- 16,008
- 8,265
- Thread starter
- #41
@BlackeJan, since this thread is staff-only, I believe you shall ask permissions to an Administrators with valid reasoning to contribute here in the thread.
-
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.
Authorised staff evaluations of content revision threads
- Thread starter Elizhaa
- Start date
- Status
- 168,594
- 77,416
@Qawsedf234
Well, we use administrators and discussion moderators as a safety valve, so regular members do not suddenly start to make massive statistics revisions on their own. However, the regular members can still offer valuable input, analyses, and explanations that the staff should evaluate, and recurrently accept.
Well, we use administrators and discussion moderators as a safety valve, so regular members do not suddenly start to make massive statistics revisions on their own. However, the regular members can still offer valuable input, analyses, and explanations that the staff should evaluate, and recurrently accept.
- 16,008
- 8,265
- Thread starter
- #43
@Qawsedf234, in my opionins, it was always up to staff total votes or agreements in CRT. I guess now only the Administrators and Discussion Moderators votes will matters if we are going of respective authorities, on this point.
- 168,594
- 77,416
No, their opinions are definitely not the only ones that matter, but they are supposed to make an effort to evaluate all of the most sensible arguments, and then possibly give a go ahead affirmation.
- 15,637
- 5,392
This is essentially a "tyranny of the majority" versus "elitist minority" issue. If we remove staff involvement statistics and the system in general will devolve rapidly as revisions focus more on gathering enough heads than pursuing the correct outcome. If we give staff too much power, the site can very easily turn into an echo-chamber for similar opinions that increasingly isolates itself from the user base.
We should therefore act more as facilitators rather than instigators of change, or if we wish to push revisions ourselves, have other staff members act in that role. Yes, revisions to the system itself would be staff-only, but for single verses this dichotomy should be kept in mind.
We should therefore act more as facilitators rather than instigators of change, or if we wish to push revisions ourselves, have other staff members act in that role. Yes, revisions to the system itself would be staff-only, but for single verses this dichotomy should be kept in mind.
- 16,008
- 8,265
- Thread starter
- #48
The argreements was meant to be synonymous for evaluations. I do believe in all CRT evaluation, most wiki members, strive to evaluate all of the most sensible arguments. Hence, I made my points and there affirmations, re-affirmations, votes, evaluations, and agreements are all synonymous. Of courses, all valid points by staffs in a general and supporters should matters.Antvasima said:
- 10,758
- 6,491
I agree with Dargoo about being facilitators. My belief is this, It shouldn't be the personal opinions of staffs that get a revision rejected or accepted they should only be trying to make sure the reasoning behind the revisions is sound and if they can verify this, even things they personally disagree with shouldn't be kept from bring applied just for that difference in opinion.
- 10,066
- 5,309
I think it should go without saying, but I agree with Dargoo's standpoint on this as well.
- 16,008
- 8,265
- Thread starter
- #58
Antvasima said:
- Before making sweeping or significant changes to an established and/or popular character or verse, please make a thread in the Content Revision forum first, so that the suggestions may be evaluated by the Staff and the community at large, to ensure that they are acceptable.
- The resolving evaluations must be be taken by Discussion Moderators or Administrators with their evaluations being based on valid arguments, not personal opinions.
- 10,066
- 5,309
Add a comma in between "arguments" and "not," then I'm fine with it.
- 2,463
- 928
- Before making sweeping or significant changes to an established and/or popular character or verse, please make a thread in the Content Revision forum first, so that the suggestions may be evaluated by the Staff and the community at large, to ensure that they are acceptable.
- The resolving evaluations must be taken by Discussion Moderators or Administrators with their evaluations being based on valid arguments, not personal opinions.
- 10,758
- 6,491
I don't have any issue
- 16,008
- 8,265
- Thread starter
- #68
Apologies; it is in all the pages in the OP exept in the Advice to the staff of the VS Battles wiki page.Antvasima said:
- 31,664
- 34,728
This seems to make sense; though, I do think other staff members are allowed to give input of course. Yes, it is Discussion Mods and Admins whose input hold the most weight, but if a Bureaucrat's input if they decide to step in would also hold much weight. But there are some details in which a Calc Group member's input would also hold just as much weight as a Discussion Mod or Admin's. And some verses where the supporters and knowledgeable members happen to just be Content Mods, Chat Mods, and regular users might require help from at least one Discussion Mod or Admin to take a look.
- 168,594
- 77,416
It seems like you are correct. In that case the relevant text segments in all of the regulation pages should be replaced.
Is something like this acceptable? It better clarifies that although the staff can make an effort to be impartial, we are not perfect in this regard.
Is something like this acceptable? It better clarifies that although the staff can make an effort to be impartial, we are not perfect in this regard.
- Before making sweeping or significant changes to characters or verse pages, please start a thread in the Content Revision forum first, so that the suggestions may be evaluated by the Staff and the community at large, to ensure that they are acceptable. The concluding evaluations must be handled by Discussion Moderators, Administrators, or Bureaucrats, who should make an effort to base their evaluations on valid arguments, not personal opinions.
- 16,008
- 8,265
- Thread starter
- #73
I think it is fine, @Antvasima. Also, I didn't link the Bureaucrats in the OP because all Bureaucrats are Administrators already so I thought it was redundant initiallly.
- 15,332
- 7,563
We have already debated the staff roles and the elitism issue to near-death - we have managed to deal with this issue with far more satisfaction since the end of the last year, so there is no need to keep striking the same bell on that regard.
We should probably just apply the changes to the page and close this thread.
We should probably just apply the changes to the page and close this thread.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Yes.
- Status
