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

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

During a recent confrontation between @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara and @KLOL506 on the former's Staff Discussion thread seeking to downgrade Devil May Cry from Low 1-C to 2-C, it became apparent that there were disagreements over how many staff are needed to apply CRTs affecting Tier 1 and Tier 0 ratings. As stated in our discussion rules, a CRT requires three votes in favor of it from evaluating staff, meaning Thread Moderators, Administrators, and Bureaucrats to pass, with minor and self-evident revisions needing only one such vote. Any thread affecting Tier 2 and above requires that an Administrator or Bureaucrat be at least one of the voting staff. However, the main point of contention is regarding CRTs affecting Tier 1 and Tier 0 ratings, which are currently described as follows in the rules:

• 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.

The rules for these threads state that they should receive input from an unspecified "larger" number of evaluating staff. However, KLOL506 claimed that such threads specifically needed five to seven votes from evaluating staff when no such rule existed, sparking an exchange between them and Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara. The primary reason KLOL506 claimed that such threads needed five to seven evaluating staff votes came from @LephyrTheRevanchist and an unofficial standard abided by on a recent thread seeking to upgrade God of War to Low 1-C.

The purpose of this thread is to clarify the current policy for the staff required to approve CRTs affecting Tier 1 and Tier 0 ratings, which are currently too vague to be useful. I have no particular stake in this conflict and simply seek to jumpstart the discussion, so I have no proposal to put forth; that'll be left for the other staff.

Note that this thread's outcome won't affect the Devil May Cry downgrade thread, as it's already received five votes from evaluating staff, so it's been approved regardless of what happens here.

 

[KLOL506]

@ImmortalDread has recently stated that a vote count approval bar should not be applied as it varies from verse to verse depending on their level of controversy.

 

[Deagonx]

My experience is that there are many staff members who are not willing or interested in Tier™ threads and will not participate in them. This is in addition to the fact that there are many niche verses with these sorts of ratings that even less staff members are interested in. I don't think it is prudent to kneecap revisions of these verses and tiers by making it even harder to pass them.

I think we already do a pretty good job as is, and in the thread in question the policy was being wielded to prevent it from passing. It was approved relatively uncontroversially by staff, with only a single disagreement.

So, I personally am not in favor of setting an even higher bar for these sorts of threads.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am entitled to express my views in this matter, as I single-handedly crafted the entire policy and actively participated in its development.

This staff discussion thread seems entirely superfluous.

We won't be setting a fixed number of staff members needed for larger verses, as it varies based on the material and size of each verse. Antvasima expressed clear disapproval of this idea during our previous staff discussion. The staff team currently lacks a sufficient number of skilled staff members proficient in tier 1 evaluations. Consequently, we have consistently depended on the precise and rational assessments provided by Ultima/DT to resolve these issues. The reliability of Ultima/DT's evaluations is underscored by the substantial contributions they have made, substantiating their accuracy and efficacy.

a CRT requires three votes in favor of it from evaluating staff

This assertion is incorrect. The policy clearly outlines that a minimum of three staff members member votes is required for these threads. Moreover, I explicitly mentioned later (in a sub-point) that this number does not guarantee the approval of any given thread.

However, KLOL506 claimed that such threads specifically needed five to seven votes from evaluating staff when no such rule existed,

While I do not endorse the assertion, my interpretation of his underlying message is that he intended to convey that verses or threads of such nature necessitate the involvement of more than three staff members due to their intense controversy. This assertion is not unfounded and aligns with established policy guidelines.

The primary reason KLOL506 claimed that such threads needed five to seven evaluating staff votes came from @LephyrTheRevanchist and an unofficial standard abided by on a recent thread seeking to upgrade God of War to Low 1-C.

No. Tier 1 threads require proper staff consensus. It is not something to reach a half-assed conclusion.

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 numerical claim may lack official endorsement, but the underlying premise of Lephy's post is substantiated and reinforced by prominently highlighted statements above. Lephy has now clarified his stance, and it aligns with my interpretation.

The purpose of this thread is to clarify the current policy for the staff required to approve CRTs affecting Tier 1 and Tier 0 ratings, which are currently too vague to be useful. I have no particular stake in this conflict and simply seek to jumpstart the discussion, so I have no proposal to put forth; that'll be left for the other staff.

Nothing needs to be done here. The policy is very clear, and we are not going to apply any specific value. It can be abused in these cases.


Overall, I disagree entirely with this thread.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I am entitled to express my views in this matter, as I single-handedly crafted the entire policy and actively participated in its development.

This staff discussion thread seems entirely superfluous.

We won't be setting a fixed number of staff members needed for larger verses, as it varies based on the material and size of each verse. Antvasima expressed clear disapproval of this idea during our previous staff discussion. The staff team currently lacks a sufficient number of skilled staff members proficient in tier 1 evaluations. Consequently, we have consistently depended on the precise and rational assessments provided by Ultima/DT to resolve these issues. The reliability of Ultima/DT's evaluations is underscored by the substantial contributions they have made, substantiating their accuracy and efficacy.

This assertion is incorrect. The policy clearly outlines that a minimum of three staff members member votes is required for these threads. Moreover, I explicitly mentioned later (in a sub-point) that this number does not guarantee the approval of any given thread.


While I do not endorse the assertion, my interpretation of his underlying message is that he intended to convey that verses or threads of such nature necessitate the involvement of more than three staff members due to their intense controversy. This assertion is not unfounded and aligns with established policy guidelines.




The numerical claim may lack official endorsement, but the underlying premise of Lephy's post is substantiated and reinforced by prominently highlighted statements above. Lephy has now clarified his stance, and it aligns with my interpretation.

Nothing needs to be done here. The policy is very clear, and we are not going to apply any specific value. It can be abused in these cases.


Overall, I disagree entirely with this thread.

I was simply trying to spark some discussion, not trying to push for anything.

 

[Deagonx]

I think it is probably best to make the rule more specific. The current rule is too vague to be useful. If anything, I would elect to remove mentions of an arbitrary increase (which is basically unusable given the complete lack of specificity) and just clarify that for these threads, there needs to be 2 more agrees than disagrees. (e.g., a 4-3 thread wouldn't pass.)

 

[ImmortalDread]

Quote the “vague” sentences of the policy that you are intended to modify.

there needs to be 2 more agrees than disagrees. (e.g., a 4-3 thread wouldn't pass.)

From a logical standpoint, it is evident that a ratio of 4:3 does not provide adequate grounds, based on common sense, to support the approval of the suggested thread. I don't mind this to be implemented, however.

But other than that, I am still waiting of these lines that need to be modified and are “somehow” vague if someone looked at the entirety of the context of the policy.

 

[Antvasima]

This staff discussion thread seems entirely superfluous.

We won't be setting a fixed number of staff members needed for larger verses, as it varies based on the material and size of each verse. Antvasima expressed clear disapproval of this idea during our previous staff discussion. The staff team currently lacks a sufficient number of skilled staff members proficient in tier 1 evaluations. Consequently, we have consistently depended on the precise and rational assessments provided by Ultima/DT to resolve these issues. The reliability of Ultima/DT's evaluations is underscored by the substantial contributions they have made, substantiating their accuracy and efficacy.

I largely agree with ImmortalDread here.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Shouldn't at least a well established limit be agreed on so that similar incidents won't happen like today? I mean why keep a standard purposely uncertain? It would be better to set the lowest acceptable number and just slap a the more agreements the better. Not a staff so sorry for commenting but in any setting where a majority needs to be achieved the majority is stated. It feels weird purposely keeping an uncertain standard while a common ground could be found. Now every staff member can have his own number as long as it's >=3 and be correct by these standards. Which is totally find if that's the plan but from what happened today it doesn't seem like it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This occurrence occurred due to a misunderstanding and is unrelated to any existing policies, as in “there is a flaw in the policies”. And the incident you are describing, aside from the validity of the vote count, was actually legitimate to pass. The only instance in which the situation mirrored this was the unsettled vote tally, skillfully managed by @Planck69, later on.

We do not intend to modify our standards in response to isolated incidents, as such incidents can be caused by many factors. Our policies are well-defined and explicit. I remain open to feedback regarding any perceived “ambiguity” in my draft, which is very suspicious given that the draft has received approval from the majority of administrators and all Bureaucrats.

 

[Antvasima]

I still agree with ImmortalDread here.

 

[KLOL506]

Could I suggest a proposal?

I believe that Staff should need to be incredibly explicit and formal with their votes so that we don't run into further confusions, without any "Maybe" or "I will wait to see what others say before I vote" or question marks or whatever. Just a simple "I agree with this thread" or "I disagree with this thread", and/or any other specific parts of the thread they agree/disagree with, whether they want to explain why is upto them, whether it be they find someone's argumentation valid or not, or if it be from their own argumentations. Hopefully that's not a controversial addition?

 

[Planck69]

Yeah. A lot of these issues stem from staff either postponing judgement or being hesitant to commit to a stance. Which is fine but it shouldn't really count as a vote until its clear I think.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Yeah. A lot of these issues stem from staff either postponing judgement or being hesitant to commit to a stance. Which is fine but it shouldn't really count as a vote until its clear I think.

I think judgment should no be expressed before a stance is taken for certain and can be properly counted as a vote. Before that judgment can be witholded till an opinion has been formed.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I recurrently use the phrasing "I think that what is suggested makes sense", or a variant thereof, which means the same thing as saying "I agree". I hope that our staff will not be required to always make the same standardised robotic responses.

 

[KLOL506]

Not really that robotic to say that you agree with a thread, if you feel it sounds too robotic, they can always express it in other ways like "This has by wholehearted approval", "I give this a green light" or "This looks good" or "I have no issues with this passing" or however creative you want to be.

The thing is tho, we should try to avoid vagueness as much as possible.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I wholeheartedly welcome this addition and am willing to collaborate on drafting it. I have intended to address this matter with @Antvasima for some time but was preoccupied with my academic (college) responsibilities and wiki-related tasks. On the contrary, I firmly believe that this content should be incorporated into the page mentioned below:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Advice_to_the_staff_of_the_VS_Battles_wiki

The essence of this suggestion underscores the importance of clear and articulate expression of stance by all staff members, particularly those vested with evaluation rights. Any ambiguities in one's position will not carry substantial influence on the eventual decision-making process.

 

[ImmortalDread]

All staff members are encouraged to cast their votes in a clear and concise 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 on the issue at hand. Instead, staff members should use direct language to express their position, leaving no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation.

Does this sound good for starters?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I can agree if our staff members are being very vague, but not if they clearly give their support or opposition to a suggestion. Otherwise we open ourselves up to vote manipulation to disqualify staff votes and force them to spend time reevaluating threads that they have often mostly forgotten.

 

[Antvasima]

Does this sound good for starters?

The words "explicit" and "formal" seem a bit pedantic and overzealous to me.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't think this policy is realistically enforceable and ideally our staff members should be available enough that they can clarify in the few cases where there is ambiguity. However I don't think all cases of ambiguity are sincere, I think Ant saying "this makes sense to me" is pretty intuitive and I am not sure why people were arguing against counting it in the recent thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The words "explicit" and "formal" seem a bit pedantic and overzealous to me.

Changed. Any suggestion would be appreciated.

 

[Antvasima]

Possibly because my evaluation was inconvenient for the opposition, but I haven't kept up with the discussion there at all.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't think this policy is realistically enforceable and ideally our staff members should be available enough that they can clarify in the few cases where there is ambiguity.

This is not a policy, but advice to all staff members. I linked a page on where we replace it.

However I don't think all cases of ambiguity are sincere, I think Ant saying "this makes sense to me" is pretty intuitive and I am not sure why people were arguing against counting it in the recent thread.

Respectfully speaking, @Antvasima has frequently conveyed uncertainty regarding threads categorized as tier 1 and above, specifically in evaluating moderate threads with explicit scrutiny. However, it is imperative to note that evaluating such threads falls outside of their primary responsibilities within the community.

He is predominantly engaged in addressing threads like this one and other policy/site-wide matters where their expertise is in high demand. Consequently, it is valid to question the intention behind his comment, especially when dealing with threads requiring meticulous attention to detail, especially given the expertise and knowledge needed for such evaluations.

 

[Antvasima]

Changed. Any suggestion would be appreciated.

Thank you.

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

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler

 

[KLOL506]

Dread makes pretty good points overall. As such, I am heavily inclined to agree with her.

 

[ImmortalDread]

"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."

Please add "Instead, staff members should use direct language to express their position, leaving no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation." at the end.

 

[Antvasima]

This is not a policy, but advice to all staff members. I linked a page on where we replace it.

Respectfully speaking, @Antvasima has frequently conveyed uncertainty regarding threads categorized as tier 1 and above, specifically in evaluating moderate threads with explicit scrutiny. However, it is imperative to note that evaluating such threads falls outside of their primary responsibilities within the community.

He is predominantly engaged in addressing threads like this one and other policy/site-wide matters where their expertise is in high demand. Consequently, it is valid to question the intention behind his comment, especially when dealing with threads requiring meticulous attention to detail, especially given the expertise and knowledge needed for such evaluations.

What you are referring to was just a tier Low 1-C discussion thread though, which are not comparatively very mathematically or philosophically abstract and complicated to evaluate.

 

[Antvasima]

Please add "Instead, staff members should use direct language to express their position, leaving no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation." at the end.

That still seems to enter the same problem of being too pedantic that I mentioned earlier above.

 

[ImmortalDread]

What you are referring to was just a tier Low 1-C discussion thread though, which are not comparatively very mathematically or philosophically abstract and complicated to evaluate.

If it was not complicated, it would not be discussed for five pages and someone was required to post a whole big detailed explanation in a blog which forced one of staff members to shift their stance to being neutral as well as two staff members ended up disagreeing with the thread.

I did not intend to discredit your vote; my purpose was to articulate the reasons why members might harbor uncertainty in response to such comments.

 

[ImmortalDread]

That still seems to enter the same problem of being too pedantic that I mentioned earlier above.

I thought, the words as “explicit” and “formal” are removed. This one is to ensure what is being conveyed with this advice.

 

[Antvasima]

If it was not complicated, it would not be discussed for 5 pages and someone was required to post a whole big detailed explanation in a blog which forced one of staff members to shift their stance to neutrality as well as two staff members ended up disagreeing with the thread.

I did not intend to discredit your vote; my purpose was to articulate the reasons why members might harbor uncertainty in response to such comments.

I said comparatively complicated in terms in the required expertise.

 

[Antvasima]

I thought, the words as “explicit” and “formal” are removed. This one is to ensure what is being conveyed with this advice.

It can likely easily be interpreted in the exact same manner as those words.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It can likely easily be interpreted in the exact same manner as those words.

Alright, I will use “straightforward” as an alternative.

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.

 

[KLOL506]

The words "explicit" and "formal" seem a bit pedantic and overzealous to me.

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?

 

[Planck69]

I don't think it's overzealous. It's much preferable that staff clarify their stance as clearly as possible in these sorts of threads. Even saying "I am not sure so I refrain from voting" is preferable to a statement that can be taken one way or the other.

Also, I don't think we can enforce this but it should be encouraged for staff to at least vote after a rebuttal to an OPis sent or reconfirm their stance after a lot of back-and-forth is had. All of us have seen that situation where a thread is made, a vote is cast only for the situation to be very different 3 pages in.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't think Tier 1 topics in themselves really mandate the number of staff members; it's less about tier jumps and more about popularity/controversy of the verse(s) in question. But I would say valid points are more important or our tiering system experts may have a better judgement than inviting 5 or more Discussion Mods. Likewise, if there is contention or vote counts for either side, to the point where there is a deadlock. We may need more staff and/or some Bureaucrats may need to step in to consider which side appears to have been making better statements in regards to what follows the tiering system more.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't think Tier 1 topics in themselves really mandate the number of staff members; it's less about tier jumps and more about popularity/controversy of the verse(s) in question. But I would say valid points are more important or our tiering system experts may have a better judgement than inviting 5 or more Discussion Mods. Likewise, if there is contention or vote counts for either side, to the point where there is a deadlock. We may need more staff and/or some Bureaucrats may need to step in to consider which side appears to have been making better statements in regards to what follows the tiering system more.

We already decided there will be no vote requirement cap. All of it is on a case-by-case basis, based on controversy and the amount of heat a thread can generate.

We are now just discussing that staff make clear and concise votes without a hint or shred of ambiguity to them, as Dread proposed.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

In that case, I don't think there's an issue with those statements. Both of those statements equate to saying, "They are neutral for now, but may change their mind later." Which there is no rule nor should their be a rule against voting neutral.

 

[KLOL506]

In that case, I don't think there's an issue with those statements. Both of those statements equate to saying, "They are neutral for now, but may change their mind later." Which there is no rule nor should their be a rule against voting neutral.

That's a different thing from this.