Verse Expert Proposition

[Arnoldstone18]

...Exactly?

I'm saying we shouldn't encourage that, by giving people a badge that says "Blindly agree with me without reading my arguments :3".

”blindly agree with me without reading my arguments” is not what I meant. If there are counter arguments or concerns staff should know about a subject they have no idea on, the expert will be asked to address those. The staff can now see arguments from the expert and the OP then approve or deny a thread going through.

 

[Agnaa]

”blindly agree with me without reading my arguments” is not what I meant. If there are counter arguments or concerns staff should know about a subject, the expert will be asked to address those. The staff can now see arguments from the expert and the OP then approve or deny a thread going through.

That already happens. We don't need new systems to let non-staff give counter-arguments.

 

[Phoenks]

This already exist, it's just an unspoken status people have.

If someone is an expert in a verse, then blue names and staff will already trust their opinions on a verse.

You don't need to have it officially recognized for it to be worth anything.

In the case that a verse only has a few supporters and maybe no staff supporters, It's not hard to just ask staff to review threads if you give solid enough reasoning on revisions for a specific verse. If you're truly an expert, it will show itself.

Adding a bunch of rules and limitations to being a "expert" is something I won't agree with personally.

 

[Reiner04]

Blindly agree with me without reading my arguments :3

FRA agree with Agnaa.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Double-checking since there's two proposals in this thread; you do know that I was talking about Arnold's proposal, right?

This is calling for "verse experts" to exist so that staff can skip looking at the actual arguments.

It's calling for blind agreement. That's a fundamental issue of the proposal.

Verse experts would still have to clearly propose with scans and everything instead of saying "oh this is the case because I said it is". If a staff would blindly agree because they are an expert that would raise to question about their qualification as a staff.

 

[Agnaa]

Verse experts would still have to clearly propose with scans and everything instead of saying "oh this is the case because I said it is". If a staff would blindly agree because they are an expert that would raise to question about their qualification as a staff.

Well, as I said, non-staff commenting on staff-only threads is already a thing that exists. We don't need a new position for it.

 

[Ped2018]

Blindly agree with me without reading my arguments :3

UwU

 

[Arnoldstone18]

That already happens. We don't need new systems to let non-staff give counter-arguments.

That only happens in popular verses such as @Arc7Kuroi for bleach or something. There are too many verses that don’t have those.

 

[Agnaa]

That only happens in popular verses such as @Arc7Kuroi for bleach or something. There are too many verses that don’t have those.

If you ask a staff member for permission to comment in a staff-only thread, and get rejected when you think you should've gotten it, you can call me in to mediate.

Since that is absolutely not something that only happens for popular verses. I see it all over. The most likely explanations would be that you're encountering staff members that obstinately refuse to give it for no reason (in which case, they should be reported to HR), or you think unproductive posts are actually productive.

 

[DaReaperMan]

the case that a verse only has a few supporters and maybe no staff supporters, It's not hard to just ask staff to review threads if you give solid enough reasoning on revisions for a specific verse. If you're truly an expert, it will show itself.

Adding a bunch of rules and limitations to being a "expert" is something I won't agree with personally.

You're hilarious Phoenks, I for one would like it if threads for generally unpopular verses on the wiki like StarCraft and WarCraft got more then 1 staff at most to try and review it!

sigh

 

[Arnoldstone18]

If you ask a staff member for permission to comment in a staff-only thread, and get rejected when you think you should've gotten it, you can call me in to mediate.

Since that is absolutely not something that only happens for popular verses. I see it all over. The most likely explanations would be that you're encountering staff members that obstinately refuse to give it for no reason (in which case, they should be reported to HR), or you think unproductive posts are actually productive.

Why are we focused on staff threads and not content revisions? I have been talking about content revisions all along.

 

[Phoenks]

You're hilarious Phoenks, I for one would like it if threads for generally unpopular verses on the wiki like StarCraft and WarCraft got more then 1 staff at most to try and review it!

sigh

Go through the list and ask all the staff members on their wall if you have too. It's their job to look at and review these things so there's no problem with that.

Or even ask staff members to @ some staff members on the thread.

Tell them that your specific verse doesn't have many supporters and you'd appreciate it if they could take the time.

Communication is key.

 

[Agnaa]

Why are we focused on staff threads and not content revisions? I have been talking about content revisions all along.

If a staff member is preventing all non-staff from commenting on content revision threads, that aren't in the staff discussion forum, that aren't concluded, and where you haven't done anything wrong, contact me immediately, since that should never happen.

 

[Reiner04]

Verse experts are chosen by other supporters of the verse they are nominated by (eg; A Naruto verse expert will be chosen by Naruto supporters).
-After an expert is chosen, a thread will be created where staff evaluate if their knowledge and contributions are significant enough to be given the position.
-A verse expert cannot nominate themselves.
-Staff members cannot be verse experts (it'd be pretty redundant lol)
-There can only be up to two verse experts per verse (maybe this would require renaming the position to avoid confusion?).

This all seems pretty reductant tbh, I don't see any advantage of it.

Verse experts may act as staff support in minor content revisions (such as small changes to the stamina or intelligence sections of a character, or ability additions to a single character). However, verse expert input alone is not sufficient to apply such threads.

Don't we already have rule stating one is enough in such cases?

For minor revisions and self-evident revisions, it is sufficient to seek the approval of one staff member with evaluation rights.

Knowledgeable members can just ask as usual to comment in staff only threads.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Well, as I said, non-staff commenting on staff-only threads is already a thing that exists. We don't need a new position for it.

Was them having staff thread rights even in the OP? Because I don't see why they should. Literally just restricted to their own verse helping with content revisions within it.

Also is there a better way to handle smaller verses as well? Because for a lack of better words this wiki is quite shit at handling them. CRTs can go on for months without staff replies due to obscurity of a verse and I know this from first hand experience going to walls of 10+ staff to get no replies. Although staff input would be still required only needing 1 for said verses (that aren't tier 1/2 revisions) would be much more practical.

 

[KLOL506]

Can you link the page on the wiki

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list of the members in this wiki who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding relevant verses for this wiki that do not have any associated verse pages yet, although only ones that have individual character pages here. Members who consider themselves as...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I’m not sure you understand my proposal anymore @Agnaa. I’m not saying they should have staff thread rights or something.

I’m suggesting the following:

If someone is an expert in a verse, then blue names and staff will already trust their opinions on a verse.

but instead these experts should be given a badge to be made known that they’re experts.

 

[Phoenks]

I’m not sure you understand my proposal anymore @Agnaa

I’m suggesting the following:




but instead these experts should be given a badge to be made known that they’re experts.

Why?

Again, if you're an expert, it will show itself. And people will already know this.

You don't need a badge for people to acknowledge that you know something, if you demonstrate that you know that something.

What, do you also think people won't think you're smart unless you have a badge that says "I am smart"?

This is silly.

 

[Agnaa]

Was them having staff thread rights even in the OP? Because I don't see why they should. Literally just restricted to their own verse helping with content revisions within it.

As I already clarified, this chain of conversation isn't responding to the OP, it's responding to Arnoldstone's suggestion. Not what the OP suggested.

Also is there a better way to handle smaller verses as well? Because for a lack of better words this wiki is quite shit at handling them. CRTs can go on for months without staff replies due to obscurity of a verse and I know this from first hand experience going to walls of 10+ staff to get no replies. Although staff input would be still required only needing 1 for said verses (that aren't tier 1/2 revisions) would be much more practical.

No.

I’m not sure you understand my proposal anymore @Agnaa. I’m not saying they should have staff thread rights or something.

I’m suggesting the following:

but instead these experts should be given a badge to be made known that they’re experts.

They shouldn't have any additional thread rights.

Staff shouldn't listen to them blindly.

Staff should read their arguments and listen to them.

Right?

That should already happen. Staff aren't meant to ignore people's arguments in CRTs. This suggestion adds literally nothing besides extra busywork.

 

[Vietthai96]

sound good on paper, however, the problem is, how we can exactly measure what so called "expert" on a verse, people can lie about this. And again in the end, expert or not, in order for your words to be trusted, you need to build your worth up, a long period, no different from trying to become a staff, half the time, both normal users and staffs alike trust the words of a non-experts more than expert because those non-experts are more trust worthy. So......eh...with all due respect, i think this kinda just.....eh..............redundant, people have been doing this for long time now

 

[Arnoldstone18]

They shouldn't have any additional thread rights.

Staff shouldn't listen to them blindly.

Staff should read their arguments and listen to them.

Right?

That should already happen. Staff aren't meant to ignore people's arguments in CRTs. This suggestion adds literally nothing besides extra busywork.

Yes, I didn’t request that staff should listen to the verse experts blindly and that they should have additional thread rights. No I didn’t imply people’s argument should be ignored.

I requested there should just have an indication that they are far more knowledgeable on a verse, the tiering system and our standards than the average supporter. Therefore their opinions and the OP of a thread are all considered more by staff members.

I understand that this can happen naturally for bigger verses. However this site deals with far more verses than just Naruto, Dragonball and One piece.

But if you still disagree, no problem. Thanks for hearing me out.

 

[Spinoirr]

Honestly feel like this should only apply to verses with less then 3 mods on the verse supporters page tbh

That way those verses will be covered for CRT's

 

[KLOL506]

Honestly feel like this should only apply to verses with less then 3 mods on the verse supporters page tbh

That way those verses will be covered for CRT's

Honestly this shouldn't be applied to anything at all, it's just a terrible idea in general.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

My thoughts on this are pretty similar to Agnaa's, so I gotta disagree.

As someone who's been a bluename far longer than I've been a staff member, I can attest to how frustrating it can occasionally be when our voices and arguments aren't heard; or worse, if they're completely sidestepped because a staff who we perceive to be (or who actually is) far less knowledgeable than we are simply said so.
At the same time, I can also attest to the fact that when you're genuinely knowledgeable about a verse, you will build a reputation and become recognized. For example, my opinion was considered and respected on Naruto threads long before I got promoted. Furthermore, it is precisely that respect and recognition that got me promoted in the first place.
I don't actively revise any verse atm besides Naruto (not because I don't want to, there's just so much to do there before I can move on), yet my knowledge and sense of judgment was deemed good enough for me to be promoted. So yeah, I personally just don't see what this proposal offers that the current system does not. If you're a recognized and respected knowledgeable member, your voice will definitely be heard, and I can attest to that from experience. Hell, if you're that guy already, it's very likely that you'll at least be considered for a staff position anyway.

 

[KLOL506]

My thoughts on this are pretty similar to Agnaa's, so I gotta disagree.

As someone who's been a bluename far longer than I've been a staff member, I can attest to how frustrating it can occasionally be when our voices and arguments aren't heard; or worse, if they're completely sidestepped because a staff who we perceive (or who actually is) far less knowledgeable than we are simply said so.
At the same time, I can also attest to the fact that when you're genuinely knowledgeable about a verse, you will build a reputation and become recognized. For example, my opinion was considered and respected on Naruto threads long before I got promoted. Furthermore, it is precisely that respect and recognition that got me promoted in the first place.
I don't actively revise any verse atm besides Naruto (not because I don't want to, there's just so much to do there before I can move on), yet my knowledge and sense of judgment was deemed good enough for me to be promoted. So yeah, I personally just don't see what this proposal offers that the current system does not. If you're a recognized and respected knowledgeable member, your voice will definitely be heard, and I can attest to that from experience. Hell, if you're that guy already, it's very likely that you'll at least be considered for a staff position anyway.

Evaluate more GoW threads, stinky

 

[ImmortalDread]

Guess I ain't a verse expert anymore LOL, nor can my homies who taught me to be one (Some of whom are also staff and are far more knowledgeable than I am) be eligible anymore.

Nah, I disagree with this. This seems far too restricting for my taste. In the name of power you just took it away even more.

Some of the evaluation methods also look whack. Really whack.

You just disagree because you ain't getting expert status fam.

Admit the jealousy

 

[Ped2018]

You just disagree because you ain't getting expert status fam.

Admit the jealousy

You're gonna be the expert in what verse dread

 

[KLOL506]

You just disagree because you ain't getting expert status fam.

Admit the jealousy

I always look out for my homies over myself. Do you?

 

[KLOL506]

I always look out for my homies over myself. Do you?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Real we ain't (let's stop derailing)

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I agree with KLOL, Agnaa and Phoenks. This is literally just gatekeeping.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Staff, in a void, listen to existing voices discussing a verse and make rulings from there. Interpretations are drawn from raw data given in a CRT. It's not as though non-staff have never turned an argument around- people pat themselves on the back about it for months afterwards, in fact.

This is very goofy. Count me against.

 

[Ruphas_Mafahl123]

Really? You don't know why making literally everyone here staff is a bad idea?

It's not about making "everyone" Staff, is about making an small and selected group of people have their vote weight increased....

 

[KLOL506]

It's not about making "everyone" Staff, is about making an small and selected group of people have their vote weight increased....

That's literally no different than making them staff, or did ya read nothing about what Bambu and Agnaa wrote?

Why keep this pseudo-ness in the first place?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Ironic enough, this thread need staff members to be passed tho, goes against mere notion of the thread's request

(KLOL is fighting for GoW's expert status to death)​

 

[Ruphas_Mafahl123]

That's literally no different than making them staff, or did ya read nothing about what Bambu and Agnaa wrote?

Why keep this pseudo-ness in the first place?

Yes I did read it. But still, just saying, this is no different than regular Staff members who have their own biases lol....just that some of these guys don't express their thoughts openly but rather mask them as "counter-arguments".... or are we forgetting people like Matthew Scrhoeder?

 

[ImmortalDread]

or are we forgetting people like Matthew Scrhoeder?

Let's forget him, he is demoted anyway

 

[Ruphas_Mafahl123]

Let's forget him, he is demoted anyway

I know, it was just an example.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It's not about making "everyone" Staff, is about making an small and selected group of people have their vote weight increased....

We already do that, it's me, hi.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Staff, in a void, listen to existing voices discussing a verse and make rulings from there. Interpretations are drawn from raw data given in a CRT. It's not as though non-staff have never turned an argument around- people pat themselves on the back about it for months afterwards, in fact.

This is very goofy. Count me against.

Btw, how can they listen to existing voices if they are in void? Because even though they couldn't hear any voices, they mastered the art of pretending to listen in the silence!

(For educational intents, this is intended as a harmless joke and is not meant to cause offense to any member, whether they are a staff member or not.)