At what stage did CRT's become based on voting?

[Blackcurrant91]

Why are CRT's based on voting?

In a vacuum this seems completely fine.

However in reality you would have to pretend like every major verse isn't either

A. Planning their revisions together in discord (which causes the standard FRA train)

B. That no one and I mean absolutely no one would ever disengenously FRA a thread for a verse they support.

C. I see a BUNCH of threads that are still being argued (all FRA are technically invalid in this context) where people imply their is a consensus so changes can be applied and thread closed.

This is causing a whole bunch of really wacky changes to get accepted in the process of the arguments being finalised.

There was a time on the Wiki where CRT's where literally NEVER done off a voting basis and this was only used in vs matches themselves.

TLDR: Why is voting/FRA in CRT's a thing when it wasn't always a thing?

 

[Shmooply]

There was a time on the Wiki where CRT's where literally NEVER done off a voting basis and this was only used in vs matches themselves.

TLDR: Why is voting/FRA in CRT's a thing when it wasn't always a thing?

Online communities tend to pick the simplest solutions for their issues. Think about it this way, would you rather read neverending stonewalls between multiple individuals and hope that they will somehow reach a conclusion or compromise, or would you rather tally up the votes of people knowledgeable on the subject and the votes of administrators and then go ahead with applying whatever changes were agreed upon?

Obviously this system is also really flawed. I don't need to mention that ever since the wiki started using this voting system, there were constant dramas over FRA trains or how staff always had the last word on something, I sure as hell don't like it either.

 

[Purgy]

As far as I've been here it's always been by majority vote, and there's literally no alternative

Regardless, it's only staff votes that matter, so a FRA chain by biased fans isn't going to achieve much

 

[azontr]

I'd say at this point we should just stop letting users vote on threads since staff votes are the only ones that hold any bearing, really.

The entire voting system is a clusterfuck.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

FRA chains do matter on vs threads at least, and on crts it's often just annoying as ****, not to mention that in no way are staff always exempt from FRA chains
I'm a well-known anti-FRA person and always will be, it contributes no argument, just a vote, and is incredibly difficult to discuss with whoever did the fra, since they're not actually giving their reasoning to debunk, so you can't actually challenge them directly on anything

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

Voting Ban, FRA

... Sorry, had to. I can see why exactly people may sometimes use fra, but it's just better to at least try to contribute something if possible.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I just say we ban FRA in general entirely. There is literally 0% useful shit that comes out of it

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

If we're being realistic, we prolly couldn't get it banned though...

 

[Blackcurrant91]

FRA in CRT's is really just a bad system in general.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

Online communities tend to pick the simplest solutions for their issues. Think about it this way, would you rather read neverending stonewalls between multiple individuals and hope that they will somehow reach a conclusion or compromise, or would you rather tally up the votes of people knowledgeable on the subject and the votes of administrators and then go ahead with applying whatever changes were agreed upon?

I think there is a medium in between these two extremes that is the most apt solution. People stonewalling with no actual arguments can simply be dismissed as derailing which is what occurrs. If the argument legitimately continues then it isn't over yet.

Obviously this system is also really flawed. I don't need to mention that ever since the wiki started using this voting system, there were constant dramas over FRA trains or how staff always had the last word on something, I sure as hell don't like it either.

Staff should be authoritarian to an extent, especially in threads where people are FRAing for arguments that are invalid.

 

[azontr]

Staff being authoritarian is fine, without a doubt, it is just that their word should not be the end all be all for a CRT's acceptance.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

There is always a balance that needs to upheld. Firm, but loose enough. Focused, but free enough. If VSBW could somehow achieve that, they'd be golden. Staff matter, but so do the rest of us. The Staff need to be treated respectfully enough, but not to the point that the rest of us are just ants.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

Like if you think about it. Take FRA out of CRT's, does it actually change anything?

Fundamentally it doesn't actively contribute anything to the thread in the first place.

If you have a point or argument which either contributes to agreeing or disagreeing side then it is valid input.

FRA is effectively a moot post, hence voting itself is effectively pointless.

 

[Tatsumi504]

If I'm understanding correctly, the main issue is just normal users simply creating or joining an FRA chain instead of contributing anything right?

I get it might be annoying but if they genuinely read the CRT and agreed, they don't necessarily need to have a reason for agreeing because they have no issue with evidence provided unlike someone who disagrees so they have to state reasons for disagreeing

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Having people literally just do FRA without giving their own argument is stupid as ****
it really doesn’t matter if you agree, what matters is you giving the reason why you agree
7 people saying FRA has absolutely NO impact on wether something makes sense or not, there’s over 7 billion people on the planet I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be that hard to find 7 people who would just say “agree Fra”
it’s a pitifully small sample size and basically just makes threads based on randomness instead of who actually makes more sense. FRA users are ******* useless and contribute absolutely god damn nothing to any thread, and it should be permanently banned forever, it’s stupid.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

and as I said before, someone who says Fra is impossible to have a discussion with most of the time, as they will just say “FRA”, and either leave or refuse to answer the counterarguments that come up after they give their vote

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Let me paint you a picture.

Say you're revising a really small verse with only 2 supporters. You're one of them so obviously your vote doesn't count. The other guy is a blue name and doesn't have the power to completely approve or deny your thread.

So you summon a few other people, some staff, some blue names. Blue names are likely your on-site friends because you wouldn't summon a rando to approve a thread they know nothing about, but you summon rando staff because they have some semblance of power to approve your thread.

6/10 times the staff glosses over it and approves it because you are one in a long line of people begging for their thread approval. 3 out of those 10 times they just don't show up because they don't care or they have no interest. 1 out of those 10 times they actually give you a proper analysis.

Based on the above, you're very likely to get the thread approved based on probability alone, even more so if you're personally friends with some staff.

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that getting anything done on this wiki requires a certain level of effort and commitment. The most of which, makes you staff. The reason why staff votes matter is not because they actually know the verse in question, but because they know the site and its meta. At some level you just become so VSBW rotted that you can smell when a thread is bad just by how one structures their OP. The system therefore, works based on good faith, which you unfortunately can only get by being on here for a considerable amount of time.

So yeah, this is basically why the FRA system is so deeply ingrained in our culture. You/your verse basically has to be absolutely despised to have your thread evaluated properly out of spite, hence why stonewalls happen. If everyone in your community agrees with you, there's not much reason why staff would have to disagree with a thread, regardless of whether they're in the community or not.

Anyway that's my 2 cents on the matter.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

Let me paint you a picture.

Say you're revising a really small verse with only 2 supporters. You're one of them so obviously your vote doesn't count. The other guy is a blue name and doesn't have the power to completely approve or deny your thread.

So you summon a few other people, some staff, some blue names. Blue names are likely your on-site friends because you wouldn't summon a rando to approve a thread they know nothing about, but you summon rando staff because they have some semblance of power to approve your thread.

6/10 times the staff glosses over it and approves it because you are one in a long line of people begging for their thread approval. 3 out of those 10 times they just don't show up because they don't care or they have no interest. 1 out of those 10 times they actually give you a proper analysis.

Based on the above, you're very likely to get the thread approved based on probability alone, even more so if you're personally friends with some staff.

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that getting anything done on this wiki requires a certain level of effort and commitment. The most of which, makes you staff. The reason why staff votes matter is not because they actually know the verse in question, but because they know the site and its meta. At some level you just become so VSBW rotted that you can smell when a thread is bad just by how one structures their OP. The system therefore, works based on good faith, which you unfortunately can only get by being on here for a considerable amount of time.

So yeah, this is basically why the FRA system is so deeply ingrained in our culture. You/your verse basically has to be absolutely despised to have your thread evaluated properly out of spite, hence why stonewalls happen. If everyone in your community agrees with you, there's not much reason why staff would have to disagree with a thread, regardless of whether they're in the community or not.

Anyway that's my 2 cents on the matter.

Well said Ovens. Thanks for your input. I also tend to agree with the sentiment. I think it's good to talk about why we do things which are seemingly ingrained into the social frabric of the site.

 

[It_is_i_wyatt]

Let me paint you a picture.

Say you're revising a really small verse with only 2 supporters. You're one of them so obviously your vote doesn't count. The other guy is a blue name and doesn't have the power to completely approve or deny your thread.

So you summon a few other people, some staff, some blue names. Blue names are likely your on-site friends because you wouldn't summon a rando to approve a thread they know nothing about, but you summon rando staff because they have some semblance of power to approve your thread.

6/10 times the staff glosses over it and approves it because you are one in a long line of people begging for their thread approval. 3 out of those 10 times they just don't show up because they don't care or they have no interest. 1 out of those 10 times they actually give you a proper analysis.

Based on the above, you're very likely to get the thread approved based on probability alone, even more so if you're personally friends with some staff.

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that getting anything done on this wiki requires a certain level of effort and commitment. The most of which, makes you staff. The reason why staff votes matter is not because they actually know the verse in question, but because they know the site and its meta. At some level you just become so VSBW rotted that you can smell when a thread is bad just by how one structures their OP. The system therefore, works based on good faith, which you unfortunately can only get by being on here for a considerable amount of time.

So yeah, this is basically why the FRA system is so deeply ingrained in our culture. You/your verse basically has to be absolutely despised to have your thread evaluated properly out of spite, hence why stonewalls happen. If everyone in your community agrees with you, there's not much reason why staff would have to disagree with a thread, regardless of whether they're in the community or not.

Anyway that's my 2 cents on the matter.

how do you become staff anyway, im not super interested in becoming anything myself im just curious what warrants promotion

 

[Sir_Ovens]

how do you become staff anyway, im not super interested in becoming anything myself im just curious what warrants promotion

You show a commitment to the site by participating in threads or cleaning up profiles and then you get nominated for a staff position.