What clarification is needed? He listed them based on what they said. OP clearly listed @Qawsedf234 as disagreeing with 1-A since he specifically stated his disagreement. OP is only obligated to list votes according to what the staff says. I don’t see why he would add Plancks in disagreement with 1-A when he never said he disagreed.
Which is why I said that he should clarify it for once to avoid reports. So that you have verbatim comments to back up your vote for agree/disagree. Just to be on a safer side.
Is 3 (Agree)/1(Disagree) + 1 (Agree with 1-B and agree with event is an anti-feat for 1-A)? So he need more staffs
@Qawsedf234 say disagree with it so 3/1
Either answer this, or drop it. I don't wanna spam the RVRT for this, but you're just spamming the same points even after that 2 staff are telling otherwise.
The report is on Strym, not Plancks. I don’t personally see how it’s report-worthy. A 3-1 staff consensus isn’t too much of a stretch for a CRT that has been sitting there for four months. That said, I am resting my case here.
Also, just so this issue is not forgotten.Well, just a draft text for what his warning should say.
No I am sorry Ant, but allowing a single staff to get veto on this is absurd, especially if the thread was there from 4 damn months to be completed, and Qawself didn't answer despite being pinged multiple times from other staff in the thread.A 3-2 staff vote conclusion is not sufficiently conclusive to apply a tier 1 upgrade revision, yes. A 3-0 vote with knowledgeable staff members and administrators included ould be sufficient. A 3-1 vote also seems insufficient, especially as @Qawsedf234 is one of our most knowledgeable staff members regarding our higher tiers.
No they don't.I am just saying that our rules do not allow such revisions to pass, so you would need a larger number of approving staff votes as a counterweight. My apologies, but we need to have safety standards.
Only if they all approve of a revision thread. It would set a horrible precedent if we start to allow tier 1-A revisions to get passed with a vote of 3-2, with the most knowledgeable involved staff member being opposed to it.
That seems like a good idea, but the revisions that have been applied based on this in our wiki also need to be reversed.
Let me get this straight: I don't want to keep a thread that was dead from 4 months going just because of some veto thing. Qawself was online after being called in the thread, and didn't answer despite days passing. Is this not an indicator that he's no longer interested?Really? I thought that we mention that threads need a clear staff consensus to get passed, not have extremely unclear results, which should be self-evident otherwise, given that we were much do define it for our versus discussions, and definitely cannot have much lower standards for our much more important content revision discussions.
No one in Gravity Falls is 1-A, there is only a 1-A realm to where none scales from. The report purposely masked this to make it look worse.Only if they all approve of a revision thread. It would set a horrible precedent if we start to allow tier 1-A revisions to get passed with a vote of 3-2, with the most knowledgeable involved staff member being opposed to it.
That seems like a good idea, but the revisions that have been applied based on this in our wiki also need to be reversed.
He should also ask the staffs, which have experience in 1-A to review the topic:
A 3-2 staff vote conclusion is not sufficiently conclusive to apply a tier 1 upgrade revision, yes. A 3-0 vote with knowledgeable staff members and administrators included would probably be sufficient. A 3-1 vote also seems insufficient, especially as @Qawsedf234 is one of our most knowledgeable staff members regarding our higher tiers.
I am just saying that our rules do not allow such revisions to pass, so you would need a larger number of approving staff votes as a counterweight. My apologies, but we need to have safety standards.
Really? I thought that we mention that threads need a clear staff consensus to get passed, not have extremely unclear results, which should be self-evident otherwise, given that we were much do define it for our versus discussions, and definitely cannot have much lower standards for our much more important content revision discussions.
In any case, it seems like our rules need to be clarified in this regard.Only if they all approve of a revision thread. It would set a horrible precedent if we start to allow tier 1-A revisions to get passed with a vote of 3-2, with the most knowledgeable involved staff member being opposed to it.
Probably, yes, but we cannot just overrule a knowledgeable administrator regarding the issue. The vote for such a high-tier revision should probably be something like 6-2 or 5-1.
Okay. My apologies for misunderstanding then.
I also think if there are strict rules regarding Tier 1 or above then they need to be clearly written to avoid misunderstandings. Since I have seen "several" staffs saying that more than 2 is appreciated but not a necessity even for Tier 1 thread and has seen many Tier 1 crts passing with 2 staff difference. Also that rules regarding them are highly vague.
Overrule? Idk if you're saying that Qawself can reject a thread from passing entirely despite other staff say otherwise, I think you're being unfair rn.
You talk as if I didn't call enough staff there, we can't just make a thread die only because it's Tier 1. Like, if an obscure-ish verse gets a cosmology CRT that almost no staff is interested it, shouldn't it have more leeway?
Yes, it seems to be a problem, and we cannot just expect our members to intuitively understand this, even if it seems self-evident.
Did only Qawsedf234 reject your revision, or was there another staff member who did so as well? If he was the only one, you simply need to gather two extra staff votes as a safety precaution.
It isn't remotely about you personally. It is about that 3-2 votes being accepted sets a terrible precedent for our wiki in general, especially for tier 1 or 0 revisions. Also, several wrongs do not make a right, as I keep repeating, but as you can see above, I am trying to begin to organise some less confusing and unclear standards regarding this issue.
As Reiner said above, only he did. Planck said that he agreed with the non 1-A option, but also said he'd be inclined to change his mind depending on what other staff say, but he didn't appear in the thread anymore, either.
3-1, really.
So can you at least not make me waste months of work over some misunderstanding and vague wording in the rules? I'd like to not have something that was worked on very hard nulled over this, thank you very much.I am trying to begin to organise some less confusing and unclear standards regarding this issue.
I'll try to get @Planck69 to give a more solid instance then, as he did sound pretty vague.Well, if you gather two more staff approvals or one more administrator approval, it should probably be fine, in lack of better options.
Plancks is fine with second Option. So guess thread is concluded. Tho, I think rules will have to iron out things brought up here. That said, this topic is closed. I believe.Well, we don't know for certain if it will be approved yet.
Okay, so is there a 4-1 vote now then? Strym told me in private that he has changed his mind from 1-A to 1-B though, so I suppose that issue likely has to be straightened out.
Yes, definitely. We will need a staff discussion thread regarding the issue.
Yeah.
I guess so. Given staff consensus is on 1-A favor. I wouldn't mind reopening the thread if he wish so. @StrymULTRA let me know on my wall if u want thread to be reopened.Strym told me in private that he has changed his mind from 1-A to 1-B though, so I suppose that issue likely has to be straightened out.
Sure.
Just another reminder that we still need to handle this.A strict warning, but not resulting in that people in our community who dislike Sean can get him permanently banned for almost any small issue afterwards.
