 other staff members.

Hope my English is not too broken to understand my points and thank you for your time.

However, I would like to see the maximum regular ban penalty to be 3 years. Three years is usually enough time for a person to grow out of a certain phase in life, change environments, and be exposed to new ideas, especially when it comes to teens. One year in the life of a teens brings oodles of change in character, and by the time that three years have elapsed, they will most likely have graduated to high school or uni or real life, and received enough new input to reasonably assume a change in attitude and behaviour.

From what I have observed, this is an issue that we have repeatedly been confronted with since the inception of INT, and many times have proven highly impractical if not outright inappropriate. Potentially, it might also hurt our standing with our fellow branches, and seeing as how we are primarily a neutral meeting grounds for the various branches, that is something we should try our hardest to avoid.

At the same time, I would like to avoid witch hunts, and like to give every user a fair chance. I therefore suggest that with banned or otherwise disciplined offenders from other branches, we skip Step 1 (Demand) and go straight to Step 2 (Warning), either at the first offence on our branch, or as soon as they enter Discord, seeing as how that has essentially become our community hub. This notice is preferably to be delivered by our bot, KIRA. This would save us the red tape of going through proper procedures to kick or ban somebody we know is toxic, as current practice is essentially asking and waiting for trouble to happen.

Furthermore, we as Staff should have the option of blocking users who, due to their offences on other branches, we highly suspect would be harmful to our users. We have had problems with users before messing around with sensitive topics like suicide (when we have people who're extremely sensitive and suggestive to such things) or troll about extreme ideologies only to incite flame wars, which has happened on multiple occasions. Said measure could also be used to block known raiders. Just letting extremely, harmfully toxic people waltz into our branch when we know they've been just as harmful on others is, in mine honest opinion, an extremely stupid thing to do.

Therefore, I reiterate, I request a revision to the following rule: Being offensive outside of the INT wiki or chat. We are not responsible for Wikidots or Discords private messages or the chats of other branches.

I would only permaban bots and users that we can never allow on our server, like pedophiles, and without ability to appeal.

To make it easier to determine what is what, I would call the first one "indefinite ban".

Also we should only log in one place, preferably Discord

What do you want to keep, what would you change, what would you add?

(Plus, what if EN-voters mostly dislike an OK translation?): they will just delete it like every other article

In this assumption, voting was to be done on the Internation Archives, not on the English Wiki (as articles would be linked), that is my concern.

You have my full support, lets do this.