My opinion is a suggestion, making it summarized will not always make it better once you get the whole meaning of the simple words I use:
On this site, if you reply to it, you are already in charge while others aren't, so the whole wiki feels like it has no clear point of view. The best example is BlueSignet's and
BlueSkiesAbove's points of views based on which I think about the possible suggestions of improving the site: [*user BlueSkiesAbove]] writes about levels based on simple ideas of other ideas, but
BlueSignet has already written about the possible improvements, but while giving critique to
BlueSkiesAbove's,
BlueSignet says that the page doesn't meet their standarts but doesn't focus on the improvements, which gets [*user BlueSkiesAbove]] confused, and the whole conversation loses its meaning, because when you ask a person once, they reply nicely, but once you see the same person lots of times, you kind of know that the conversation will get negative anyways, if both people don't accept that they're right and wrong in their own way, the only way to solve such problems is either to treat other people positively, so that they know what you actually think, or just lie to them to get a "small victory", until it's too late.
So, the whole point is that some people try to be active in improving the site and some don't. The active people try to use the Forum to improve the site, but I can count all the active members of the Forum who reply, and by using the Forum you see only a few opinions. And by "making it simple", they actually send people to other possible sites or apps (right now it's discord), just to get annoyed there, and then leave people posting their "bad" pages, just to delete them anyways. And the best pages of the week are also made by the staff which is weird, because the new members of the site can't understand this dynamics with which the staff tries to give critique to the new members of the site, leading to them either leaving the site, or trying to make some progress.
So, it might look like I'm just trying to critique the critics, but I want to improve the site as a whole, and to achieve that, maybe we just need to accept other people's critique and try to get better, instead of focusing on copying a more successful wiki like the "SCP Foundation". Maybe instead of waiting for a successful opinion, it's better to either give the new people more freedom, or take it away. Well, it's a mess of thoughts, with all people judging others, rather than judging themselves?
And yes, I try to be as clear as possible, but it only leads to even more misunderstandings. Trying to be like others instead of giving new ideas doesn't improve the whole site, because the staff has no limits and there are about 15 people (back then even more) who control 1000+ people for some reason. If only people who try hard can write their own things which average people like, ignoring other administrators' judgements, because giving critique to yourself is too difficult, what's even the point to use the discord if you can use the Forum on something you already own.
Hope you understand my thoughts, because I don't want to lie or to stay silent about the wikidot getting more and more like the Fandom. Best wishes, even if it means that I might get banned.
I do apologize, but your concerns and suggestions are hard to read because of how it's organized. May I suggest using more paragraph breaks to help with readability next time?
Going off your first concern, it seems you are concerned about how BlueSkies and I talked over her level. Due to my personal feelings on the matter, I cannot say I am unbiased towards that conversation and will respectfully decline to comment.
To your second concern about critique on the forums vs the Discord, I will say that our Discord is more active than the forums and has the greater conversation about what makes a good page more often than the forums, which is why we direct people to the Discord. We can't exactly force people to use the forums, and our community has naturally gravitated to Discord as the place to chat and get critique.
I believe your third concern is that there is a disconnect between new members and staff about what makes a good page. That is true, but there's not much staff can do about it. There are lots of different interpretations of the Backrooms, and while we encourage new members to read new pages to see what stays, people don't and come in with preconceived notions of what a level is and what they think we want. This is an unfortunate conflict I don't think we'll ever solve, and it will cause some hurt feelings and confusion. While I would love for everyone to stay, they are their own person, so if they don't like how we run the site or what stays, they are welcome to go elsewhere.
Oh this site has definitely copied the SCP Foundation and that's because they're really the only example to look to sometimes. But we are making our own space and have a plan. Please check out our Site Direction link on our Staff Site to see what our plans are.
One way we've moved away from the Foundation is that all members must get three critiques to get their page on the wiki. We do this because our membership runs younger, and teens tend to NOT listen to advice and also tend to rush things. So far, this system is working, getting old and new authors onto the wiki while also keeping a certain standard of quality of writing.
Our site is community curated, and while staff can and do have opinions on pages, their opinions do not make or break a page. It requires at least 3 other people to downvote a page for a page to be deleted.
I do hope I answered most of your concerns. We appreciate your feedback. Don't worry about being banned. We do not ban people for being critical of staff unless you are being abusive. You were quite polite. :)
So, basically you didn't understand what I was trying to say, because it was based on your own thoughts you couldn't understand from another angle and couldn't support, because it wasn't a simple page with a clear understanding, which you usually hate. (And yes, the English is my 3rd language, so I need grammar fixes before checking an actual page, because I don't really do that when I chat with you directly).
So, to try to make something clever, you don't need to think about your own principles, but about others' to see the mistakes and to fix them in your own way, but the concepts just waits for you to realise it, based on unoriginal thoughts.
The "simple" replies in the start of our conversations were necessary to understand not the words you use, but the way you think.
To make a page more understandable, I first need a clear reaction from both you and BlueSkiesAbove, which made me understand that you're both incorrect, but it's pretty hard to process it, because you don't know exactly another person is thinking about you when you reveal that information, but it sorts of "getting the same information but not expanding on it until the writer understands you".
So I thought that this wasn't getting me anywhere for a moment, before I realised that the "perfect" answer doesn't always exist. The whole wiki is based on misunderstandings of the original concept, which wants you to expand on it, but it doesn't tell you it directly until you realise it yourself.
And so, now I can improve the pages I've already made and change the setting to a more liminal one, with the page getting more and more clear as it keeps going, until it's completely revealed.
So, the liminality is the wish to be better than others in thinking on how other people work, but falling in this conception, because there is no right answer, if the reader doesn't understand the exact topic. By asking you politely to delete my account, you won't really delete it from the page, because it would prove that you're wrong in a way.
And now that I think about it, it kind of wants me to stop (I love reading both yours and [[BlueSkiesAbove]]'s replies, because it feels like you actually want to help, but you don't know how, and the whole concept is pretty broken. You didn't get the way I thought, because sometimes I was mentioning your own ideas and others' ideas undirectly.. So I make everything more complex to expand on a level and make two, or maybe three characters who make mistakes, but learn from them by interacting with each other. And judging my opinion for minutes is incorrect, because I can judge yours for hours.
(Nased on your own answers to make a page more and less understandable to the reader, but more complex. And now I edited the message just for a grammar fix so that you'd get my opinion) :7
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Oh, well, here we go again…
So I've been analyzing your responses before you were analyzing mine, if that's the simple and the right thing you want to get from me. It's kind of a like the programming thing works, but I will let you think about it yourself.
Ah, no, I meant to say I can't understand you because of the language barrier. Some of your statements seem contradictory and I'm just confused at to what your point is. I do apologize.