Addition to Discussion Rules: CRT Size

[Catzlaflame]

Does anyone recall how we used to have those calc blogs with like 5 separate feats in them? Why did we get rid of those? Simple, because they were extra work for our CGM's, and decreased overall morale when it came to evaluating a calc. In that same vein, personally, I believe that we need to place a limit on how big a single Content Revision Thread can be out of respect for our Adiminstrators and Thread Moderators.

In case anyone's guessed, yes, this is a consequence of this thread. If a thread is so big that I cannot summarize it using passive recall (MOMENTS after I finished reading, it mind you) that is sincerely a problem. Moreover, skimming through the thread, its very obvious that I'm not the only one having this problem; multiple staff members demonstrated an impaired ability to recall the contents of the OP, and some even highlight that fact outright. The OP is 11,000 words... 11,000. On paper, that is the equivalent of 22 full pages. To put that into perspective, it took Einstein 24 pages to explain relativity.

Additionally, speaking from expierence, the chances of getting an evaluation decreases astronomically the longer a thread gets. By limiting the size of a CRT, we would also, consequentially, be decreasing the size of the individual replies. This makes evaluating much easier and makes discussions more refined to specific topics.

PROPOSAL: New rule that states any thread published needs to be at the very most 5,500 words. Roughly half the size of the thread I mentioned above. Any more than that and it should be split into parts.

 

[Catzlaflame]

@Antvasima @DarkGrath @DarkDragonMedeus @Deagonx @LordGriffin1000 @Agnaa @ImmortalDread

Input would be appreciated.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Seems fair. Although is it common enough to have thread with over 5500 words to be worth making a rule for? I know 1 is hard but you could easily demand for a resume for threads that are that big since they arent that common.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

I think that's very limiting to the op no? Ultima needed that many words to say whatever he wants. Cutting 5550 words is damn near impossible. I personally do not agree with this. They can offer a synopsis later in the thread, but the op should say whatever he wants to better structure his argument. Also the topic discussed in the thread you linked is very important. Trying to limit the op while they talk about such important stuff could lead to misunderstandings that would have been avoided had the op just written all they wanted to. Also everyone that wants to reply to the op can just tackle each individual point and reply to it. They don't have to memorize the whole 22 pages and then offer a counter argument.

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah I don't think that works here, might as well ban multiple power addition CRTs as a whole then.

This fails doubly so for massive site-wide revisions which by their very nature requires them to be literal Bibles which no one other than Tier 1 staff members (Or non-staff members) would even dare to touch with a 10-meter pole (Not 10 feet, 10 meters).

 

[DarkGrath]

The OP is 11,000 words... 11,000. On paper, that is the equivalent of 22 full pages. To put that into perspective, it took Einstein 24 pages to explain relativity.

Who would win? One of the most influential papers in physics, versus, a powerscaling rant.

Jokes aside, this is an interesting idea. I can't firmly say I agree with it at this point - I have some concerns that this may have unintended negative consequences for CRTs on more complex topics, like Ultima's own thread linked above. As much as the OP may have been verbose, I consider that preferable to forcing a CRT creator to not acknowledge important points. In the case of that thread, a large portion of that word count is dedicated to addressing counterarguments that, if not addressed in the OP, would have inevitably been brought up in the thread and required to address anyway. Why not give CRT creators the freedom to nip these issues in the bud?

That being said, I (and surely many other staff members) can attest to the fact that longer CRTs are quite difficult to evaluate. It's time-consuming, and keeping up the same level of attention and diligence for a wide range of revision suggestions all in one post becomes a headache quite quickly. Speaking purely from my personal standpoint, some restrictions placed on CRT breadth would make my job a lot easier.

I'd be willing to consider an idea like this, with some caution. I would want to implement a rule like this, if we can do it with as little restriction as necessary placed on CRT creators. I would think 5,500 words might be too tight for this, or might even be barking up the wrong tree. I'm curious if any other staff members have input on this.

Also, since this is a suggestion for a site policy change, it had ought to be a staff discussion. I'll change it to one now, but if there's a valid reason to keep it as a content revision, I'll willingly change it back.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Who would win? One of the most influential papers in physics, versus, a powerscaling rant.

Jokes aside, this is an interesting idea. I can't firmly say I agree with it at this point - I have some concerns that this may have unintended negative consequences for CRTs on more complex topics, like Ultima's own thread linked above. As much as the OP may have been verbose, I consider that preferable to forcing a CRT creator to not acknowledge important points. In the case of that thread, a large portion of that word count is dedicated to addressing counterarguments that, if not addressed in the OP, would have inevitably been brought up in the thread and required to address anyway. Why not give CRT creators the freedom to nip these issues in the bud?

That being said, I (and surely many other staff members) can attest to the fact that longer CRTs are quite difficult to evaluate. It's time-consuming, and keeping up the same level of attention and diligence for a wide range of revision suggestions all in one post becomes a headache quite quickly. Speaking purely from my personal standpoint, some restrictions placed on CRT breadth would make my job a lot easier.

I'd be willing to consider an idea like this, with some caution. I would want to implement a rule like this, if we can do it with as little restriction as necessary placed on CRT creators. I would think 5,500 words might be too tight for this, or might even be barking up the wrong tree. I'm curious if any other staff members have input on this.

Also, since this is a suggestion for a site policy change, it had ought to be a staff discussion. I'll change it to one now, but if there's a valid reason to keep it as a content revision, I'll willingly change it back.

I'm personally still against any such limitation. Maybe above a certain word number the OP must have a shorter synopsis of his arguments while noting that stuff that are in the actual text might be lost in the synopsis. I do understand how it's more difficult to evaluate bigger texts, but I fear this might be limiting. Which is my point for a synospis needing to exist above a certain word number and not just something like a tldr.

Btw I saw this is now a staff discussion so I won't comment further. Feel free to delete my posts.

 

[KLOL506]

I honestly don't see the point in a word limit for CRTs, especially site-wide revision threads. Plus, only admins are allowed to evaluate and pass site-wide CRTs of this caliber, regardless of how wordy they can be, which is where summaries and TL; DRs come in handy.

Only reason the Calc Limit works is because most of the feats included are usually fundamentally different (But even then if they happen in the same episode we tend to keep them in one blog), but even that is pushing it because most calc blogs I see these days are so poorly formatted and the grammar so weak that I and many others just opt not to touch them at all (Which is a problem in and of itself).

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Serlock_Holmes @Suigetsuhyugs This is a staff thread. Unless you got permission from a staff member with evaluation rights, you are not allowed to comment.

Only staff members with evaluation rights can authorize regular members to participate in Staff Discussion threads. Thread Moderators are able to grant permission for a single post at a time, whereas administrators can give permission for up to three. Bureaucrats are the only staff members that are allowed to give indefinite posting rights for a particular staff thread. If a staff member with evaluation rights determines that a regular member has misused their granted privileges, these can be removed.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

@Serlock_Holmes @Suigetsuhyugs This is a staff thread. Unless you got permission from a staff member with evaluation rights, you are not allowed to comment.

I had commented before and Suigetsu also. Wanted to point this out. My second response was right after Dark posted. However feel free to delete them as well as this.

 

[Everything12]

Disagree, sometimes these things require a lot of words to explain, and we can't just ignore these threads because you can't TLDR it.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Also, since this is a suggestion for a site policy change, it had ought to be a staff discussion. I'll change it to one now, but if there's a valid reason to keep it as a content revision, I'll willingly change it back.

I thought it would be more inclusive if it wasn’t but that’s fair, I’ll still address the point above though. If non-staff wants to respond, feel free to do so on my message wall.

@KLOL506 (and @Serlock_Holmes)

If I’m understanding correctly your point is that this rule would be inhibiting users from writing all of their thoughts. I addressed this in the OP. I’m not saying we limit the CRT and leave it at that. I’m saying we limit the CRT and advise users to make multiple parts. Multiple parts = Multiple, more specific, more refined discussions that tackle problems in accordance = Easier to evaluate = higher chance of thread getting concluded WHILE STILL communicating all of the OP’s thoughts.

This is the general premise of my response but I’m having a very busy day, and having a hard time getting enough time to respond. Apologies for that.

Who would win? One of the most influential papers in physics, versus, a powerscaling rant.

Powerscaling rant all the way

 

[KLOL506]

Whatever happened to spoilering the parts as collapsible menus? That way, you condense a massive CRT into one compact post.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I definitely agree that some threads go on for a tad long especially when it has a mix of abilities, scaling, and what have you. Though that is what the SPOILER tag is being used for on occasion. Other than that, people usually use blogs for harder to explain topics like physiology, cosmology and so on.

So while I do agree some users need to learn how to split threads up because it makes them easier to tackle, most users have found a remedy for that issue I think.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think it’s worth noting that Ultima’s thread, which this thread was made in response to, was only retroactively made a staff discussion thread. It was originally a general discussion thread for Ultima to air his grievances with the current Tiering System, but it got enough support that it was made a staff discussion thread

 

[Damage3245]

This seems like an impossible proposal to enforce because the OP of a thread could just divide their original OP into two posts and make a second post in their own thread with the rest of their arguments.

Limiting the size of the OP of a CRT doesn't seem worthwhile having a rule for.

 

[KLOL506]

Just use a mix of Spoiler Collapsible Tags, Explanation Pages and Blogs and so on and so forth to shorten your argument. No need to set word limits on CRTs.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think the rule should be less about length and more so there should be rules against making OP's disorganized messes. Obviously, ZaStando style OPs are against the rules given not just are they uber lengthy, they're also disorganized scrambled messes. I don't think there should be a word or text limit so much that if an OP is lengthy, there needs to be organized sections on what not such as headers and perhaps collapsed sections. And of course, URLs and such should be shortened.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Antvasima @DarkGrath @DarkDragonMedeus @Deagonx @LordGriffin1000 @Agnaa @ImmortalDread

Input would be appreciated.

Using Ultima's thread as a primary example may not be entirely fair. Despite the undeniable fact that he authored the longest thread ever, it surpasses 90% of other threads in terms of organization, professionalism, and readability.

Ultima is revolutionizing the entire tier 1 tiering system, redefining standards and even delving into fundamental philosophical powerscaling. Given the scope of his work, it's evident that he needs to provide detailed explanations for every aspect of his arguments, preemptively addressing potential questions like "Why that?"

Going back to the main point:

Often, statistics and other important contents for profile pages need to be revised. Any discussion pertaining to such revisions must be done in this board.

Before posting, make sure that your arguments are presented in a manner that is easy to understand and backed by valid scans. In addition, you need to make sure that everything is in English or translated by a reliable source, and it is advised that you use this forum's sandbox feature to prepare your content revision threads in advance.

Also, please always include the name of the verses that you want to revise in your thread titles, and use the exact same tag/category titles that the verses and relevant characters have in their corresponding VS Battles wiki pages.

I am not sure if whether we require making it obligatory, but as long as your thread is presented in a professional/organized manner, write 100k words and no problems.

So apologies, but I heavily disagree with notion of limiting characters.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Thank you to everyone who weighed in.

I believe it’s evident I’m heavily outvoted on the matter, the alternatives others have described are likely a more suitable way of countering this dilemma.

I believe there’s nothing left to do here. Thank you again, and feel free to close this thread.