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

[CloverDragon03]

Also, I wanna say this as well. If the issue is that admins and bureaucrats are supposed to be more highly valued than the other staff positions, need I remind everyone:

Admins and bureaucrats ALREADY have privileges that no other staff members have, most notably the ability to block users. Making staff weight more leveled out won’t hurt anyone

 

[ImmortalDread]

In my all honestly, I kinda addressed this in the system draft

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.

If this is not adequate, I am open-minded for any rewording suggestion. But if the concept itself won't work, then we can simply withdraw it.

 

[Propellus]

But then again, doesn't the rest of the staff (Such as Content Mods, Image Helpers, or Calc Members) opinions still matter? Cause I'm usually being requested (also by fellow mods too) to input my thoughts on many other CRTs

 

[ImmortalDread]

But then again, doesn't the rest of the staff (Such as Content Mods, Image Helpers, or Calc Members) opinions still matter? Cause I'm usually being requested (also by fellow mods too) to input my thoughts on many other CRTs

I have already written this in the draft section

• Staff members who do not have content revision thread evaluation rights are still encouraged to provide their insights and observations on proposed revisions.

As DT and Ant suggests ^^

 

[Damage3245]

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 don't agree with this point. In the situation where that goes though, a staff member could just ask an ordinary user to post the thread. Effectively the rule would accomplish nothing.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't agree with this point. In the situation where that goes though, a staff member could just ask an ordinary user to post the thread. Effectively the rule would accomplish nothing.

Agreed. It’s also very possible for the OP of a thread to have their mind changed later, so the vote of the OP should be okay to count

 

[Antvasima]

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.

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

Well, number of staff votes would still end up as a points system, just regardless of any rankings.

Also, it would still officially state that regular members do not have evaluation rights, but that our staff should try to seriously consider their better arguments, just like previously.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I wanna say this as well. If the issue is that admins and bureaucrats are supposed to be more highly valued than the other staff positions, need I remind everyone:

Admins and bureaucrats ALREADY have privileges that no other staff members have, most notably the ability to block users. Making staff weight more leveled out won’t hurt anyone

We earn our way upwards depending on how much we have contributed to this community and how highly trusted and/or sensible we have been in that regard, and we are definitely not allowed to go around banning anybody who has not broken our rules. It is a duty not a privilege.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well, number of staff votes would still end up as a points system, just regardless of any rankings.

And this is better, because it places emphasis on staff votes without becoming overbearing. Like, imagine getting 2 thread mod agreements and overall unanimous support just for one bureaucrat to completely undo all of that

We earn our way upwards depending on how much we have contributed to this community and how highly trusted we are in that regard, and we are definitely not allowed to go around banning anybody who has not broken our rules. It is a duty not a privilege.

Duty, privilege, whatever it may be, it’s a benefit that no other staff member has. There’s already a clear distinction between the powers of admins and bureaucrats versus other staff members, and so I think your proposed solution will end up as a net negative

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the point is that the most highly trusted staff members should have greater say during content revisions as an extra layer of safeguard if a revision is complicated or requires a highly rational state of mind, for example. That has always unofficially been the case and we are not going to undo that.

If you want this quite drastic policy change to pass, the question is just about how many evaluation points each type of content revision thread should require and how many points each type of staff member should have, not whether or not it will be used at all.

The other alternative is that we do not apply this revision at all, and continue as usual.

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama @Mr._Bambu

I would appreciate your input here.

 

[Crabwhale]

If you want this quite drastic policy change to pass, the question is just about how many evaluation points each type of content revision thread should require and how many points each type of staff member should have, not whether or not it will be used at all.

The other alternative is that we do not apply this revision at all, and continue as usual.

Ant, your insistence on this point system is a bit strange to me. Bureaucrat votes matter more than an admin's, which matter more than a thread mod's. Everyone knows this by instinct, more or less. Why in the name of bacon does there need to be an arbitrary value assigned to each staff member, when this change not only makes regular users more invalid than ever, but also opens up problems beyond the scope of the original intention of this thread.

For instance, should we amend the point count for staff members who are more knowledgeable on a verse than other staff members? Is Admin A, who knows more about Verse C, automatically entitled to more points on this proposed scoreboard than Admin B? Are they both allowed the same amount of points?

Are you beginning to understand how ridiculous this proposition is?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well, the point is that the most highly trusted staff members should have greater say during content revisions as an extra layer of safeguard if a revision is complicated or requires a highly rational state of mind, for example. That has always unofficially been the case and we are not going to undo that.

If you want this quite drastic policy change to pass, the question is just about how many evaluation points each type of content revision thread should require and how many points each type of staff member should have, not whether or not it will be used at all.

The other alternative is that we do not apply this revision at all, and continue as usual.

The only result that will be achieved by a point system like this is further invalidation of regular members’ voices, leading to greater dissatisfaction with the wiki as a whole. It’s simply a very “rich get richer” proposition

 

[Dereck03]

I would rather just leave everything as it was than have a pathetic points system that will just screw everything up.

 

[Propellus]

In fact, maybe don't even apply this at all and just continue doing what we were doing

 

[CloverDragon03]

I’d prefer no revision be made over implementing this sort of points system

 

[ImmortalDread]

In fact, maybe don't even apply this at all and just continue doing what we were doing

I would rather just leave everything as it was than have a pathetic points system that will just screw everything up.

It is honestly unclear how the new suggestion from Ant relates to the draft that I created, as there seems to be no connectedness between the two. However, the draft clearly outlines the technical procedures and actions being undertaken, and it is immaterial whether the project is deemed official or unofficial as the draft serves as a detailed description of the work being carried out.

So again, the inquiry is you want to remove the Ant's suggestion or the complete idea of this thread? Please be precise.

 

[Dereck03]

Any clownishness of clacificating votes with points or not taking into account at all the opinion of other members apart from the staff is bullshit. I can easily name regular members that for many their votes and experiences are worth much more than those of some staffs. And as for the points system, I'll say it straight up, it sucks.

 

[CloverDragon03]

It is honestly unclear how the new suggestion from Ant relates to the draft that I created, as there seems to be no connectedness between the two. However, the draft clearly outlines the technical procedures and actions being undertaken, and it is immaterial whether the project is deemed official or unofficial as the draft serves as a detailed description of the work being carried out.

So again, the inquiry is you want to remove the Ant's suggestion or the complete idea of this thread? Please be precise.

The thread as a whole is fine but I would very much like to remove Ant’s suggestion

 

[Antvasima]

Ant, your insistence on this point system is a bit strange to me. Bureaucrat votes matter more than an admin's, which matter more than a thread mod's. Everyone knows this by instinct, more or less. Why in the name of bacon does there need to be an arbitrary value assigned to each staff member, when this change not only makes regular users more invalid than ever, but also opens up problems beyond the scope of the original intention of this thread.

For instance, should we amend the point count for staff members who are more knowledgeable on a verse than other staff members? Is Admin A, who knows more about Verse C, automatically entitled to more points on this proposed scoreboard than Admin B? Are they both allowed the same amount of points?

Are you beginning to understand how ridiculous this proposition is?

Hmm. Well, maybe I am being a bit neurotic/irrational then. Let's wait and see what the other bureaucrats and the administrators think.

 

[Damage3245]

I have to confess that I think the points system is not necessary. If I, as an Admin, come into disagreement with a thread moderator over whether a CRT should be accepted or not, I don't think it would be fair for me to say "I'm an Admin and you're just a Thread Moderator, so I outrank you and the thread should be accepted."

Instead, a third staff member or more should be brought in to break the deadlock.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I understand the desire for a point-based system, as it puts our current system to numbers. However, when we do that, one feels that there will be ways to game such a system. It provides no real benefit, as far as I can see, over what we do now, and would serve only to allow unfortunate arguments.

We allow those we trust to speak and be heard in situations where they are willing to speak. All members, including non-staff, can have their opinions recognized and counted. Even if a non-staff cannot ultimately decide the fate of a thread, I think it is better how we have it now, as we at least give them a chance to contribute; I'm aware they would still be able to speak, but to allow a staff member to simply say "No, and my vote is counted, so shut up" isn't a great system, I think.

 

[Propellus]

I have to confess that I think the points system is not necessary. If I, as an Admin, come into disagreement with a thread moderator over whether a CRT should be accepted or not, I don't think it would be fair for me to say "I'm an Admin and you're just a Thread Moderator, so I outrank you and the thread should be accepted."

Instead, a third staff member or more should be brought in to break the deadlock.

Honestly, I think staff opinions should be respected equally

 

[ImmortalDread]

Given that a significant number of staff members, namely 7 out of the total group, disagreed with Ant's suggestion, it is clear that the majority of the team is not in favor of implementing it. Therefore, in the interest of efficiently utilizing our time and making progress on our tasks, I propose that we move on to the next items on the agenda which is

the draft of the rules, which will provide a clear framework for future decision-making, as well as the self-approval content revisions, which will ensure the accuracy and quality of our materials. Is there any objection to this proposal?

Also, since @Damage3245 brought a good point about the conflict between staff members decision, I created this draft

If a disagreement arises between staff members during the evaluation of a content revision thread, it is important to seek the input and guidance of additional staff members in order to reach a fair and unbiased decision. This may involve seeking the opinion of higher-ranked staff members, or consulting with staff members who possess specific expertise or knowledge related to the revision in question. Ultimately, the final decision on the approval of a content revision should be based on a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the proposed changes and their impact on the series verse, rather than on the rank or status of the staff members involved.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

The draft of the new rules seems fine to me now that the weird points system thing was scrapped.

 

[DontTalkDT]

For self-approval of content revisions

It is understood that there may be instances where a staff member has expertise or knowledge of a particular series verse that allows them to confidently approve a revision on their own.

• In such cases, it is acceptable for a staff member to self-approve a content revision as long as they possess the necessary expertise and have thoroughly reviewed the proposed changes.

• It is significant to note that self-approval should not be relied upon as the sole method of review and approval for content revisions. It is recommended that all staff members seek the input and approval of at least one additional staff member, particularly in cases where the revision is significant or affects a popular or widely-recognized series of verse.

• The self-approval of content revisions should be exercised with discretion and used only in appropriate circumstances where the staff member possesses the necessary expertise and knowledge to confidently approve the revision.

I think entirely self-approval should just not be allowed at all. Like, this entire section could IMO read:

• If staff members themselves make a Content Revision Thread their own vote may still be counted. In cases of minor revisions, where only one vote is required, at least one other staff member should still approve the thread before it is added, though. That is the case so that even staff members can not just add anything they like without supervision.

Or something along those lines.

 

[Damage3245]

Yeah, a staff member can't be the only one to approve their own thread.

 

[Dereck03]

Who thought it would be a good idea to let a single staff approve their own thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Could this work instead of those 3 lines? (I fixed some words and grammar)

It is possible for a staff member to initiate a content revision thread and have their vote counted. However, in cases of minor revisions where only one vote is needed, it is necessary for at least one other staff member to approve the thread before it can be implemented. This serves to ensure that all content additions, even those proposed by staff members, are subject to supervision and oversight.

 

[Dereck03]

Could this work instead of those 3 lines? (I fixed some words and grammar)

I'm fine with this.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Damage3245 I would like to have your input on this draft that I made from your own suggestion (the last part)
If you wish to change or reword anything there, I am open for any propositions

 

[KLOL506]

Honestly, after reading everything else Damage, Clover, Crabwhale, Bambu and the others have stated, I also have to hard disagree with a points system, as this isn't just detrimental to normal regular viewers, but also to other staff members who aren't necessarily thread mods, admins or bureaucrats but still have shown interest or capabilities in handling CRTs from time to time or on a regular basis.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Given all of the comments above, it seems like a points system is likely a bad idea then. My apologies.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I would again like to apologise to @ImmortalDread for me being overly irritable, rude, and suspicious earlier. She has just been trying to help out as far as I can tell.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Antvasima

Thank you for your apology. It takes courage to admit when we have made a mistake, and I appreciate your willingness to do so. Your acknowledgement of your behavior and your efforts to improve upon it in the future are greatly appreciated. I am committed to maintaining a professional and courteous relationship with you, and I hope that you will do the same.

Now going back to our main thread's point

• The original draft's post
• The sandbox

Would anyone be available to review it and provide suggestions for improvement? Your expertise and input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[AKM sama]

I will comment here later. I don't think we can get one fit for every type of thread since they vary hugely depending on several factors. There can be a minimum number of staff who accept a revision for it to pass for very unpopular or straightforward revisions, but we cannot set rigid numbers for every type of scenario.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Staff thread bump

I don't think we can get one fit for every type of thread since they vary hugely depending on several factors.

I think those regulations already address the factors and its circumstances:

I added a section for minor content revisions, which also defines the difference between significant and minor CRTs (thanks to @DontTalkDT)
I also added a section for self-approval of content revisions (for staff members, suggested by @Damage3245 and @DontTalkDT)

For popularity/big verses:

• 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. 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.

For tier 2:

• For content revisions that affect Tier 2 or higher, the participation of an Administrator in the review and approval process is required.

For Tier 1/0:

• 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 be 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.

There can be a minimum number of staff who accept a revision for it to pass for very unpopular or straightforward revisions, but we cannot set rigid numbers for every type of scenario.

If you don't mind, I would kindly request that you check the sandbox, as I have made an effort to address various concerns and consider common scenarios to the best of my ability. I hope that my efforts have been successful, and I welcome any feedback or suggestions you may have for improvement.

In an effort to adhere to established guidelines and uphold our traditional practices, I have included the relevant guidelines in the sandbox in the event that staff members disagree with the proposed changes. I hope that this proactive approach will facilitate a productive and efficient review process.

 

[AKM sama]

• For minor revisions and self-evident revisions, it is sufficient to seek the approval of one staff member. A grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the staff member to review and approve the revision.

I think a grace period should stay for all CRTs, not only minor revisions. Even bigger revisions which are already accepted may require more input from other staff members who might not be available on that specific day or the thread might have skipped their radar.

• 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. 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.

I think an additional note here would be helpful. This point should not be interpreted as "I have approval of 3 staff members so I can apply my changes". In many cases that involve big/controversial changes or reversing an already accepted CRT by many staff members for a verse where many of our staff members are knowledgeable, it's better to involve as many staff members as possible and the number 3 might not be sufficient in those cases.

• If a disagreement arises between staff members during the evaluation of a content revision thread, it is important to seek the input and guidance of additional staff members in order to reach a fair and unbiased decision. This may involve seeking the opinion of higher-ranked staff members, or consulting with staff members who possess specific expertise or knowledge related to the revision in question. Ultimately, the final decision on the approval of a content revision should be based on a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the proposed changes and their impact on the series verse, rather than on the rank or status of the staff members involved.

I noticed that the bolded part here is already written again as a separate point, so it can be removed from here due to being redundant.

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.

A minor nitpick here. I disagree with the points system and everything else seems fine in the sandbox, but in terms of weight of evaluation it goes like this: bureaucrats >= admins >= thread mods >= everyone else. So the statement is technically incorrect, but I agree with the general idea the point is conveying.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@AKM sama I will fix it and sent an updated version. Thanks for input.

 

[ImmortalDread]

• For minor revisions and self-evident revisions, it is sufficient to seek the approval of one staff member. A grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the staff member to review and approve the revision.

I think a grace period should stay for all CRTs, not only minor revisions. Even bigger revisions which are already accepted may require more input from other staff members who might not be available on that specific day or the thread might have skipped their radar.

I removed the line and added this new rule according to your suggestion

• For all content revision proposals, a grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the reviewing staff member to review and approve the revision. This grace period applies to both minor and self-evident revisions, as well as larger revisions that may require more input from other staff members. This is to ensure that all staff members have the opportunity to review the proposal and provide their input, regardless of the size or complexity of the revision.

• 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. 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.

I think an additional note here would be helpful. This point should not be interpreted as "I have approval of 3 staff members so I can apply my changes". In many cases that involve big/controversial changes or reversing an already accepted CRT by many staff members for a verse where many of our staff members are knowledgeable, it's better to involve as many staff members as possible and the number 3 might not be sufficient in those cases.

I changed it based on your suggestion, like this:

• 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. However, 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 the series 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.

• If a disagreement arises between staff members during the evaluation of a content revision thread, it is important to seek the input and guidance of additional staff members in order to reach a fair and unbiased decision. This may involve seeking the opinion of higher-ranked staff members, or consulting with staff members who possess specific expertise or knowledge related to the revision in question. Ultimately, the final decision on the approval of a content revision should be based on a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the proposed changes and their impact on the series verse, rather than on the rank or status of the staff members involved.

I noticed that the bolded part here is already written again as a separate point, so it can be removed from here due to being redundant.

Removed

• 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.

A minor nitpick here. I disagree with the points system and everything else seems fine in the sandbox, but in terms of weight of evaluation it goes like this: bureaucrats >= admins >= thread mods >= everyone else. So the statement is technically incorrect, but I agree with the general idea the point is conveying.

I changed it based on your suggestion, like this:

• While the evaluation of each staff member 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. In terms of decision-making authority, bureaucrats are given the highest consideration, followed by admins, thread mods, and all other staff members.

Alright, mind checking the sandbox once again?

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out, AKM sama.