Should the room name be dropped from the burnination posts?

[Bhargav-Rao]

Now that there is a specific burnination related chat room, do we still need to keep the "contact SOCVR" in the burnination template, or do we delegate it to that room?

Are we even being affected by it? Have there been any users who have visited our room asking for advice/criticized our actions due to the room name being there?

[codygray]

Why do we need to have a separate burnination room? Without knowing the context that some of you others might have, I'd instinctively prefer to run the burninations out of SOCVR, providing support and assisting with closure when appropriate. SOCVR is where most of the knowledgeable regulars hang out, including moderators, and I think the support that is offered is going to be of higher quality and there will be more visibility into the actions. Many of us (e.g., me, Bhargav, etc.) read the SOCVR transcript with some regularity. I'm reluctant to add another chat room whose transcript I need to read.

[machavity]

@codygray Trogdor was rolled up at Jon Clement's prodding. The problem we had (and still have to some extent) is that organizing the myriad of requests on Meta was an overwhelming prospect for any one person. But this "meta-organization" wasn't really appropriate to SOCVR directly (not all regulars are versed well enough in burninates to look at a burninate request and determining the quality of the request). What we ultimately did was make a Google doc for it. At the bare minimum it succeeded in getting some tagging on Meta fixed so completed requests could be marked as such.

This request for using Trogdor is, as of this writing, moot because nobody really uses it anymore since Monicagate.

[Tyler-H]

@machavity Not so much "since Monicagate" as much as "since Bhargav stopped participating in/driving participation for SOCVR/Meta burninations". If a moderator is able to drum activity back up surrounding Meta burninations (and I know Bhargav has been more active since the recent moderator election, including handling/poking some burnination Meta Qs), the Trogdor room will become more active again.

@codygray Regarding the need for a separate room, it's a different procedure because it involves a host of actions like cleaning up questions, retagging, etc. that as Machavity mentions makes it difficult to sort one activity from another when both are in full swing. Having a separate room lets the conversation (and the bots) focus on one activity: burnination, in all it entails, or SOCVR activity, in all it entails (as Mach also points out, not everyone wants to do one or other).

Historically, most of the SOCVR ROs helped manage/lead the Trogdor room efforts as well due to that overlap. If necessary, we could consider Trogdor another "subroom" of SOCVR, like the Requests Graveyard or /dev/null are.

[codygray]

@machavity writes:

The problem we had (and still have to some extent) is that organizing the myriad of requests on Meta was an overwhelming prospect for any one person. But this "meta-organization" wasn't really appropriate to SOCVR directly (not all regulars are versed well enough in burninates to look at a burninate request and determining the quality of the request).

Ah, yes. I agree with that. I didn't realize we were talking about burninations still in the proposed phase. That is completely different. I was thinking only about ongoing, officially-sanctioned burninations, the ones that had a moderator had put through the defined process. I think it's reasonable to have that discussion/organization occur in SOCVR. I wouldn't want to overwhelm the room with other discussions about burninations, though. Those tend to be really noisy, contentious, and ultimately draining.

@Tyler-H writes:

Regarding the need for a separate room, it's a different procedure because it involves a host of actions like cleaning up questions, retagging, etc. that as Machavity mentions makes it difficult to sort one activity from another when both are in full swing.

I would find this more convincing if SOCVR narrowly focused on closure, but it doesn't. There are officially sanctioned delete-pls, flag-pls, review-pls, and other types of requests.

Historically, most of the SOCVR ROs helped manage/lead the Trogdor room efforts as well due to that overlap. If necessary, we could consider Trogdor another "subroom" of SOCVR, like the Requests Graveyard or /dev/null are.

This would make sense to me, I think. I'd still kind of prefer that it be centralized in one place, but that may be too much to ask.