It seems unwise to try to set up one fit for all sizes regardless of nuances or complexity solutions.
I already commented above
Anyway, again...
In all honestly, for the first time, I actually got offended and felt as I was ineffectual member who took time and thoughts about this CRT and creating all this rules by myself.
I feel a little weird about this, I know perfectly well that's why we have our roles as staff. But (I will speak in my case) almost every day I receive requests for evaluation and sometimes they are of verses that nobody knows and after days of repeated bumps nobody takes the time to evaluate and then I do it, what I mean is that the staff many times is not willing to evaluate anything other than their own verses and because our role is not the right one then we can't give a pass to the thread. I have ever seen that I have accepted a thread and it has been applied and you have said that I as Content Moderator had no right to give a pass on the thread and that it should be accepted by a thread mod or admin, but because the thread was very simple you said it was fine, but if they are not willing to evaluate the threads then what we can do? I do not consider myself at all inferior to the evaluation of any thread mod or admin in general evaluation and all the people who ask for my evaluation can say so, so at least add a rule where it says that minor or uncontroversial threads can be accepted not only by thread mod or admins but by the rest of the staff with competent evaluation.
Well, these types of changes to our most crucial tasks can easily cause massive amounts of damage via, for example, dozens of accepted ill-conceived revision threads, before they are reverted, so I much prefer if they are evaluated and decided extremely carefully by our most high-ranking staff members, not suddenly rushed in a hurry.
Well, I tend to get nervous when regular members who do not have long experience and perspectives regarding the potential negative consequences of drastic revisions start to push for them overly much, and am very blunt/unfiltered/sincere by nature given the autism, but I have nothing against you on a personal level, and appreciate if you are just trying to help.
Ant, no one in this thread, at least as far as I'm concerned, could've fathomed pushing this revision through without at least one purple looking it over. Preferably it'd have to be all three.
That is a problem, yes, but we unfortunately still cannot let staff members who were recruited for entirely different reasons handle discussion thread evaluations, any more than we should let all of our content and thread moderators evaluate calculation blogs.
Okay then. My apologies for misunderstanding. Things seemed to suddenly get rushed here as I mistakenly perceived it.
Ant, in no way, I was trying to rush anything as I was extremely open-minded and listening to DT's evaluation carefully and many other staff member's suggestion. And I am also very aware that this thread is extremely significant and need to be handled slowly and carefully. So I have no attentions for rushing anything.
I would appreciate it if you would apologize and make an effort to read before sending a message in the future. Your words have not only offended me, but they have also made me feel desperate and like a useless person. Your behavior could potentially lead to my decision to leave the wiki forum the next day. I hope you can understand the impact of your actions.
I didn't know this was also possible
This is not something you can compare to an overall evaluation. You have to have a completely good knowledge in mathematics, calcs, etc. that on the contrary any other staff can have a completely competent evaluation in general evaluation including abilties, tiers, etc. But well, the only thing that matters to me are the threads in which no one is willing to give an evaluation.
Only if you have legitimately earned it through very good senses of judgement and helping out a lot in that area.
Technically it is possible, what no one would ever think is that you could have Content Mod and thread mod role at the same time without being an administrator, which apparently is possible.
Okay. I apologise for causing offence then.
Okay. Thank you for helping out.
It is possible, but it would often lead to handling each task in a less than satisfactory manner due to time constraints/divided work time.
Alright, apology accepted. I now understand the concerns you have!Okay. I apologise for causing offence then.
The issue is just that you have been extremely intense in your efforts to redirect the course of this community in certain areas, or dictate conclusions to rule-violation thread outcomes, and due to many bad old experiences with past members, such as with Sera EX, combined with being cautious regarding drastic changes, I tend to intuitively/reactively get very nervous regarding that kind of development, especially if I am very tired.
Mind looking at this draft? I understand the disagreement with DonttalkDT suggestions, so I will leave it till majority agrees with removal!Okay. Thank you for helping out.
Hmmm... well, I can see the benefits of trying to talk things out. Wouldn't want people to just throw in votes to get the majority while avoiding arguments. On the other hand, one also has to consider what to do if it just doesn't happen, as never reaching a conclusion is a conclusion in itself.
Thank you very much for your indulgence regarding my unwarranted rude, irritable, and suspicious behaviour. It is very appreciated, as you have apparently just been trying to help us out. I apologise again.Alright, apology accepted. I now understand the concerns you have!
I will check through your draft suggestions.
Well, their input should preferably be taken into much greater consideration by our staff members during evaluations. I am not sure what else that can practically be done in this regard.
I am not sure. I would personally prefer if a minimum of three staff members are required for significant revisions to less popular verses, but it may be an unrealistic standard that would stall getting anything done.
I would personally prefer a minimum of four staff members for these types of revisions, but as above, it may be an unrealistic standard.
Yes, agreed. Thank you for helping out.
Also agreed. Thanks again.
Yes. That seems good, although the main issue is that the staff members in question need to be reasonably knowledgeable in this regard.
I would personally prefer to change it to a minimum of 3 evaluation points.
That seems good. Thanks again.
That seems reasonable as well.
Thank you greatly for helping out. Apart from the points system that I suggested above, I do not have any objections.
I didn’t even know you could just apply ngl
This draft seems fine to me, though I’m always open to seeing suggestions for additions/removals/tweaks to it
Yap, they can be bolded from my side. If it is accomplishable to use sub-heading 2, I would use it, but looking from the structure of the page, it won't look fascinating, so bolding is fine-grained as well.
I am ambivalent of this, but I will leave others to discuss it. Tho, I would like to mention that most of them suggested, 2 staff members for the minimum and for significant ones at least 3 staff members. It can be ambitious to obtain approval from multiple staff members for content revisions, especially for small verses or minor changes. However, consistent standards and procedures are important to maintain the accuracy and quality of our series verse. While it may not always be necessary to seek approval from multiple staff members, the potential impact and importance of the revision should be considered. For significant revisions or those that affect popular or widely-recognized series, seeking additional approval may be necessary to ensure all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed changes.
I will leave this for others to look at this new evaluation system, but I can prepare a draft about it if everyone agreed with your suggestion!
I can link the knowledgeable members list in the draft and I reworded it a bit, I assume this is fine?Yes. That seems good, although the main issue is that the staff members in question need to be reasonably knowledgeable in this regard.
This is already in a suggestion's draft, but I added the last sentence according to your concerns!
This has addressed, and also a point is made for it. I changed a bit of the rewording, hopes this is fine.
In my view:
