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

[Crabwhale]

Hello all. It was recently brought to my attention that we don't have a legitimate rule or something equivalent for the number of staff necessary to pass a revision, instead relying on things like verse size and personal opinion of the overseeing staff in the thread (example: the numerous times Ant has called for more staff support before a revision could pass).

This is a thread intended to clarify where that threshold of acceptance vs nonacceptance should be.

I am going to be completely transparent and say this was @ImmortalDread 's idea. As such, she has my seal of approval to comment on the thread. Otherwise, STAFF ONLY. You know the rules, make a decent point or get permission. Otherwise, your comment gets deleted.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright!

So my draft looks like this:

Content revisions:

The content revision process is an important aspect of maintaining the accuracy and quality of our series verse. In order to ensure that all revisions are thoroughly reviewed and approved, it is necessary for a minimum of two staff members to sign off on any proposed changes.

It is the responsibility of Thread Moderators, Administrators, and Bureaucrats to review and approve content revisions submitted to our series verse.

• 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.

• It is essential that at least one staff member be present during any content revision process, as their expertise and knowledge of the series of verse will be instrumental in ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the revised material. Any proposed changes that do not meet the necessary approval standards will not be implemented.

• 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. In cases where there is a significant level of debate or disagreement about a proposed revision, the final decision may be influenced by the outcome of the voting process.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

Minor content revisions:

Instances of minor revisions may include changes to one or two characters, if it is just the addition of simple abilities that do not fall into the categories of acausality (except type 1), concept manipulation, abstract existence, plot manipulation, information manipulation, causality manipulation, nonexistent physiology, law manipulation etc. or otherwise could be considered particularly controversial or noteworthy.

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

• This guideline is intended to prioritize the review and approval of more significant revisions and to allow for the efficient management of the content revision process. It is important to note that this guideline does not apply to revisions for popular or widely-recognized series verses, or to revisions that significantly alter the overall structure or content of a series verse.

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.

• 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.

Guideline for handling disagreement between staff members during content revision threads

• 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.

• It is essential to remember that all staff members, regardless of their rank, have a responsibility to act in the best interests of the series verse and to prioritize accuracy and quality above personal preferences or biases. Staff members should strive to approach the evaluation of content revision threads with an open mind and a willingness to consider the perspectives of others.

• 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.

This should be added in discussion rules. The formatting may look like this sandbox that I created.

I appreciate any inputs and if you have any alternative suggestions for the rewording, I don't mind.
The system idea can be found here.

 

[Propellus]

I could've sworn we already did when it should be at least 3 staff that inputs on a CRT whether if if it's a verse that no one seems to care about or it's just a really minor addition?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I could've sworn we already did when it should be at least 3 staff that inputs on a CRT whether if if it's a verse that no one seems to care about or it's just a really minor addition?

This is the main concern. Many say it is 3 others say 2. So yes, this should be properly addressed as well.

 

[Everything12]

I do also vaguely remember such a thread like this in the past as well. Though I don't remember the specifics.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It is worth noting that in many instances, threads have been successfully approved with the approval of only two staff members.

However, based on my second point of my draft (which covers the issue), there may be instances where it may be necessary to seek approval from a larger group of staff members, particularly in cases where the verse in question has a high level of popularity or a large amount of material has been published based on its content, in order to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions.

 

[Everything12]

Depends how important the thread is, if Ant or the likes say it should be accepted/closed, and if an expert of the topic gives their thoughts on the topic. In which case the circumstances means it makes more sense to go with the conclusion reached then drag it out from additional opinions.

Popularity however, is far from enough of a reason to act as an exception to the rule, and a large amount of material in a thread just means that it's liekly less staff are going to bother to go through it.

 

[Crabwhale]

• The content revision process is an important aspect of maintaining the accuracy and quality of our profiles. In order to ensure that all revisions are thoroughly reviewed and approved, it is necessary for a minimum of two staff members to sign off on any proposed changes.
• It is worth noting that the level of scrutiny and number of required approvals may vary depending on the popularity and impact of the series in question. In cases where the series has a significant following or a large amount of material has been published based on it, it may be necessary to seek approval from a larger group of staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions.
• It is essential that at least one staff member be present during any content revision process, as their expertise and knowledge will be instrumental in ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the revised material. Any proposed changes that do not meet the necessary approval standards will not be implemented.

These revisions are what I would change in the final draft. Otherwise, all good.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Depends how important the thread is, if Ant or the likes say it should be accepted/closed, and if an expert of the topic gives their thoughts on the topic. In which case the circumstances means it makes more sense to go with the conclusion reached then drag it out from additional opinions.

Popularity however, is far from enough of a reason to act as an exception to the rule, and a large amount of material in a thread just means that it's liekly less staff are going to bother to go through it.

You bring up several valid points in your response. The importance of the thread and input from highly respected members of the community, such as Ant or experts on the topic, can certainly be taken into consideration when determining the necessary level of review and approval for a thread. However, it is important to remember that the popularity of a series of verse or the amount of material present in a thread should not be the sole determining factor in the review process. It is necessary to maintain consistent standards and procedures in order to ensure the accuracy and quality of our series verse. While it may be more time-consuming to review a thread with a large amount of material, it is essential to thoroughly examine all relevant information in order to reach a well-informed conclusion.

Therefore, I will add this suggestion to my draft message as second option

• Input from highly respected members of the community, such as Ant or experts on the topic, as well as the importance of the thread, should be taken into consideration when determining the necessary level of review and approval.

Unless I misinterpret your intentions, I beg for correction.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

This looks good to me.

 

[Propellus]

suggestion to my draft message as second option

• Input from highly respected members of the community, such as Ant or experts on the topic, as well as the importance of the thread, should be taken into consideration when determining the necessary level of review and approval.

Unless I misinterpret your intentions, I beg for correction.

The problem is, Ant is pretty busy these days and it may take a while to get a response from him.

 

[Everything12]

Why would popularity matter at all? The only way it would matter if it is a less popular series that doesn't have many supporters so it's harder to attract staff attention, and even then it's questionable if that should be am exception for a more lenient and potentially less accurate evaluation through less staff members.

Just because a series has a lot of people working on it or attracts more attention doesn't mean we should treat it any differently.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The problem is, Ant is pretty busy these days and it may take a while to get a response from him.

If I removed “such as Ant” and leave it like this

• Input from highly respected members of the community, such experts on the topic, as well as the importance of the thread, should be taken into consideration when determining the necessary level of review and approval.

Is it fine? I assume, this is fine in my opinion

 

[ImmortalDread]

Why would popularity matter at all? The only way it would matter if it is a less popular series that doesn't have many supporters so it's harder to attract staff attention, and even then it's questionable if that should be am exception for a more lenient and potentially less accurate evaluation through less staff members.

Just because a series has a lot of people working on it or attracts more attention doesn't mean we should treat it any differently.

You may need to refresh the forum. I removed the part as you requested.

 

[Propellus]

If I removed “such as Ant” and leave it like this

• Input from highly respected members of the community, such experts on the topic, as well as the importance of the thread, should be taken into consideration when determining the necessary level of review and approval.

Is it fine? I assume, this is fine in my opinion

Uh-huh, seems better now

 

[ImmortalDread]

Uh-huh, seems better now

Will change the original draft to this. Thanks for your input!

 

[Arceus0x]

I am sorry for intervening, i would like to say sth.
I would like to say that a high number of staff approvals shouldn't be a necessity. In my experience, there have been cases when small verses would struggle to even get one staff to come check their CRT out to approve it. Basically, unless the revision is big (like getting tier 1, major tier 2 revisions ect.) or the verse is big (one piece, OPM, dragon ball ect.) they shouldn't really require more than 1 approval since often even getting 1 is a struggle (even with crt promotion threads and posts under staff profiles)

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Arceus0x

It is graspable that obtaining multiple staff approvals for content revisions can be challenging, particularly for smaller verses or revisions that are not considered significant. However, it is important to maintain consistent standards and procedures in order to ensure the accuracy and quality of our series verse. While it may not always be necessary to seek approval from numerous staff members, it is significant to consider the potential impact and importance of the revision in question. In cases where the revision is significant or affects a popular or widely-recognized series of verse, it may be necessary to seek additional approval in order to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed changes.

 

[Arceus0x]

@Arceus0x

It is graspable that obtaining multiple staff approvals for content revisions can be challenging, particularly for smaller verses or revisions that are not considered significant. However, it is important to maintain consistent standards and procedures in order to ensure the accuracy and quality of our series verse. While it may not always be necessary to seek approval from numerous staff members, it is significant to consider the potential impact and importance of the revision in question. In cases where the revision is significant or affects a popular or widely-recognized series of verse, it may be necessary to seek additional approval in order to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed changes.

that's what i am saying doe

 

[LordTracer]

Alright!

So my draft looks like this:

The content revision process is an important aspect of maintaining the accuracy and quality of our series verse. In order to ensure that all revisions are thoroughly reviewed and approved, it is necessary for a minimum of two staff members to sign off on any proposed changes.

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 larger group of staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions.

It is essential that at least one staff member be present during any content revision process, as their expertise and knowledge of the series of verse will be instrumental in ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the revised material. Any proposed changes that do not meet the necessary approval standards will not be implemented.

This should be added in discussion rules.

I appreciate any inputs and if you have any alternative suggestions for the rewording, I don't mind.

Second suggestion from @Everything12

• Input from highly respected members of the community, such experts on the topic, as well as the importance of the thread, should be taken into consideration when determining the necessary level of review and approval.

This looks good. We really should’ve established something like this before.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This looks good. We really should’ve established something like this before.

Thank you for your positive feedback. I am glad that you feel the guidelines are helpful and necessary. It is always important to have clear and consistent procedures in place to ensure the accuracy and quality of our series verse. I hope that these guidelines will assist in maintaining a high level of reliability and trust among our members.

 

[DontTalkDT]

As the rules currently specify CRTs must be accepted by Thread Moderators, Administrators, or Bureaucrats specifically. Should probably be incorporated into any such draft for the sake of clarity.

Another interesting question is: If such a staff member makes the CRT does their own vote count?
Have to admit, my personal stance was always that a qualifying staff member besides myself is enough for a revision, so I guess one could say I counted my own vote... which I think is probably fine.

Tbh I feel like lesser standards for minor stuff are fine as well. I would say that for revisions that change only one or two characters, don't change stats and don't add one of the especially powerful or complicated abilities (higher types of acausality, concept manip, abstract existence, plot manip, information manip, causality manip, NEP, Law Manip etc.) and are not of the most popular verses one staff input and 48 hours grace period should be fine. That way we can keep more capacities free for evaluating the controversial stuff.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

2 Staff Approvals is enough on its own

Smaller verses can’t even get more than 1 sometimes, so having it be something low like 2 is good

 

[ImmortalDread]

As the rules currently specify CRTs must be accepted by Thread Moderators, Administrators, or Bureaucrats specifically. Should probably be incorporated into any such draft for the sake of clarity.

Noted

Another interesting question is: If such a staff member makes the CRT does their own vote count?
Have to admit, my personal stance was always that a qualifying staff member besides myself is enough for a revision, so I guess one could say I counted my own vote... which I think is probably fine.

I need majority opinion on this specifically. Tho, I prepared notes:

• 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 important 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.

Tbh I feel like lesser standards for minor stuff are fine as well. I would say that for revisions that change only one or two characters, don't change stats and don't add one of the especially powerful or complicated abilities (higher types of acausality, concept manip, abstract existence, plot manip, information manip, causality manip, NEP, Law Manip etc.) and are not of the most popular verses one staff input and 48 hours grace period should be fine. That way we can keep more capacities free for evaluating the controversial stuff.

Does this sound well?

• Minor content revisions are defined as those that do not significantly alter the overall structure or content of a series of verse. Examples of minor revisions may 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 etc.
• For minor 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.
• This guideline is intended to prioritize the review and approval of more significant revisions and to allow for the efficient management of the content revision process. It is important to note that this guideline does not apply to revisions for popular or widely-recognized series verses, or to revisions that significantly alter the overall structure or content of a series verse.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I updated now my draft (I hope I did not duplicate anything)

 

[ImmortalDread]

Also, I created a sandbox right now, and it should look like this in the discussion rules page

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Also, I created a sandbox right now, and it should look like this in the discussion rules page

There are other related bullet points under the "General Rules" header that might belong to the "Content Revisions" header that you created.

 

[ImmortalDread]

There are other related bullet points under the "General Rules" header that might belong to the "Content Revisions" header that you created.

Thanks for the note. I will pick the relevant ones, and try to adjust it!

 

[KingTempest]

I feel like 3 for really big ones and 2 for anything else should be aight

 

[ImmortalDread]

I feel like 3 for really big ones and 2 for anything else should be aight

If I am understanding it correctly, 3 is for significant CRT or you mean “big” as in popularity?

 

[Crabwhale]

Something else I'd like to bring up, as it directly correlates to the topic of the thread: how many votes for and against should there be before a revision passes or is rejected?

I say this as the situation has come up before. Is a single vote difference enough between the two "camps" of staff in a particular thread to decide, or would more be necessary?

Obviously this would probably only be an issue restricted to larger revisions, but it's still a point to be brought up.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Something else I'd like to bring up, as it directly correlates to the topic of the thread: how many votes for and against should there be before a revision passes or is rejected?

I say this as the situation has come up before. Is a single vote difference enough between the two "camps" of staff in a particular thread to decide, or would more be necessary?

Obviously this would probably only be an issue restricted to larger revisions, but it's still a point to be brought up.

We could use the same ratio as for versus battles rules, which is 1.75. So which means:

• 3-0 is will be considered valid
• 3-1 is will be considered valid
• 3-2 is will be considered invalid

Tho, this only applies to staff members votes. If no-staff members is included, it would cause many issues as for instance it will involve vote system abuse
(Majority of votes = get passed regardless of staff members disagreement).

 

[KingTempest]

If I am understanding it correctly, 3 is for significant CRT or you mean “big” as in popularity?

Significant

 

[DontTalkDT]

Something else I'd like to bring up, as it directly correlates to the topic of the thread: how many votes for and against should there be before a revision passes or is rejected?

I say this as the situation has come up before. Is a single vote difference enough between the two "camps" of staff in a particular thread to decide, or would more be necessary?

Obviously this would probably only be an issue restricted to larger revisions, but it's still a point to be brought up.

I would argue a simple majority is generally sufficient. Things is, if it's 5-4 and no other staff member is knowledgable and interested, would pressuring more to come in in order to get a clearer majority really improve things?

Noted

I need majority opinion on this specifically. Tho, I prepared notes:

• 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 important 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.

Does this sound well?

• Minor content revisions are defined as those that do not significantly alter the overall structure or content of a series of verse. Examples of minor revisions may 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 etc.
• For minor 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.
• This guideline is intended to prioritize the review and approval of more significant revisions and to allow for the efficient management of the content revision process. It is important to note that this guideline does not apply to revisions for popular or widely-recognized series verses, or to revisions that significantly alter the overall structure or content of a series verse.

Yeah, you get the idea.
If we go for at least 2 (or more) votes "self-approval" as such is not possible anyway. It probably suffices to state that for minor CRTs, if we only require one staff member to approve them, in them self-approval is not allowed at all.

To give my vote on the numbers issue: I would personally be in favour of 2, unless we deal with big stuff for big verses, where 3 sounds good.

One formulation change to your draft:

Instances of minor revisions may 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.

I would change to

Instances of minor revisions may include changes to one or two characters, if it is just the addition of simple abilities that do not fall into the categories of acausality (except type 1), concept manipulation, abstract existence, plot manipulation, information manipulation, causality manipulation, nonexistent physiology, law manipulation etc. or otherwise could be considered particularily controversal or noteworthy.

It's always a good idea to leave some extra room to apply common sense.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Significant

Alright, I will change the first rule to this (as I think most of you wanted it 3 for at least)

• 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.

Will add this to my draft!

 

[ImmortalDread]

One formulation change to your draft.

I would change to

It's always a good idea to leave some extra room to apply common sense to.

Noted! Will do

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright. I added the suggestion from @KingTempest and also formulated as @DontTalkDT

The draft post is updated, and the sandbox is also updated!

 

[Antvasima]

As the rules currently specify CRTs must be accepted by Thread Moderators, Administrators, or Bureaucrats specifically. Should probably be incorporated into any such draft for the sake of clarity.

That is correct, yes. Content Moderators, Calc Group Members, and Image Helpers are recruited for entirely different reasons and specialisations.

Anyway, the overall problem here is that the numbers of required staff members depend on how controversial or self-evident a revision is, if it concerns tiers 1 and/or 0, how high-ranking the staff evaluators are, and to a degree how prominent/popular the affected verse is.

As such, any rules would have to take all of these complicated factors into account, and preferably not be crafted by overenthusiastic newly active regular members.

 

[ImmortalDread]

That is correct, yes. Content Moderators, Calc Group Members, and Image Helpers are recruited for entirely different reasons and specialisations.

I added this part! No worries.

Anyway, the overall problem here is that the numbers of required staff members depend on how controversial or self-evident a revision is,

Most of the staff members agreed with minimal 2 staff members but for bigger verses/significant of minimum of 3 members

if it concerns tiers 1 and/or 0, how high-ranking the staff evaluators are, and to a degree how prominent/popular the affected verse is.

Alright, I think this suits like this:

• Content revisions that affect tiers 1 and 0 or that are highly controversial should be reviewed and approved by a larger number of staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed changes.

I will add this to my draft post.

 

[Antvasima]

I would argue a simple majority is generally sufficient. Things is, if it's 5-4 and no other staff member is knowledgable and interested, would pressuring more to come in in order to get a clearer majority really improve things?

For once I disagree with your evaluation. For safety reasons, we have traditionally tried to form a much clearer consensus than that before applying controversial revisions.