Some of you may have noticed the Inkbunny Wiki is down. We're moving it to a new host and it's taking a bit longer to than expected to get the new account set up. We hope it'll be back online some time this weekend.
...FA has let people say far worse, far ruder things on their service without a ban, or, indeed, any action whatsoever, and does so as a matter of course. I am not a fan of their admin behaviour, but for heaven's sake, they're not that draconian as a rule. I highly suspect that any account to the contrary is at best glossing over important details, because I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that they'll throw bans around for mere criticism - on the forum or otherwise, considering the venom they let people get away with there. If anything, they're too passive.
...FA has let people say far worse, far ruder things on their service without a ban, or, indeed, any
With all due respect... I don't think that's good enough, not for these pages. I think this downtime highlights a significant failing in the system as it stands.
The Terms of Service have a static page. The Acceptable Content and Keyword Policies do not. In the meantime - has anyone joined the site while the Wiki's been down? Anyone at all? Because if so, they did so on false terms. I just checked - there is a checkbox on the signup page that indicates that any new member understands and agrees with (and, by strong implication, has read) the InkBunny Philosophy.
The link on that page, like the link in the footer, goes to the Wiki and therefore a 404. The Philosophy cannot be viewed, and any claim to understand and agree with it by someone not already personally familiar with it (not by word of mouth, I'm sure we all know the Telephone Game and how it goes) is spurious.
If any such new members posted content, they're again doing so without having seen the relevant documents. I don't see a specific mention of the ACP on the submission page (arguably a fault in itself), but there is one of the keyword policy, which is just as unavailable.
This should not happen. I think policy documents being also on the Wiki is a good thing - I don't know if e.g. the talk page is used for clarification, but diffs alone make that a good place to have them - but it should be a secondary source, linked from a primary, static page that is accessible anytime the main site is.
I have seen what I'm pretty sure are ACP violations come up over the course of this past week, and while I'd prefer to gently educate and give people a chance to correct before immediately ticketing if the offense isn't egregious... at this point, I can't even check the policies myself (although I'm rather confident the relevant term hasn't changed), never mind try to educate others on it with anything resembling proper certainty. (And that's something I try to do even though the term in question is one I don't personally agree with, not to be a jerk about content I personally don't want to see. Being a jerk is something I try to avoid.)
With the Wiki returning hopefully-soon, it might appear to be a moot point, but I maintain that it is not. The Wiki could become unavailable again at some point in the future, and I think a more robust measure for viewing those critical documents should be in place before it does. If the main site is down, obviously the ACP and KWP are moot - but when a separate site is unreachable, that might not be the case. (Not that it hurts to have them also available on the Wiki when the main site is down, of course.)
With all due respect... I don't think that's good enough, not for these pages. I think this downtime
I agree it is not ideal or acceptable. But I am only one very busy person working as quick as I can on it and this site is a hobby, not my employer. I'm trying to get a static version up in the next few hours but pulling it out of the wiki database when all I have is a database dump file is not easy.
I agree it is not ideal or acceptable. But I am only one very busy person working as quick as I can
