Clarifying the sufficient number of staff for accepting a revision (STAFF ONLY)

[Antvasima]

I didn’t even know you could just apply ngl

Well, you need to actually have done lots of continuous competent work in the area, and also be willing to handle two staff duties at the same time. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point.

 

[Antvasima]

To start, I'd like to say I am with Ant on his concerns about drastic and sudden changes made to the wiki.

Thank you.

As for the ongoing discussion regarding thread evaluations... I don't think starting with a baseline requirement will allow for very small verses to get evaluated in a timely manner. There are a great deal of verses that struggle, in my experience, to get even one. As Ovens said, a poor CRT is undoable, but an inability to progress is not.

On the flip side, it is my belief that larger verses require many times more investigation solely due to the many different perspectives people have. Even without bad actors attempting to manipulate ratings towards their favor, people debating larger verses often are very passionate about their beliefs. Great care is needed.

Strongly agreed.

So, what I mean is that I think very small or very self-evident revisions can be passed through with a single approval by a relevant staff member. Otherwise, certain verses will suffer from these revisions. And I think larger verses should indeed have many more- four seems fine, assuming it isn't a huge debating point.

Yes, although I think that a points system of some sort that takes into account how highly trusted/high-ranked a staff members is seems like a good idea. Otherwise thread moderators and bureaucrats would get the same voting power, for example, which seems inappropriate even for regular content revision threads.

All of this obviously doesn't take into account a large scale argument, at which point it depends on how the voting swings.

As for "pointifying" evaluations, I think that greatly oversimplifies things and I don't really think it's a good idea. We are all aware that an administrator's vote outweighs that of a thread moderator, and a bureaucrat's vote outweighs that of an administrator. Furthermore, under the current proposed system, two thread moderators equal a vote from a bureaucrat, which seems... off, to me.

Well, bureaucrats mainly have a lot of authority when it comes to major wiki policy changes, not regular content revision threads (and almost none when it comes to calculation blogs), but maybe we could adjust the voting power structure to 1 point for thread moderators, 2 points for administrators, and 3 or 4 points for bureaucrats instead, with the required amount of points for each type of revision adjusted accordingly?

I am not sure what the best specific points organisation would be in this regard, so I am very open to hearing what you think should be done.

Anyway, the problem is that the alternative of just going by staff numbers, regardless of rank would work even worse.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well, bureaucrats mainly have a lot of authority when it comes to major wiki policy changes, not regular content revision threads (and almost none when it comes to calculation blogs)

I'm sorry, were we intending to apply this to calculation blogs?

 

[Antvasima]

In my view:

• If it's some self evident ability addition then one staff member is fine. For example, a thread on giving a version of Nightwing acrobatics or something

Agreed.

• A verse with minimal or no supporters will probably necessitate a lower amount of staff approvals to get by. Some random slasher villain CRT might only attract a handful or people and can easily be forgotten about

Agreed.

• For a tiering change it should be at least two staff members

Agreed in principle, but I think that a points system of some sort seems more practically workable.

• Anything above Tier 2 should require Admin participation

That is a very good suggestion in my view.

• In my opinion if a staff member makes a thread I don't think their vote should be counted. They're automatically going to be for whatever revision they're doing and there's going to be bias somewhere.

I suppose so, yes.

• Larger franchises will honestly just require more input. We shouldn't be passing a tiering change for Superman because two people agreed with it or anything. It's subjective yes, but ultimately bigger verses require more input.

Yes, agreed.

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm sorry, were we intending to apply this to calculation blogs?

No, I was just referring to that even bureaucrats have restrictions to their areas of authority, except for DontTalk, as he is a retired calc group member.

 

[Antvasima]

ImmortalDread:

I do not think that you seem to have quite understood the intentions of my suggested points system with your post about this above, but thank you for helping out.

 

[ImmortalDread]

If I am not understanding it wrong, many of you agreed that administrator presence is significant when it comes to tier 2 above content revisions?

I created this draft for this suggestion

• For content revisions that affect Tier 2 or higher, the participation of an Administrator in the review and approval process is required.
• The Administrator will provide their evaluation and input on the proposed revision, and their decision will be given significant weight in the final determination of approval.

I also created those as well

• Staff members who do not have content revision thread evaluation rights are still encouraged to provide their insights and observations on proposed revisions.
• The input and comments of these staff members will be carefully considered by those with evaluation rights, and may influence the final decision on the approval of a content revision.

And for Evaluation System, I will wait till majority agrees with the points before I change the draft.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I think that those seem like sensible changes.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I also think it might be important to point out, technically a lot of staff members have been like this and myself included, but it has been a common theme for staff members to okay an upgrade proposal for some verses more so out of a reluctance to get too involved rather than them knowing whether or not some proposals are legit. And others also might do so out of a fear of backlash, since some fanbases legitimately are filled with literal cultists who attack or berate everyone who disagrees with some upgrades or agrees with staff who disagree. And some people make an "LOL, I'm going to screen shot posts like these as running memes" that staff understandably do not wish to be involved in.

It's admittedly hard to deal with stuff like them, but some kind of policies really should discourage those types of echo chambers.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems reasonable, but I am not sure what should practically be done about such problems.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I do not think that you seem to have quite understood the intentions of my suggested points system with your post about this above, but thank you for helping out.

Alright, I adjusted the system a bit, if you could clarify your concerns with the draft, I will be definitely open-minded and try to formulate them in a formal manner. The points are still discussed, so till everyone agrees, this is not a final draft!

The Evaluation System:

In order to maintain the accuracy and quality of our series verse, it is necessary to implement a thorough review and approval process for proposed content revisions. The following guidelines have been established to ensure that all content revisions are properly evaluated and approved in a consistent and fair manner.

Classification of revisions

Content revisions will be classified as minor, moderate, or major based on their complexity and significance.

• Minor Revisions include changes to one or two characters or the addition of simple abilities that do not fall into the categories of higher types of acausality, concept manipulation, abstract existence, plot manipulation, information manipulation, causality manipulation, NEP, or Law manipulation.
• Moderate Revisions include changes that significantly alter the overall structure or content of a series of verse, but do not affect tiers 1 and 0.
• Major Revisions include changes that affect tiers 1 and 0 or that are highly controversial.

Evaluation points

Content revision threads will require a minimum number of evaluation points for approval, based on the classification of the revision.

• Minor Revisions: 2 evaluation points
• Moderate Revisions: 4 evaluation points
• Major Revisions: 6 evaluation points

Staff evaluations will be provided by staff members with evaluation rights, who will review and evaluate the proposed revision based on their expertise and knowledge of the series verse. The rank and expertise of the staff member providing the evaluation will also be taken into account, with higher ranks and more expertise carrying more weight.

• Thread Moderators: 1 evaluation point
• Administrators: 2 evaluation points
• Bureaucrats: 3 evaluation points

Under this system, the number of evaluation points required for the approval of a content revision will depend on the complexity and controversy of the revision, rather than the rank of the staff members evaluating it. For instance, a content revision thread that is considered minor or uncontroversial would require 2 evaluation points to pass, which could be provided by two Thread Moderators or one Administrator. A revision that is considered moderate or major would require more evaluation points to pass, such as 4 evaluation points for a moderate revision or 6 evaluation points for a major revision.

It is important to note that while each staff member's evaluation carries equal weight, the final decision on the approval of a content revision may be influenced by other factors such as the expertise and knowledge of the staff members involved, the complexity and controversy of the revision, and the popularity or prominence of the affected series verse.

Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Bureaucrats primarily have a lot of authority when it comes to major wiki policy changes, rather than regular content revision threads. Their authority in this regard may be restricted to specific areas.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Alright, I adjusted the system a bit, if you could clarify your concerns with the draft, I will be definitely open-minded and try to formulate them in a formal manner. The points are still discussed, so till everyone agrees, this is not a final draft!

The Evaluation System:

1. Thread Moderators: 2 evaluation points (or 1)
2. Administrators: 3 evaluation points (or 2)
3. Bureaucrats: 4 evaluation points (or 3)

Under this system, the number of evaluation points required for the approval of a content revision will depend on the rank of the staff members evaluating the revision. For instance, a content revision thread evaluated by two Thread Moderators and one Administrator would require a minimum of 7 evaluation points to pass. Similarly, a revision evaluated by one Bureaucrat and one Administrator would also require a minimum of 7 evaluation points to pass.

It is important to note that while each staff member's evaluation whose has the evaluation rights carries equal weight, the final decision on the approval of a content revision may be influenced by other factors such as the expertise and knowledge of the staff members involved, the complexity and controversy of the revision, and the popularity or prominence of the affected series verse.

Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Bureaucrats primarily have a lot of authority when it comes to major wiki policy changes, rather than regular content revision threads. Their authority in this regard may be restricted to specific areas.

Where would regular users and "knowledgeables" rank at in points?

It kind of makes being a "knowledgable member on ZZZZ-Verse" Pointless if they don't get their opinion accounted for something they knowlegable in (assuming they have their name listed on the "Knolwlegable members" section of a verse.)

Also regular users not having any points towards evaluation would discourage member involvement and also make it appear that staff members have too much power on the wiki to new members, and people looking in on the wiki.

Just my opinions

 

[Antvasima]

Just a clarification regarding that I meant that each type of revision would have a set number of required evaluation points, and that these can be more easily fulfilled by administrators than thread moderators, for example.

 

[Antvasima]

Where would regular users and "knowledgeables" rank at in points?

It kind of makes being a "knowledgable member on ZZZZ-Verse" Pointless if they don't get their opinion accounted for something they knowlegable in (assuming they have their name listed on the "Knolwlegable members" section of a verse.)

Also regular users not having any points towards evaluation would discourage member involvement and also make it appear that staff members have too much power on the wiki to new members, and people looking in on the wiki.

Just my opinions

But regular members have never had any evaluation rights for content revision threads. The more knowledgeable they are, the more our staff members should take their evaluations in to serious consideration though.

 

[Crabwhale]

I also think it might be important to point out, technically a lot of staff members have been like this and myself included, but it has been a common theme for staff members to okay an upgrade proposal for some verses more so out of a reluctance to get too involved rather than them knowing whether or not some proposals are legit.

Then that is a problem on the part of the staff members in question. Either fully review the thread in question to the best of your ability, or don't bother. This kind of halfway mentality will lead only to trouble down the line.

 

[Antvasima]

Then that is a problem on the part of the staff members in question. Either fully review the thread in question to the best of your ability, or don't bother. This kind of halfway mentality will lead only to trouble down the line.

That is a good point. I much prefer if our staff members try to continuously show some courage in this regard though.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

But regular members have never had any evaluation rights for content revision threads. The more knowledgeable they are, the more our staff members should take their evaluations in to serious consideration though.

I don't really have a problem with the idea.

I'm concerned on how this could impact the wikis reputation, "Atmosphere/environment/mood/attitudes/," and growth.

 

[Crabwhale]

Alright, I adjusted the system a bit, if you could clarify your concerns with the draft, I will be definitely open-minded and try to formulate them in a formal manner. The points are still discussed, so till everyone agrees, this is not a final draft!

The Evaluation System:

1. Thread Moderators: 2 evaluation points (or 1)
2. Administrators: 3 evaluation points (or 2)
3. Bureaucrats: 4 evaluation points (or 3)

Under this system, the number of evaluation points required for the approval of a content revision will depend on the rank of the staff members evaluating the revision. For instance, a content revision thread evaluated by two Thread Moderators and one Administrator would require a minimum of 7 evaluation points to pass. Similarly, a revision evaluated by one Bureaucrat and one Administrator would also require a minimum of 7 evaluation points to pass.

It is important to note that while each staff member's evaluation whose has the evaluation rights carries equal weight, the final decision on the approval of a content revision may be influenced by other factors such as the expertise and knowledge of the staff members involved, the complexity and controversy of the revision, and the popularity or prominence of the affected series verse.

Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Bureaucrats primarily have a lot of authority when it comes to major wiki policy changes, rather than regular content revision threads. Their authority in this regard may be restricted to specific areas.

Personally I agree more with Bambu's take in this specific instance, that being, mathematically equating each staff member's opinion in some sort of point system isn't a good idea. We all have our hierarchies in place me thinks, purple then green then brown is engrained fairly well into everybody's mind by now.

 

[Crabwhale]

I'm concerned on how this could impact the wikis reputation, "Atmosphere/environment/mood/attitudes/," and growth.

This is how the wiki has always operated. It will not impact our reputation anymore than it already does.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

This is how the wiki has always operated. It will not impact our reputation anymore than it already does.

I'm having troubles wording my thoughts on what my concern is. but You are right it was something that was always done.


will post again once i find the words for it lol. sorry about this.

 

[Antvasima]

Personally I agree more with Bambu's take in this specific instance, that being, mathematically equating each staff member's opinion in some sort of point system isn't a good idea. We all have our hierarchies in place me thinks, purple then green then brown is engrained fairly well into everybody's mind by now.

But they would only be equated if we strictly go by number of votes without adjusting with points in a similar manner to what I suggested.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm having troubles wording my thoughts on what my concern is. but You are right it was something that was always done.

will post again once i find the words for it lol. sorry about this.

No problem.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Crabwhale @Antvasima I think I re-created the system. Mind checking it?
Took me a real good amount of thinking and process, I appreciate any input!

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

This is how the wiki has always operated. It will not impact our reputation anymore than it already does.

No problem.

now that I'm thinking about my concern a bit more deeply. I am now thinking it would probably be best to just leave the point value system to staff only, and regular members and knowledgeables would need to convince/persuade staff members with their points/arguments weather it be pro or against a CRT.

In this way it will avoid inflation of points by someone who uses bots, cultism around a verse, socks, or just mass posting it on social media (facebook, twitter, TikTok, Reddit, Instagram, Tumblr, Discord, etc) and begging people to agree with a CRT. Those would be the dangers of giving value to us normies lol

Edit: Something like what i mentioned above should be added in to explain why regular members and knolwegables don't get point valuations to avoid possible future animosity and tension between staff and normies especially with new members that just joined so they don't end up resenting a certain (any staff) user due to the system that was implemented with a good reason behind it. This is only my opinion though.

 

[Antvasima]

@Crabwhale @Antvasima I think I re-created the system. Mind checking it?
Took me a real good amount of thinking and process, I appreciate any input!

I unfortunately think that you still seem to have misunderstood my intended points system.

The idea is that each type of revision would require a certain number of sum total evaluation points to be accepted.

For example, just to take an example, not to set a definitive number yet, a very self-evident uncontroversial revision thread might require 2 evaluation points to pass, which could be handled by 2 thread moderators, or 1 administrator; whereas a moderately controversial revision thread might require 4 evaluation points in sum total to pass, which could be handled by 2 thread moderators and 1 administrator, or 2 administrators, for example.

Our staff would have to reach a conclusion regarding the number of evaluation points for each type of staff member and content revision thread, but do you understand the intended principle now?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I unfortunately think that you still seem to have misunderstood my intended points system.

The idea is that each type of revision would require a certain number of sum total evaluation points to be accepted.

For example, just to take an example, not to set a definitive number yet, a very self-evident uncontroversial revision thread might require 2 evaluation points to pass, which could be handled by 2 thread moderators, or 1 administrator; whereas a moderately controversial revision thread might require 4 evaluation points in sum total to pass, which could be handled by 2 thread moderators and 1 administrator, or 2 administrators, for example.

Our staff would have to reach a conclusion regarding the number of evaluation points for each type of staff member and content revision thread, but do you understand the intended principle now?

I am working on it, but I assume I understood it. It may take me a time but will edit the draft shortly and accordingly to your suggestion.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, but all of the different numbers of points have not been decided by our staff yet.

 

[CloverDragon03]

This points system pretty much makes votes from regular members useless, which I’m not a fan of. At least with our current system, if regular votes being meaningless was always a thing, there was at least the illusion that regular member votes counted for something

Well, you need to actually have done lots of continuous competent work in the area, and also be willing to handle two staff duties at the same time. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point.

I’ll keep this in mind

 

[Crabwhale]

This points system pretty much makes votes from regular members useless, which I’m not a fan of. At least with our current system, if regular votes being meaningless was always a thing, there was at least the illusion that regular member votes counted for something

Ditto with this.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

This points system pretty much makes votes from regular members useless, which I’m not a fan of. At least with our current system, if regular votes being meaningless was always a thing, there was at least the illusion that regular member votes counted for something

This was actually a good way to phrase the concern i had

However, if it becomes a written rule that regular members can have points. it can lead to point inflation through various methods that can be exploited which can only be combated by like giving Staff members like 75 points per vote

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the way that I see it, we have to go with either a misleading number of staff members system, some kind of points system that is proportionate to our staff hierarchy, or not make any changes to our current rather vague system, so I do not see how we have much of a choice in case you want to apply more specific official rules to our evaluation system.

 

[Crabwhale]

Snip

May I ask where exactly the misdirection would be, in this context?

 

[Antvasima]

Not misdirection, misleading. It is easier to pass a content revision thread if only bureaucrats and administrator have replied than if only thread moderators have replied.

 

[CloverDragon03]

The problem is that this proposed solution renders the voices of regular members completely obsolete. If people realize that their votes are meaningless, they won’t have any motivation to engage with any CRTs. It’ll just result in an increasingly dissatisfied user base where only the staff benefit.

Wow, that may have gotten a bit cynical.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

The problem is that this proposed solution renders the voices of regular members completely obsolete. If people realize that their votes are meaningless, they won’t have any motivation to engage with any CRTs. It’ll just result in an increasingly dissatisfied user base where only the staff benefit.

Wow, that may have gotten a bit cynical.

I agree with you but on the other side of that

Regular members can exploit a point based system through the use of social media begging for agreements to their PoV, some may even snoop as low as bots and socks to manipulate votes in their favor (probably a very rare thing but who knows). Cultism (probably not the best word to use) around some verses will also play a huge part in regular members inflating vote-points over staff members.

I can only see it as a trade off where one side will have to sacrifice something, and the safer end would be to only count staff votes for points. Unless there was some strict criteria about whose vote can count but im not sure how one would go about that or judge that.

Edit: another option to balance things would be to give staff members +75 points towards their vote, but some would see that as being unfair as well. it would be like saying a staff member is worth more than 75 normies and knowlegables

 

[CloverDragon03]

Or maybe just don’t use a points system

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Or maybe just don’t use a points system

yes, but in a certain, and very limited way, we were kind of already using one but unstatedly

all crt's that i seen required at least 2 staff members (albeit any staff member yellow/red/green/purple) to accept it.

in the end regular members only had the illusion that their vote mattered, but now it wouldn't become an illusion

and that won't change no matter what we pick from the various different options on this thread that has been proposed from what i seen. Regular members votes never really mattered, but their points/arguments towards the CRT (pro or aganist) now that did matter as it was to convince a staff member on their vote choice

The wiki has always been about convincing a staff members to be for or against a CRT for a very long time as far as i can remember and been involved in.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Before anything, this discussion is only focused on the evaluation system's suggestion from @Antvasima.
The drafts I made is excluded from the discussion as it has no interdependence to this.

Although, I made changes in the system in the sandbox.

You can check the content revision rules draft there as well

 

[Crabwhale]

Yeah I'm still not up for revising the system with this points stuff, I'd rather leave it at the staff vote clarification revisions and be done with it.

Not misdirection, misleading. It is easier to pass a content revision thread if only bureaucrats and administrator have replied than if only thread moderators have replied.

Misdirection, misleading, I still do not see how this factors into deciding a good system, or what relevance it has to the points.

 

[CloverDragon03]

yes, but in a certain, and very limited way, we were kind of already using one but unstatedly

all crt's that i seen required at least 2 staff members (albeit any staff member yellow/red/green/purple) to accept it.

in the end regular members only had the illusion that their vote mattered, but now it wouldn't become an illusion

and that won't change no matter what we pick from the various different options on this thread that has been proposed from what i seen. Regular members votes never really mattered, but their points/arguments towards the CRT (pro or aganist) now that did matter as it was to convince a staff member on their vote choice

The wiki has always been about convincing a staff members to be for or against a CRT for a very long time as far as i can remember and been involved in.

I get regular members can collude and FRA train and all that but regardless of if it’s already being done or not, it ain’t fair to yeet their voices out the window

I also understand that a system where regular members actually get heard is tough to implement given the potential for such collusion, but the proposed points system seems to me like “rich get richer” incarnate. Dread’s proposal seems better to me