-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Agreeing and Disagreeing in Content Revisions
- Thread starter Robo432343
- Start date
- Status
- 25,632
- 15,954
Sorry if I’m speaking here in the staff discussion but uh is the issue solved now?
if so can this be closed now?
if so can this be closed now?
- 20,539
- 17,452
FRA'ing stuff has always been a problem, but the issue is ultimately circumstantial. Sometimes you truly just cannot add anything to the OP for example.
If someone wants to do a recount that's fine, buy unless we say every vote without a reasoning is no longer valid I don't know exactly what to do.
- 167,817
- 76,432
Okay. Should we close this thread then, or do you have something to add, @Robo ?
However, I do think that it is a serious problem if a thread genuinely needs more in-depth evaluations from our staff, and a brief agree or disagree is all that is provided, and it is counted the same way as the staff members who made a genuine effort.
However, I do think that it is a serious problem if a thread genuinely needs more in-depth evaluations from our staff, and a brief agree or disagree is all that is provided, and it is counted the same way as the staff members who made a genuine effort.
- 18,393
- 14,323
- 9,982
- 10,821
"Agree with a thread" has always been seen as something that doesn't need any elaboration or reasoning because the OP already provides that, but the reason for "Disagree" does when there is no counter arguments has been provided. So it is an issue to agree and disagree w/o knowing the counter arguements indeed.
We have 48 hrs of grace period "before applying the changes of proposed CRT ever since the time thread has been created", can't we just reserve 12 hrs from those 48 hrs for the arguemention in which everyone should be advised to not "Agree or Disagree" or else they would need to reconfirm their votes after 12 hrs of reserved time in case counter arguments has been made for their votes to be considered valid?
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,070
- 5,989
The 12hrs seems wrong, in the sense that some people do not even have time to check the wiki regularly or just check it during the weekend, so saying we should wait 12hrs to wait for counterarguments is really not helpful unless everyone works on the same time which we do not.
Well my take is that, normal users can vote FRA provided there is valid reasons above, but staffs should make a statement or sentence on what they agree on or why they are agreeing, so if there was a case of that point they agree with getting debunked, the staff can be called back to re-evaluate their vote.
Well my take is that, normal users can vote FRA provided there is valid reasons above, but staffs should make a statement or sentence on what they agree on or why they are agreeing, so if there was a case of that point they agree with getting debunked, the staff can be called back to re-evaluate their vote.
- 167,817
- 76,432
Well, I was mostly thinking about that if a list of suggestions or feats with linked evidence has been provided, it is much preferable when our staff members have the time and interest to look at them one by one. For most revision threads this is likely not necessary, but sometimes they are considerably more complicated, and it goes for both agreements and disagreements with what has been suggested.
- 7,535
- 7,731
Personally, I try to give my vote with at least some commentary on the reasoning being presented. It would be preferable but not mandatory that more context is given on a staff's vote and why.
- 32,835
- 38,108
I honestly don't see the need. This needlessly complicates things even further. Just leave the grace period as it is and allow as many staff is needed to greenlight a revision.
- 12,191
- 6,123
Sorry to comment here, but I really agree with this, you need to give arguments to disagree and agree with CRT or anything like that, many times this happened in some CRT here, I think we should evaluate the comments that have arguments disagreeing and agreeing.
- 9,982
- 10,821
It's already there in the OP.
- 32,835
- 38,108
That and you could always be beat to the punch. Maybe you were typing up a big-ass paragraph but someone else did the same thing as you, only faster.
Abstractions
Femur Breaker
VS Battles
FC/OC VS Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Human Resources
- 2,639
- 2,827
I'm going to politely request you to stop taking innocent jokes too seriously, right now. This is not a potshot, and you should have the forethought at minimum to understand this.
I will not understand how you take a few words like the ones I said so erroneously in a direction that assumes I'm making a negative comment on your character when we have a PM open for me to discuss issues, as you've stated.
Kindly, take your own advice instead of making assumptions on my character. Thank you, Ant.
- 32,835
- 38,108
- 9,349
- 8,148
Premise, I haven't read all the other comments, so please let me know if I'm missing something important.
Anyway, there shouldn't be any necessity to wait for counter arguments, sometimes there just isn't any.
On the other hand, I've always went by the non-written rule that I agree's shouldn't be counted if a counter argument is presented after them, usually those users are contacted again after such counter-arguments have been discussed.
Anyway, there shouldn't be any necessity to wait for counter arguments, sometimes there just isn't any.
On the other hand, I've always went by the non-written rule that I agree's shouldn't be counted if a counter argument is presented after them, usually those users are contacted again after such counter-arguments have been discussed.
- 7,881
- 14,927
If a post is well-worded and well-formatted, and it argues in favor of something that supporters of a verse are inclined to agree with, there is always going to be a somewhat significant amount of "agrees" offered with little to no scrutiny of the actual reasoning and evidence involved. In my practical experience, however, these votes never end up being decisive if the staff comes in and sees that the argument is clearly flawed.
I don't think the issue is prudent enough to warrant a new rule unto itself.
I don't think the issue is prudent enough to warrant a new rule unto itself.
- 167,817
- 76,432
Okay. I apologise then. I thought that you were serious about me supposedly being a shoot first ask questions later and there is no kill like overkill kind of person.
- 167,817
- 76,432
Well, there was a connected YouTube video of a gun maniac who promoted gunning down anyone who entered his property with an uzi as "self-defence", if I remember correctly, so I misunderstood the intent. I do not have good automatic social intuition at all.brother I don't think that was a serious attack but just a jest
- 167,817
- 76,432
I largely agree with this, with no pun intended.
- 32,835
- 38,108
I don't mean to sound rude, but WHAT THE **** ANT
- 167,817
- 76,432
Eh? I meant that Abstractions quoted a post with that content when making that comment about me (but I deleted it afterwards), so I misunderstood the intentions. Why are you getting upset at me about that?
- 32,835
- 38,108
Apologies for not elaborating, I'm just more so startled as to why you would just look up a video of a guy gunning down people in his doorway with an Uzi of all things, that's all.
- 167,817
- 76,432
Oh. I didn't. It was posted here in this thread, and the guy in the video was so over the top crazy that comparing him to me seemed like a massive exaggeration.
However, again, I am literally mentally disabled in the social intuition area, but I am trying my best to do my job and function anyway.
Also, the guy didn't gun people down. He "just" claimed that he would do so under the described circumstances.
However, again, I am literally mentally disabled in the social intuition area, but I am trying my best to do my job and function anyway.
Also, the guy didn't gun people down. He "just" claimed that he would do so under the described circumstances.
- 32,835
- 38,108
You mean Sam Hyde? The guy with the machine gun? He's a comedian, pretty famous meme of being turned into a hoax terrorist.
BTW, that was a Sten gun, not a Uzi. But anyway, derailing aside, his videos are 100% satire.
- 32,835
- 38,108
Anyway, in case I haven't made myself clear, this really needs no rule TBF. As long as people specify for whose reasonings they're agreeing to with some details here and there (Since you can always reach a point where you just can't add to OP any further or you were about to answer yourself but someone beat you to the punch), it really wouldn't be a problem. Not like it'll matter anyway since without staff approval your CRT is as good as dead.
- 18,599
- 18,661
This is a pointless thread. We already don't just take waves of agreement or disagreement into account anyway and a member reserves their right to just agree without anticipating a rebuttal.
At most, CRT posters can just make a habit of linking arguments and counterarguments and pinging the members who voted to go over them.
At most, CRT posters can just make a habit of linking arguments and counterarguments and pinging the members who voted to go over them.
- 18,393
- 14,323
I thought the thread is closed long ago, why it is still being discussed?
- 18,393
- 14,323
I recommended that he seek expert opinions before proceeding with the creation of an unorganized thread.
DivineAura44
He/Him- 5,253
- 3,415
Y'all do understand votes don't matter for CRT's right? They are opinions. I thought this was for VS threads but it's apparently addressed for CRTs. I've seen 20-2 threads not go through by the will of god.
- 31,441
- 34,274
I try to read a thread thoroughly before agreeing or disagreeing; unless I was talking about it offsite and/or on DMs. Though I may agree that some time for counterarguments may wish to be made before applying some controversial upgrades and/or downgrades. Though some downgrades/upgrades are pretty face value such as downgrading someone from 8-C to 9-A via former being dependent on an outdated calculation that is 9-A now; example being the vaporization standards.
I'd say it's case by case, the more controversial the verse or characters in question are, the more mandatory counter arguments and taking time for staff to look over both sides is. If I haven't actually read the content revision, I will usually say I need more time to look over or say I'm neutral for now, but may mention a leaning side one way or the other.
I'd say it's case by case, the more controversial the verse or characters in question are, the more mandatory counter arguments and taking time for staff to look over both sides is. If I haven't actually read the content revision, I will usually say I need more time to look over or say I'm neutral for now, but may mention a leaning side one way or the other.
- 18,393
- 14,323
As I mentioned earlier, although they possess value, they do not significantly affect the outcome of the thread.
DivineAura44
He/Him- 5,253
- 3,415
Ant is that you? Nah but no joke I can see this working for vs threads however its redundant for CRTs.
- 18,393
- 14,323
"Common sense is subjective" - random person in the universe
- Status
