Clarifying the number of staff necessary to approve Tier 1 and 0 revisions

[LordGriffin1000]

The following text seems sufficient for our purposes, but we need input from our bureaucrats and administrators first.

"All staff members are encouraged to cast their votes in a clearly worded manner during decision-making processes within threads. When voting on any matter, staff members are expected to avoid ambiguous language, such as "maybe", "I will wait to see what others say before I vote", or any statements that do not clearly indicate their stance regarding the issue at hand."

Advice to the staff of the VS Battles wiki

All newly promoted staff members are obligated to familiarize themselves with each of these guidelines to ensure the safety and well-being of the community You need the help of the staff and the community, so do your best to show proper respect, be polite to, and get along well with other staff...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Looks alright. I'm fine with it.

 

[Elizhaa]

All staff members are encouraged to cast their votes in a clearly worded manner during decision-making processes within threads. When voting on any matter, staff members are expected to avoid ambiguous language, such as "maybe", "I will wait to see what others say before I vote", or any statements that do not clearly indicate their stance regarding the issue at hand. Instead, staff members should use straightfoward language to express their position, leaving no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation.

The text seems fine.

 

[Firestorm808]

So at the moment, we have the following:

In cases where the series verse has a significant following or a large amount of material has been published based on its content, it may be necessary to seek approval from a minimum of three staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions.
It is important to note that this requirement should not be interpreted as a guarantee that the proposed revisions will be approved if a minimum of three staff members have given their approval. In cases involving big or controversial changes, or in situations where a verse is one where many of our staff members are knowledgeable, it may be advisable to involve as many staff members as possible in the review and approval process. This requirement is in place to ensure that revisions to popular or widely-recognized series verses are thoroughly reviewed and approved by a sufficient number of individuals with the necessary expertise and knowledge.

The review and approval of content revisions that affect tiers 1 and 0 or that are highly controversial should be conducted by a larger number of staff members in order to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed changes. It is essential that these revisions are evaluated by staff members who possess a reasonable level of genuine understanding and expertise in these areas in order to maintain the accuracy and quality of the revised material.
Input from highly respected members of the community, such as experts on the topic, should be taken into consideration when determining the necessary level of review and approval.

Judging by the order and language, Tiers 1 and 0 or highly controversial threads follow the suggested minimum of three but are encouraged to have more. What a "large number" entails is subjective and case by case based on the quality of input.

Similar to the earlier statement, Any "minimum amount" of input should not be interpreted as a guarantee that the proposed revisions will be approved.

A thread with more staff input would have a higher chance of a proper cross-examination from both sides rather than 3 or 5 plain "Yes. I agree." Responses.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

I disagree with this mindset, we are supposed to rely on our staff members for evaluations with threads, but how are they supposed to be staff if they are not sincere with their position?

Not everybody express themselves in the same manner, or are comfortable with doing so.

 

[Antvasima]

This text seems fine to me:

"All staff members are encouraged to cast their votes in a clearly worded manner during decision-making processes within threads. When voting on any matter, staff members are expected to avoid ambiguous language, such as "maybe", "I will wait to see what others say before I vote", or any statements that do not clearly indicate their stance regarding the issue at hand. Instead, staff members should use straightfoward language to express their position, in order to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation."

 

[ImmortalDread]

I think we got a sufficient amount of approval to apply this draft to the page "advice to staff members".

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This text seems fine to me:

"All staff members are encouraged to cast their votes in a clearly worded manner during decision-making processes within threads. When voting on any matter, staff members are expected to avoid ambiguous language, such as "maybe", "I will wait to see what others say before I vote", or any statements that do not clearly indicate their stance regarding the issue at hand. Instead, staff members should use straightfoward language to express their position, in order to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation."

I think we got a sufficient amount of approval to apply this draft to the page "advice to staff members".

Where on the page?

 

[Deagonx]

All staff members are encouraged to cast their votes in a clearly worded manner during decision-making processes within threads. When voting on any matter, staff members are expected to avoid ambiguous language, such as "maybe", "I will wait to see what others say before I vote", or any statements that do not clearly indicate their stance regarding the issue at hand. Instead, staff members should use straightfoward language to express their position, in order to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation.

I think we should remove the examples from this section, because they are not good representations of the problem we are trying to solve. Saying you will wait to vote isn't a problem, I think it's votes that give the appearance of agreement or disagreement but aren't concrete enough to the point where it causes an argument as to what the vote actually is, like "I am leaning towards (x)"

 

[KLOL506]

Not everybody express themselves in the same manner, or are comfortable with doing so.

They can always take a look at the arguments when all the bickering has died down.

I think we should remove the examples from this section, because they are not good representations of the problem we are trying to solve. Saying you will wait to vote isn't a problem, I think it's votes that give the appearance of agreement or disagreement but aren't concrete enough to the point where it causes an argument as to what the vote actually is, like "I am leaning towards (x)"

Brother, it's just a simple "I agree with the proposals"/"I disagree with the proposals". There's no need to make it this complicated.

 

[Deagonx]

We're not going to establish a cookie cutter format for staff to give their responses.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Where on the page?

Advice to the staff of the VS Battles wiki

All newly promoted staff members are obligated to familiarize themselves with each of these guidelines to ensure the safety and well-being of the community You need the help of the staff and the community, so do your best to show proper respect, be polite to, and get along well with other staff...

vsbattles.fandom.com

"General" section. Preferablely add it at the end.

 

[Planck69]

The examples can stay. Really, it's not hard to either say "I agree"/some clear equivalent, "I disagree"/some clear equivalent and "I'm neutral"/"I won't vote for now."

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Deagonx]

"I won't vote for now."

But that's what one of the examples literally is? If you're saying this is okay then that example should be removed.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Also, may I ask what is ground basis for "leaning to agree/disagree" concept? I keep hearing it but frankly speaking, I can't find any significant difference between this and being neutral.

I am obviously talking about its practicalities.

 

[KLOL506]

Also, may I ask what is ground basis for "leaning to agree/disagree" concept? I keep hearing it but frankly speaking, I can't find any significant difference between this and being neutral.

I am obviously talking about its practicalities.

I personally want to know this myself too.

 

[Deagonx]

It's an issue because it will be interpreted as a vote by people who want it to be a vote, and interpreted as not a vote by people who don't want it to be a vote. That seems to be the issue we are attempting to solve here.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't necessarily interpret it as one as this shows some uncertainty in someone's evaluation which would be unfair to have the same weight as someone who is curtain in his evaluation and is confident to vote against/for the thread proposal.

And being neutral is also vaguely interpreted as "I am not sure, so I will stay neutral" --> shows some uncertainty in some specific aspect of the thread.

 

[Planck69]

Also, may I ask what is ground basis for "leaning to agree/disagree" concept? I keep hearing it but frankly speaking, I can't find any significant difference between this and being neutral.

I am obviously talking about its practicalities.

Frankly, it'd be better if staff did this less in my opinion. It's rather ambiguous and doesn't do much for a discussion. I myself am guilty of this and I'll try to cut back on it.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Also, may I ask what is ground basis for "leaning to agree/disagree" concept? I keep hearing it but frankly speaking, I can't find any significant difference between this and being neutral.

I am obviously talking about its practicalities.

Personally I’d treat this as being neutral until a more concrete stance is given, though ideally this should be done less

 

[Antvasima]

I think we should remove the examples from this section, because they are not good representations of the problem we are trying to solve. Saying you will wait to vote isn't a problem, I think it's votes that give the appearance of agreement or disagreement but aren't concrete enough to the point where it causes an argument as to what the vote actually is, like "I am leaning towards (x)"

We're not going to establish a cookie cutter format for staff to give their responses.

It's an issue because it will be interpreted as a vote by people who want it to be a vote, and interpreted as not a vote by people who don't want it to be a vote. That seems to be the issue we are attempting to solve here.

Yes, this makes sense to me. How about this then:

"All staff members are encouraged to cast their votes in a clearly worded manner during decision-making processes within threads. When voting on any matter, staff members are expected to avoid ambiguous language. Instead, staff members should try to use straightforward language to express their position, in order to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation."

Also, I recurrently tend to say "This seems to make sense to me", "I am leaning to agree/disagree" and similar as my form of voicing agreement, as I am not comfortable with speaking in terms of absolute certainty and truth, and, especially given my severe difficulties with keeping up with all forum work on top of all my other duties, I definitely do not want other members to continuously misinterpret that in any manner they choose in order to illegitimise my votes, and many other staff members likely have similar problems with serious time constraints when trying their best to help out with evaluations.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Advice to the staff of the VS Battles wiki

All newly promoted staff members are obligated to familiarize themselves with each of these guidelines to ensure the safety and well-being of the community You need the help of the staff and the community, so do your best to show proper respect, be polite to, and get along well with other staff...

vsbattles.fandom.com

"General" section. Preferablely add it at the end.

Yes, this makes sense to me. How about this then:

"All staff members are encouraged to cast their votes in a clearly worded manner during decision-making processes within threads. When voting on any matter, staff members are expected to avoid ambiguous language. Instead, staff members should try to use straightforward language to express their position, in order to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation."

Also, I recurrently tend to say "This seems to make sense to me", "I am leaning to agree/disagree" and similar as my form of voicing agreement, as I am not comfortable with speaking in terms of absolute certainty and truth, and, especially given my severe difficulties with keeping up with all forum work on top of all my other duties, I definitely do not want other members to continuously misinterpret that in any manner they choose in order to illegitimise my votes, and many other staff members likely have similar problems with serious time constraints when trying their best to help out with evaluations.

Can I apply this now?

 

[Deagonx]

"All staff members are encouraged to cast their votes in a clearly worded manner during decision-making processes within threads. When voting on any matter, staff members are expected to avoid ambiguous language. Instead, staff members should try to use straightforward language to express their position, in order to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation."

This looks acceptable.

 

[Antvasima]

Can I apply this now?

Well, I find it acceptable at least.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This looks acceptable.

Well, I find it acceptable at least.

Done. This can be closed now.

Advice to the staff of the VS Battles wiki

All newly promoted staff members are obligated to familiarize themselves with each of these guidelines to ensure the safety and well-being of the community You need the help of the staff and the community, so do your best to show proper respect, be polite to, and get along well with other staff...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much to everybody who helped out here.

Is it fine if we close this thread then?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't mind not using examples, since the advice should be formulated in general sense.

How staff member reword his stance is his personal preference, but the premise of the advice should be met regardless, otherwise it would be pointless.

The thread can be closed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so then. Thanks again.