Admins & Moderators on CRTs: The Most Controversial Staff Thread

[Antvasima]

How about both 2000 edits and 2000 posts as minimums for self-applications?

 

[Naito-desu]

Idk about CGM having two accepted calcs. Eight might be better like Ant said or 5 and a recommendation or someone to vouch for them at least but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[Antvasima]

Somebody in our staff who can vouch for each applicant may be another good requirement, yes.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Somebody in our staff who can vouch for each applicant may be another good requirement, yes.

These applications would also still have to go through the process of recruitment, with staff voting.

 

[FinePoint]

Somebody in our staff who can vouch for each applicant may be another good requirement, yes.

Doesn't that sort of defeat the whole purpose of us opening applications?

 

[Antvasima]

These applications would also still have to go through the process of recruitment, with staff voting.

Yes, of course.

Doesn't that sort of defeat the whole purpose of us opening applications?

Yes. Good point. I suppose that should not be necessary then.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, can we begin to initiate any of the changes suggested here, or do we need further staff input?

I would personally prefer to begin with the two new sub-forums.

 

[Antvasima]

Bump.

We still need to finish this.

 

[Random-Helper323]

The sub-forums definitely should be made soon, preferably first, especially since it's less complicated than recruitment.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Agreed.

Are the rest of you fine with this as well?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I am.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your reply.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

The sub-forums definitely should be made soon, preferably first, especially since it's less complicated than recruitment.

Indeed

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. Do we have sufficient amounts of staff agreement here then?

 

[Random-Helper323]

Thank you. Do we have sufficient amounts of staff agreement here then?

It seems to have been supported by yourself and Bambu, Lephyr, SomebodyData, DarkDragonMedeus and Butler.

As well as by FinePoint, Twilight, Dalesean, myself and Naito. Others seem to agree but I haven't seen them explicitly say so.

All the same, with how long the thread has gone on it might be beneficial to ping everyone to clarify their stance?

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the information.

Well, that seems like sufficient support to me, so I think that I can talk with our forum system manager about the two new sub-forums.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Thank you for the information.

Well, that seems like sufficient support to me, so I think that I can talk with our forum system manager about the two new sub-forums.

It might be best to ask those people, specifically the admins, if they still agree. You, Bambu and Lephyr have all restated your agreement just now, but the others were from a little time ago.

Then again, this has taken a while already and the forum can heavily benefit from that sub-forum, so there is some degree of urgency here.

The other three admins agreed in these three posts, by the way.

Admins & Moderators on CRTs: The Most Controversial Staff Thread

Well, I would prefer if we can all agree regarding applying all of the potential solutions that I listed here earlier, as I think that some drastic measures are likely necessary to help partially resolve this problematic situation. Although even after that, it will likely take us quite a while...

vsbattles.com

Admins & Moderators on CRTs: The Most Controversial Staff Thread

Well, I would prefer if we can all agree regarding applying all of the potential solutions that I listed here earlier, as I think that some drastic measures are likely necessary to help partially resolve this problematic situation. Although even after that, it will likely take us quite a while...

vsbattles.com

Admins & Moderators on CRTs: The Most Controversial Staff Thread

I think we already have rule that self-evident and minor CRT need only 1 thread mod and 24 hours grace, normal CRT need 2 thread mods, this already applying for any verses that not controversial, so unpopular, small verses already benefit from this; so i honestly don't understand the opinion...

vsbattles.com

 

[Antvasima]

Which staff members should I ping for confirmations then?

 

[Random-Helper323]

Which staff members should I ping for confirmations then?

Well, AKM Sama only approved the application forum, not the self-evident revisions. You could ask DDM, Butler and Somebodydata to confirm their position.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Just a Random Butler @SomebodyData

Is it fine if I ask our forum system manager to create our two new sub-forums now?

Also, @FinePoint , you will have to post our new staff application instructions page in our wiki first.

 

[FinePoint]

Also, @FinePoint , you will have to post our new staff application instructions page in our wiki first.

It was written to replace the first bullet in the recruitment section on this page, which is locked.

If we move it to its own page (or edit that one) someone will have to edit that one for me (or at least unlock it).

 

[SomebodyData]

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Just a Random Butler @SomebodyData

Is it fine if I ask our forum system manager to create our two new sub-forums now?

Also, @FinePoint , you will have to post our new staff application instructions page in our wiki first.

Perfectly fine with me

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you greatly. Do I have sufficient approval to initially ask our forum system manager to set up a new "Self-Evident Content Revisions" sub-forum with the following text at the top then?

"Often, minor details need to be added or removed from pages, with a self-evident explanation for why. Any discussion pertaining to such revisions are best done in this board.

Before posting, make sure that your proposed revisions qualify as self-evident and minor. This includes adding abilities that are blatantly obvious, such as Bodily Weaponry for an entity with prominent claws.

Typically, revisions proposed in this board should be so obvious that they do not even require significant arguments or interpretation, and therefore require far less oversight by our staff.

Note that posting revisions here that don't fit this description will lead to those revisions being moved to the Content Revision board, and repeated and blatant attempts to abuse the leniency of this board will be treated as rule violations."

It was written to replace the first bullet in the recruitment section on this page, which is locked.

If we move it to its own page (or edit that one) someone will have to edit that one for me (or at least unlock it).

I think that it seems better to make your draft into a separate regular wiki page, as the original instructions are solely focused on what our active staff members should do, whereas your text mainly focuses on what members who want to become part of our staff should do, even though there is a bit of a content overlap.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:FinePoint/Sandbox3

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/A..._Battles_wiki#Staff_Recruitment_and_Promotion

After that has been done, I can also ask our forum system manager to set up a "Staff Applications" sub-forum wherein applications can only be seen by each applicant as well as our current staff members, and which can have something similar to the following text at the top:

"A forum wherein you can apply to become a member of our staff, with the applications only visible to yourself and our current staff members, but only do so if you are genuinely qualified and willing to extensively help out in our community. For information how to do so, please click on this link."

However, your draft text also first needs to be updated with the minimum membership time and activity requirements that our staff members agree about here.

 

[FinePoint]

I think that it seems better to make your draft into a separate regular wiki page, as the original instructions are solely focused on what our active staff members should do, whereas your text mainly focuses on what members who want to become part of our staff should do, even though there is a bit of a content overlap.

Alright, that works. I'll just make some minor stylistic changes to the first sentence so it's not literally identical and more addressed to a random user.

However, your draft text also first needs to be updated with the minimum membership time and activity requirements that our staff members agree about here.

Did we reach an actual consensus on what those values should be?

 

[Antvasima]

Alright, I that works. I'll just make some minor stylistic changes to the first sentence so it's not literally identical and more addressed to a random user.

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

Did we reach an actual consensus on what those values should be?

We seem to currently lean towards a minimum of 1 year of membership combined with 2000 edits for content moderators, 2000 posts for discussion/thread moderators, or 5 accepted calculation blogs for calc group members, but we need more staff confirmations, yes.

 

[FinePoint]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

We seem to currently lean towards a minimum of 1 year of membership combined with 2000 edits for content moderators, 2000 posts for discussion/thread moderators, or 5 accepted calculation blogs for calc group members, but we need more staff confirmations, yes.

Alright. I think those requirements are fine.

Once we get confirmation, I'll make both edits, present them here one last time to be sure I didn't mess anything up, then publish the page if all is good.

 

[Antvasima]

Which staff members have helped out in this thread previously? We need to ping them for confirmations.

 

[Epyriel]

Which staff members have helped out in this thread previously? We need to ping them for confirmations.

Current Staff:

• Random-Helper323
• Dalesean027
• Mr. Bambu
• Just a Random Butler
• Naito-desu
• TWILIGHT-OP
• Vietthai96
• SomebodyData
• FinePoint
• DarkDragonMedeus
• LephyrTheRevanchist
• Flashlight237
• DontTalkDT
• AKM sama
• ZackMoon1234
• Dark-Carioca
• Floxy178
• Celestial_Pegasus
• IdiosyncraticLawyer
• Imaginym
• Therefir
• KLOL506
• Psychomaster35
• Tllmbrg (Posted but didn’t participate)

Past Staff:

• First_Witch
• Reiner04
• Kaltias

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm already here

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Just a Random Butler @SomebodyData

Is it fine if I ask our forum system manager to create our two new sub-forums now?

Also, @FinePoint , you will have to post our new staff application instructions page in our wiki first.

Sounds good.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that it seems better to make your draft into a separate regular wiki page, as the original instructions are solely focused on what our active staff members should do, whereas your text mainly focuses on what members who want to become part of our staff should do, even though there is a bit of a content overlap.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:FinePoint/Sandbox3

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/A..._Battles_wiki#Staff_Recruitment_and_Promotion

After that has been done, I can also ask our forum system manager to set up a "Staff Applications" sub-forum wherein applications can only be seen by each applicant as well as our current staff members, and which can have something similar to the following text at the top:

"A forum wherein you can apply to become a member of our staff, with the applications only visible to yourself and our current staff members, but only do so if you are genuinely qualified and willing to extensively help out in our community. For information how to do so, please click on this link."

However, your draft text also first needs to be updated with the minimum membership time and activity requirements that our staff members agree about here.

Alright, that works. I'll just make some minor stylistic changes to the first sentence so it's not literally identical and more addressed to a random user.

Did we reach an actual consensus on what those values should be?

We seem to currently lean towards a minimum of 1 year of membership combined with 2000 edits for content moderators, 2000 posts for discussion/thread moderators, or 5 accepted calculation blogs for calc group members, but we need more staff confirmations, yes.

Alright. I think those requirements are fine.

Once we get confirmation, I'll make both edits, present them here one last time to be sure I didn't mess anything up, then publish the page if all is good.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Random-Helper323 @Dalesean027 @Just a Random Butler @Naito-desu @Vietthai96 @TWILIGHT-OP @SomebodyData @LephyrTheRevanchist @Flashlight237 @DontTalkDT @AKM sama @ZackMoon1234 @Dark-Carioca @Floxy178 @Celestial_Pegasus @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Imaginym @Therefir @KLOL506 @Psychomaster35 @Tllmbrg @Kaltias

Is this acceptable for you?

 

[Random-Helper323]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Random-Helper323 @Dalesean027 @Just a Random Butler @Naito-desu @Vietthai96 @TWILIGHT-OP @SomebodyData @LephyrTheRevanchist @Flashlight237 @DontTalkDT @AKM sama @ZackMoon1234 @Dark-Carioca @Floxy178 @Celestial_Pegasus @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Imaginym @Therefir @KLOL506 @Psychomaster35 @Tllmbrg @Kaltias

Is this acceptable for you?

Seems okay to me at least.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

To be honest, I think any arbitrary limit is a bad idea, but since this is just the numbers to self-propose, I won't cause a big stink about it, make this drag on longer, and so I will say "that's fine with me" and be done

 

[Naito-desu]

Seems fine to me

 

[Antvasima]

@FinePoint

Are you willing to help out with this please?

 

[FinePoint]

@FinePoint

Are you willing to help out with this please?

Yes, but I was waiting for a consensus on the exact numerical requirements.

You said we needed more staff agreements, but the only admin+ who has responded since then is Bambu, and in fact the only staff at all after that were him, Random, and Naito.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. That is true. We preferably need more staff input, but we also cannot stall such important revisions for too long because of lack of staff interest.

 

[FinePoint]

Hmm. That is true. We preferably need more staff input, but we also cannot stall such important revisions for too long because of lack of staff interest.

Well, the draft sans the numerical requirements has received plenty of support, so I suppose we could go ahead with that version then add the other requirements later.

 

[Antvasima]

I would prefer if we have everything properly prepared first, including the numerical requirements.

Should we ping other staff members who have participated here again?

 

[FinePoint]

Should we ping other staff members who have participated here again?

There's nothing else we can do, so probably.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that it seems better to make your draft into a separate regular wiki page, as the original instructions are solely focused on what our active staff members should do, whereas your text mainly focuses on what members who want to become part of our staff should do, even though there is a bit of a content overlap.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:FinePoint/Sandbox3

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/A..._Battles_wiki#Staff_Recruitment_and_Promotion

After that has been done, I can also ask our forum system manager to set up a "Staff Applications" sub-forum wherein applications can only be seen by each applicant as well as our current staff members, and which can have something similar to the following text at the top:

"A forum wherein you can apply to become a member of our staff, with the applications only visible to yourself and our current staff members, but only do so if you are genuinely qualified and willing to extensively help out in our community. For information how to do so, please click on this link."

However, your draft text also first needs to be updated with the minimum membership time and activity requirements that our staff members agree about here.

Alright, that works. I'll just make some minor stylistic changes to the first sentence so it's not literally identical and more addressed to a random user.

Did we reach an actual consensus on what those values should be?

We seem to currently lean towards a minimum of 1 year of membership combined with 2000 edits for content moderators, 2000 posts for discussion/thread moderators, or 5 accepted calculation blogs for calc group members, but we need more staff confirmations, yes.

Alright. I think those requirements are fine.

Once we get confirmation, I'll make both edits, present them here one last time to be sure I didn't mess anything up, then publish the page if all is good.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Just a Random Butler @Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

We need input about the suggested numerical requirements here.