CRTs Done Easier

[Flashlight237]

So currently, basically only Staff Member approvals are worth anything in a CRT, with regular members having no weight in a CRT whatsoever. Basically it's "being there" vs "being there but with a fancy rectangle underneath your name". That's a problem. See, college studies, often tagged with an .edu on the URL and having more know-how than goobers in a Vs debating forum like myself, basically only necessitate people being there to observe what's being presented before they can collaborate on the essay that would need to be written on the thing that happened before their eyes. Of course there are graphs and tables to deal with, but the whole point of the study is people have been there, observed carefully, and collaborated. If you got the study peer-reviewed, great! Basically conducting a college study is like having people watch a magic show and peer-reviewing a college study is like having the same magic show be seen in Miami, Chicago, and Denver.

If a college study basically just necessitates people being there to see the magic happen before their eyes, why make it to where you need to have a fancy rectangle under your name for your point to bear any weight to a CRT? That's like considering people with VIP passes as the only valid audience to the magic show described earlier regardless of if the magic show only happened in Miami or if it happened in all three cities described. Why would you do that?

A recent example of a CRT going without staff approval for ages was the Garfield CRT Ikelaggan put up, and it took a whole month before literally just one staff member dove in (before you bring up who it was, the forum really doesn't care who jumps in as long as there's a colored rectangle under their name). By current wiki standards, two staff members are needed, maybe more for a Priority 1 CRT. That's two people with a fancy rectangle under their name. Some of the comics posted had straightforward showings on what they're looking for.

Now let's look at another example. Let's say, I do a CRT on Eliatopia, a game Robby Scherer and I worked with each other on. In my case, I made a huge chunk of the art and wrote over half the bestiary (called the Eliapedia in-game). Who do you think should have more priority? Me, a guy who contributed actively to Eliatopia and has an actual authorship claim on the bestiary, or a guy with a fancy rectangle who never heard of Eliatopia let alone knew it had a bestiary? Normally and under college study standards, I would have higher priority because, duh, I wrote the damn bestiary, but under current standards, the Staff Member would take priority even under the possible scenario that the Staff Member would just clown around and falsely interpret the very thing I wrote. All that would do is make me sit there, eyebrow raised, and say "What the ****, dude?"

I wouldn't go for anything too radical, I mean just because I can get a little anarchist at times doesn't make me an anarchist. HOWEVER, I would like to make CRTs a little easier to process. I'll use the Content Revision Promotion Thread's rules of thumb to work this out.

Priority: On a scale from 1 to 3, with lower numbers being more important.

• 3 - Revisions based on accepted calculations, or straightforward ability additions, where everything is blatant and sourced.
• 2 - More significant changes involving new tiers, a significant part of a verse, and similar.
• 1 - Controversial additions, such for tier 1 and/or 0, complicated powers such as conceptual manipulation, or significant revisions for controversial characters/verses, et cetera.

Priority 3 revisions are pretty simple. The math is there, the sources are there, nothing can be left up to interpretation, all that. For these types of revision threads, regular member approval should be enough to get it through, no staff involvement required. There are some things that shouldn't necessitate CRTs at all, like the blatantly obvious, like guys. People shouldn't have to write an essay about a shopping receipt that clearly shows what they bought; the evidence is right there on the receipt.

Priority 2 revisions can be subject to interpretation and may require some level of scrutiny. For this, staff involvement is recommended, but a well-thought-out regular member essay supporting/opposing a proposal should bear weight as well. A tier is straightforward as long as calcs backed it up sufficiently consistently (my rule of thumb is three consistent feats of a tier), and really, I think the calc group member evaluation should qualify as staff member approval in said CRT, especially since whoever evaluated the calcs is basically the first one to have seen the receipts. Like, suppose if I'm a calc group member despite my Aran Ryan list of rule breaks and I were to approve a calc I've read over. Would it really make sense if I wasn't counted in the CRT from the get-go?

Priority 1... Okay, yeah, that should still follow current standards for CRTs. Every Priority 1 CRT is very subject to interpretation, and unless you have a good eye on a subject or capable of interpreting art with an artist's eye, chances are you're not gonna do very well here. Not to mention that dimensionality is very wonky, which is why pretty much VBW is the only entity in the Vs debating community that bothers with it whereas everyone else (even the OBD) automatically assumes all ten dimensions exist in a single universe. That and concept manipulation and nonexistent physiology and stuff like that requires both clear artistic interpretation and explicit writing to really get it figured out. Controversial verses, like The Big Six (Dragon Ball, One Piece, Naruto, Bleach, DC, and Marvel) and series with known toxic fandoms (Undertale, Steven Universe, Sonic, etc), have a heckton of fans that will basically gather around like a flock of birds and dive right in without knowledge or care about the important of scrutiny. At the same time, however, half of the staff here dislikes Dragon Ball Z, and understandably so considering dealing with it is like poking a sleeping bear with a stick. That and the DBZ fandom can be pretty dumb at times, like the time people were refusing to accept all the clear evidence I put out that strategy matters and bullishly claiming Raditz would beat Mr. Popo because "lol he stronger". Like, that made me know how half of staff felt about Dragon Ball Z. Side tangent aside, the more neutral, the better in my book.

TLDR...

Priority 3: Staff not required
Priority 2: Staff recommended
Priority 1: Staff required, vetting recommended

My idea for the weight of regular member votes are.... Well...

3 regular member votes = 1 staff vote, or 5 regular member votes = 2 staff votes; I'm still working on that bit.
1 well-thought-out regular member essay = 1 staff vote (saying that since any essay opens up a new avenue for debate, plus colleges require that for good grades)

Allowing some weight for regular member votes in my opinion would both make the process of getting a CRT through swifter and would help revisions for more obscure verses get through more easily. I mean there's like only one guy I know on this entire site who knows what Kral Sakir is, for example. How long would a CRT on that series take to get through under current standards? What I'm trying to say is, just like calcs, they can be done swiftly or they can take a geological epoch to get through depending on how interested the fancy rectangles are.

I do feel there are drawbacks to the approach as well. Egotism is the very obvious one. Regular members are prone to it, staff members are prone to it, and I'm prone to it. There's really no true way to get around it, and humbling someone is but a temporary solution. That and generally in a Vs Thread, more often than not there is a slew of FRAs, which while they work in a Vs Debate somewhat, in CRTs, FRAs would just show that whoever visited the CRT hasn't even TRIED to look over the material. Both regulars and staff members are prone to this, and my rule of thumb around this is to look over the arguments brought up in the debate carefully. I usually put arguments for each character in a debate in a Vs Thread whenever I make one, although it seems that approach doesn't seem to fly by people here. I don't know why, it just didn't.

The last flaw I see is you'll never know when some random guy would drunkenly enter a thread saying a bunch of nonsense and bailing, like, dude. Lay off the poison barley! I don't care if it's Budweiser or Bud-Lite or whatever brand you're drinking; poison barley is poison barley! I'm not gonna have patience to debate with someone who drank poison! Side tangent aside, what I'm trying to get through is sometimes, you may come across that one guy that will make you look like Mr. Krabs in this picture:

My recommendation? Honestly, don't count those idiots. Easy. Ain't nobody got time for some nonsensical rambling that doesn't even remotely contribute to the debate at hand.

My solution to this? The easiest bet is to promote careful observation and readership. Why let people be lazy when you can encourage them to read the dang thing? Oh, and people should remain vigilant for idiots.

So, long-story short...

1. Use the Priority system from the CRT Promotion Thread as a guide as to whether a CRT necessitates staff approval for it to get through or not.
2. Allow some weight for a CRT from regular members. You know, those without fancy rectangles.
3. Promote careful observation and readership.

Honestly, it feels more, how you say, democratic this way. More people-friendly and less "let the Senate decide"-y.

 

[KLOL506]

@Antvasima @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Mr._Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @JustSomeWeirdo @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I like the idea of this, but I'll wait to see what the others think first, before I give my full agree.

 

[Propellus]

This idea does seem interesting, while I do appreciate the weight of non-mods inputting in the CRTs, I do have mixed feelings depending on if the member has knowledgeable experience or if the member is just fra training out of nowhere

 

[Agnaa]

Peer review analogy

You do realize that you can't just have any random schmuck come off the street and contribute to a peer review right? In that analogy, staff members would be the people considered knowledgeable enough to do peer reviews!

If I wrote a verse I should be considered more knowledgeable on how it should be indexed than a staff member

God no. For one thing, given how we don't allow verses that site users worked on to be put on the site, if it's introduced to the site by them or someone they introduced it to, it's highly unlikely that we'd let them contribute to CRTs at all. And beyond that, while knowledge of the source material is important, knowledge of site standards are also important. And if you know about the source material, you should be able to communicate that evidence to a staff member, have them process it using their knowledge of site standards, and get to a correct answer.

Priority scale

We already effectively do something like this (people wait for fewer staff members for simpler changes). But if the changes are so straightforward and well-sourced, then it shouldn't be hard to get a staff member to FRA it. I've seen a lot of staff members (myself included, at times) happy to respond to short threads for random verses that clearly outline their sources and arguments. It's the 10 paragraph long word soups that get me not wanting to touch 'em with a ten foot pole.

I think the risk of trying to shut down staff involvement in actually controversial cases is too high compared to the efficiency gain.

Staff vote weight

I believe people have already tried to do this and any specific number has been shot down. Especially since any system like that enables cases where 50 randos create new accounts to FRA a thread that goes against site standards. And since rating people's votes as fractions of another's is an insulting way of doing things. And since doing that isn't very nuanced; on calc-related threads, calc group member votes are more important. If someone's really knowledgeable on the verse, that's important. If someone's been offered a staff position but chose to reject it, should their vote still be considered 50% or 40% of a staff member who chose to accept the role?

Funny rectangles

Or, people who have demonstrated good argumentation, reason, and knowledge of site standards, to the judgment of existing staff members.

I disagree with the first two suggestions. "Promote careful observation and readership" does interest me, but I'd have to see some practical suggestions to know whether I support it or not.

 

[Planck69]

Neutral, though this does seem to have merit to it. I will say that "people with fancy rectangles" is a bit reductive. Staff are usually chosen based on having shown good judgement ability and decision making skills over there time here. Does this mean that all staff are infallible? **** no, even I've probably made some very dubious calls of judgement here at some point. But there's is reason to them having more "weight" to decide revisions.

And like, the college essay comparisons are rather out there since we're a battleboard site and this is a hobby more than anything, all I'll say on the matter.

I do agree that Priority 3 revisions can probably be expedited to regular members with good judgement unless it notably changes something in the series in question via butterfly effect.

 

[Dereck03]

Huh, it's good that you plan to give non-staff voting weight, although I think it won't happen as the current system even leaves votes from ourselves as null or unweighted, CM, CGM, Image Helper. We may have knowledge about many standards, abilities or verses but because our "role" is not in evaluation then bye bye....

Heck, I even remember someone telling me that my vote will not be counted because I am only a CM hahaha and have no voting weight and that even 6 of us would be no better than a thread mod in evaluation rights because of our role so due to he current system this thread will not pass.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I need to get some sleep soon, but this is a lot to read atm. I do agree that we should probably try to be more user friendly for verse specific content revisions, but even then, we still need some form of staff management. But being the biggest fan of a verse =/= being the most knowledgeable expert on a verse.

When indexing some first person shooter verse, I'd trust someone who isn't the biggest fan of the series but actively tries to calculate each and every weapons and use common sense for the ball park of the weapons should be, rather than a rabbid fan who just wants to blindly upgrade for the sake of upgrade by just loophole downscale the entire verse from a single weapon that literally vaporizes everyone. People often become staff members just from showcasing a wide variety of knowledge and debating skills and helps out with revising a wide variety of verses from various genres and/or mediums. Calcs still need calc group member evaluations for a reason, Thread Mods and/or Admins need to approve content revisions for a reason, and the more controversial a verse is the more staff input may be needed. Of course, it shouldn't be too extreme to the point of a Bureaucrat or who aren't invested in a specific series should override a large fanbase where some staff are also in said fanbase. And it's especially wiki wide policies such as revising entire tiering systems that require our main experts on those systems that are typically higher up staff.

But as for other points, Agnaa also gave strong arguments. Some parts are stuff we already do, and others are things that are just plain outrageous such as "I made the verse." That sounds more like a policy for FC/OC Wiki rather than here. Unless a verse some user writes just ends up becoming like best seller award, which I highly doubt something like that would happen, I doubt we will ever see something like that be indexed on this wiki.

 

[Deceived3596]

Well, since this thread’s about giving more power to normal members within the confines of CRT’s, i believe the opinions of normal members should also be heard as well since they are the affected majority if this thread passes, so i’ll give mine in a (hopefully) well formulated way.

Also strap in, because this one gonna be a doozy.

Addressing Problems With The OP's Proposition And Some Counters Towards It:

I believe the act of granting knowledgeable, normal members of particular verses more voting power within CRT’s about those particular verses is a fundamentally good idea, if these people have shown themselves knowledgeable about the series, capable of constructing well formulated post and well evidenced arguments, and are shown capable of suspending their innate biases for the verse to look at evidence in a logical, neutral manner. Then that person’s vote should hold more evaluatory weight compared to a thread mod or admin who knows next to nothing about the specific piece of fiction they are evaluating.

Just because one’s perceived to be generally of good judgment and decision making, in the form of them being a staff member with evaluation rights, doesn’t mean their opinion necessarily, within every single faucet of CRT’s being accepted or rejected, should be considered higher than someone who doesn’t possess evaluation rights, or aren’t a mod. That isn’t logically correct to assume such.

The problem, however, with allowing just normal members in general, seemingly regardless of knowledge about the specific series or rules of the site, to have evaluation rights when collectively evaluated shouldn’t be ignored or overstated.

The potentiality of having mass amounts of people agree or disagree FRA a thread, regardless of knowledge, just because someone in that thread messaged a bunch of people on multiple different messaging apps, asking them to create accounts, or use already pre-existing accounts to do this action would possibly be of decent probability sadly. But just because it’s possible something like this could happen doesn’t mean the fundamental idea in itself is incorrect or logically faulty, this is just an inherent fault of systems which are based around individuals voting.

This exact thing can and does happen under our system, someone could be friends with multiple mods on this site, all of which have evaluating rights, and because those mods don’t actively care about the ratings of said verse they are evaluating, just blindly agrees with the OP in question because of prior instances which left good impressions about that person’s ability to evaluate evidence in a logical manner, or whatever, they’ll agree FRA that thread. It’s wrong on both ends, we as debaters and indexers on this website should have higher integrity beyond just meatriding upgrades and downgrades of verses we like or dislike.

It’s because of this potential risk, alongside other complications like the arbitarity of defining how many votes from normal members should classify as a “staff vote”. That i don’t agree with granting non-staff members, when collectively evaluated, similar voting rights as mods with evaluation rights. I however have a different thought in mind which could potentially address most of the problems we are having, without inflaming the potential risk of the OP’s proposition.

My Counter Proposition:

I believe the act of granting a singular non-staff member, who has extensively shown themselves not only knowledgeable about the source material in question, but has also shown themselves capable of writing well formulated and well evidenced arguments and evaluations, are extensively shown they are capable of placing their biases for or against that series on hold to evaluate evidence in a logical, neutral manner, are decently active on the site and are well behaved, are knowledgeable about site rules etc. Evaluation rights within the confines of CRT’s for that verse should work, they’d act as pseudo thread mods without actually being thread mods, but are shown to have the exact needed qualities and qualifiers of being a thread mod.

This should allow most non-staff members to feel as though their opinions matter as they are, in essence, able to speak their agreement or disagreement through the positions of that specific non-staff member while also ridding the chance of members just creating multiple accounts just to meatride threads without any substance since the non-staff member in question would be the only one non-staff member that would hold evaluative weight, it’s also unlikely the non-staff member in question would abuse this newly found power since they’ve shown themselves to be of good moral and logical character, it’s definitely possible that someone who previously did show themselves to be of good moral and logical character to abuse this power when they receive it, but i don’t believe the chances of that happening is high by any means, it’s probably just as high as someone actually abusing newly gained powers after receiving a thread mod role, since the people in question have the qualities of being a thread mod, but just lack the specific role.

Now, for how this would be doled out, it’ll probably be through some general CRT where knowledge members, both staff and non-staff, nominate specific people who they believe best represents the verse, in a moral and logical sense. The one with the most votes after a period of time has passed would be considered to have that power. If there’s a tie between two or more people, those people can debate it out, provide reasoning on why they are the best choice, and after those debates have finished, people can revote again to decide the winner, doing so until someone has more votes compared to the rest. If that non-staff member becomes a staff member with evaluation rights, they’ll lose that power, and another thread can be created to do the whole process again with a different person, if a that non-staff member becomes a staff member without evaluation rights, they’d still retain the rights they had previously, but only within the confines of the specific verses in question.

There’s potentially other issues and intricacies I’ve failed to mention since this is just an idea I had floating around my head. I haven’t really thought about it until now, but I believe the general idea would help and would address most of the contentions both sides have against each other. But opinions on this thought would absolutely be appreciated since it’s definitely possible there’s some glaring flaw with this idea that I'm not personally seeing currently or there’s some difficulties which can happen if this were to be implemented.

Concluding Statements:

But yeah that’s my opinion on everything, also sorry again for the post being so long, i just wanted my thoughts to be explained in a thorough and thoughtful manner.

Also definitely agree with @Dereck03 , with how our current system is structured, i don’t believe it’s likely something like this would be accepted since a lot of staff members don’t even have their votes counted within most CRT’s as staff votes, regardless of the fact if they are knowledgeable about the series, regardless of argumentation, regardless of character, just because they lack evaluation rights within most cases. So until staff roles like Content Mod or Calc Member can have similar evaluation rights to thread moderators in non-specific situations, I don't see this passing sadly.

 

[Godernet]

Now, for how this would be doled out, it’ll probably be through some general CRT where knowledge members, both staff and non-staff, nominate specific people who they believe best represents the verse, in a moral and logical sense. The one with the most votes after a period of time has passed would be considered to have that power. If there’s a tie between two or more people, those people can debate it out, provide reasoning on why they are the best choice, and after those debates have finished, people can revote again to decide the winner, doing so until someone has more votes compared to the rest. If that non-staff member becomes a staff member with evaluation rights, they’ll lose that power, and another thread can be created to do the whole process again with a different person, if a that non-staff member becomes a staff member without evaluation rights, they’d still retain the rights they had previously, but only within the confines of the specific verses in question.

NGL for anyone that doesn't read Deceived's full post this is a fairly good idea to be considered.

Having a CRT where knowledgeable members on a specific verse are presented as basically Psuedo Staff with limited power for a specific verse.

This is especially helpful since there are some on the wiki incredibly knowledgeable on a specific verse but lack the knowledge of other verses to become a

Thread Mods. I would however change the part where if it is a tie of two or more people they have some debate. At that point, it'll be less about objectivity and

more about who can campaign themselves best. It might be better to go with something more logistic like time spent on the wiki based on comments or who

has made more edits to said verse. There doesn't need to just be one, in a situation where there is a bigger verse like DC or Dragon Ball it might benefit to have

an upper limit of 3 for example but not necessarily require that all of those spots be filled at any given time so there is no push to assign people and time is

given to find people most suited. It could also be a privilege that could be revoked like any other with misconduct or inactivity.

sorry to post on a staff thread btw I just wanted to add on to Deceived's idea.

 

[Deceived3596]

NGL for anyone that doesn't read Deceived's full post

I hope mfs read my entire post, spent hours typing that shit out

 

[Agnaa]

Deceived: tbh, most staff threads affect all members. And non-staff are allowed to comment in them if they get permission from a staff member. But your post is of the ilk that I'd approve if it came across my message wall. (Not your second one, that's kinda just clutter)

While I appreciate the intent behind the idea, it seems a bit pointless to actually enact. Any threads contentious enough to have a voting pool on who should represent the non-staff members shouldn't really be decided by a single vote. Even if that person moves it from 7-5 to 8-5, that's still a situation where I'd expect us to either come to a compromise (possibly/likely), or kick it up to admins/bureaus.

In addition, for some of the stuff you've said like "a lot of staff members don't even have their votes counted... regardless of argumentation..." if someone does actually have great argumentation, those arguments would influence staff members who do have voting rights. For someone's voice to not matter at all, it'd either have to be a matter of pure opinion, or literally every voting staff member would have to be biased or unwilling to engage. And if things get to that point, then shit's ****** regardless of whatever rules we try to put in place (they'd just change/ignore the rules and ban everyone who complains).

Ideally, I see this site's CRT process as like:

1. Bunch of non-staff familiar with the verse check and agree. One staff member gives it a quick look to see if anything's up. If there's nothing controversial, it goes through, otherwise...
2. People deliberate it for a bit, and then we see where a few staff members stand. If they agree, or can compromise, that goes through, otherwise repeat this, bringing in more staff members and narrowing down the types of contributing staff members each time, until we get to just admins or just bureaus. Hopefully a solution's reached somewhere.

I think vote counting's mainly useful as getting a look at how people feel about the changes. What things aren't controversial, and what things are, so that we can go "Oh, 90% of {group} agree, why bother bickering with the last 10% for so long? Just pass it" or "Actually this is kinda contentious, let's compromise". The general trend of votes is a useful indicator, but I don't think it's useful to get so bogged down in the details of it.

Godernet: I don't think those are great measuring sticks. There's a lot of hard-to-measure things that are a part of verse knowledgeability, just going off of those could be real wack.

 

[Ruphas_Mafahl123]

Tbh. I think in regards this issue, we should just give knowledgeable non-Staff members in regards a verse more vote weight, however, I disagree with giving it to anyone who isn't knowledgeable in that verse. This vote should just be specific to knowledgeable members and Staff.

So I think it will be safer if we treat this like a case by case scenario.

 

[KLOL506]

Tbh. I think in regards this issue, we should just give knowledgeable non-Staff members in regards a verse more vote weight, however, I disagree with giving it to anyone who isn't knowledgeable in that verse. This vote should just be specific to knowledgeable members and Staff.

So I think it will be safer if we treat this like a case by case scenario.

We need to be careful regarding biases for knowledgeable members tho, both in cases of for and against.

 

[Godernet]

Godernet: I don't think those are great measuring sticks. There's a lot of hard-to-measure things that are a part of verse knowledgeability, just going off of those could be real wack.

tbf I wasn't suggesting those be the only measuring sticks but giving an example of a criteria that could be looked at in the case of staff votes tieing when deciding who would get said power.

I do admit that it would be hard to make a measuring stick that is completely objective.

 

[Damage3245]

Now let's look at another example. Let's say, I do a CRT on Eliatopia, a game Robby Scherer and I worked with each other on. In my case, I made a huge chunk of the art and wrote over half the bestiary (called the Eliapedia in-game). Who do you think should have more priority? Me, a guy who contributed actively to Eliatopia and has an actual authorship claim on the bestiary, or a guy with a fancy rectangle who never heard of Eliatopia let alone knew it had a bestiary? Normally and under college study standards, I would have higher priority because, duh, I wrote the damn bestiary, but under current standards, the Staff Member would take priority even under the possible scenario that the Staff Member would just clown around and falsely interpret the very thing I wrote. All that would do is make me sit there, eyebrow raised, and say "What the ****, dude?"

I don't think that user-created verses are allowed anyway, no?


But staff members are essential to ensure that the wiki's rules and standards are kept enforced. There's been numerous occasions where I've had to point out that something is calc stacking according to the rules while a dozen normal users have commented their support of it without realizing it's against the rules.

I don't think the current system needs to change.

 

[Ruphas_Mafahl123]

We need to be careful regarding biases for knowledgeable members tho, both in cases of for and against.

Of course, we have Staff members to watch that.

However, yeah. I disagree with giving vote weight to everyone, only Knowledgeable members and Staff.

Staff will need to keep an eye on knowledgeable members, so there isn't any bias from either side.

 

[Godernet]

Of course, we have Staff members to watch that.

However, yeah. I disagree with giving vote weight to everyone, only Knowledgeable members and Staff.

Staff will need to keep an eye on knowledgeable members, so there isn't any bias from either side.

tbf anyone can assert themselves as a knowledgeable member but that doesn't really provide certainty that they'll be objective when making decisions.

that's why I feel that a CRT where staff can choose a "proxy" for a verse based on knowledgeable members who have shown knowledge of wiki standards and
impartial decision-making would be more viable.

it's not something that necessarily needs to happen but would be useful for verses with controversial topics that some members have potentially more knowledge on than a staff member or verses that have a negative reputation that few staff members want to touch.

 

[Ruphas_Mafahl123]

tbf anyone can assert themselves as a knowledgeable member but that doesn't really provide certainty that they'll be objective when making decisions.

that's why I feel that a CRT where staff can choose a "proxy" for a verse based on knowledgeable members who have shown knowledge of wiki standards and impartial decision-making would be more viable.

Honestly, knowing how a verse works and has different mechanics, I think only Knowledgeable members is fine, like...,we just need knowledgeable members in regards a verse who are aware of the wiki standarts tbh.

Threads Mods/Content Mods could also keep an eye on their movements. Tbh.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I disagree with giving regular members voting rights, and do not get me wrong, it is something I will love cause there have been cases where I wanted my votes to count or where I believe I am knowledgeable on a series or on a subject, but it is not practical since not everyone can remain unbias in most cases.
And we cannot exactly add to the pages and say this knowledgeable member has voting rights and this ones do not, also how would the unbiased one be picked? since there is no way to vet someone in this case.
Most of the knowledgeable members on a verse list are biased when it comes to their verse, what I mean by this is that they agree with upgrades and disagree with downgrades regardless whether they see the reason or not. So giving voting rights to knowledgeable members of a series kind of defeats the point of non-bias view of our pages.
This is a big example of why I do not think non-staffs votes should count "when most people disagree with something. I’ll disagree because everyone else is disagreeing too" which is a practice that happens a lot hence the FRA train.
Also I think that is why only Thread moderators and Admins have voting rights, since they have shown that they are non-bias and level headed most times which is why they were chosen to begin with.

Do not get me wrong, staffs can be biased too but it is at least rare or they mostly just stay neutral based on my experience on the site.

 

[Deceived3596]

Deceived: tbh, most staff threads affect all members. And non-staff are allowed to comment in them if they get permission from a staff member. But your post is of the ilk that I'd approve if it came across my message wall.

While most staff threads affect all members, regardless if they are staff or not, this specifically affects non-staff members, so it’s a little bit different compared to other threads which have a pseudo domino effect of affecting non-staff members. Thanks for approving my post.

While I appreciate the intent behind the idea, it seems a bit pointless to actually enact. Any threads contentious enough to have a voting pool on who should represent the non-staff members shouldn't really be decided by a single vote. Even if that person moves it from 7-5 to 8-5, that's still a situation where I'd expect us to either come to a compromise (possibly/likely), or kick it up to admins/bureaus.

Just for clarity's sake, it wouldn’t be decided within every single contentious thread that this specific person would hold this power, but rather a general thread would be created for that person to have generalized voting weight within those CRT’s.

I disagree with you saying it’s a bit pointless to actually enact, having non-staff members have actual, real power within CRT’s would have a tangible increase in threads being passed or declined, similar to how having more thread mods in your thread has a tangible increase in that thread being passed or accepted, also alongside other intangibles like a general increasement of perceived fairness on behalf of normal members, because as of currently, normal members who lack evaluative power, like actual power, not some “just convince the staff bro” hand-wave, don’t feel like their vote matters, it’s to the point that people (including me) just stop counting non-staff votes because their opinion ultimately doesn’t matter, 50 normal members can agree with a thread, but if two or three thread mods disagree with that thread, then that thread isn’t getting accepted. There’s a constant feeling of your opinion being considered as worthless because of this system as a non-staff member, so anything which can buck up against this feeling would be appreciated. It wouldn’t be pointless to them.

Also i disagree with you on that ratio point, if the ratio of votes is 8-5, then that's a completely valid ratio to have where the proposed changes can be made without it needing to be compromised or pushed up to an admin or bureaucrat. I would see your point if it was like, 6-5 or 7-5, but 8-5 i wouldn't since the differential of three votes is usually the general consensus on if something it considered to be accepted fully, similar to how the differential of three votes allows "grace" to be enacted within versus threads. But this is ultimately up to personal opinions tbh.

In addition, for some of the stuff you've said like "a lot of staff members don't even have their votes counted... regardless of argumentation..." if someone does actually have great argumentation, those arguments would influence staff members who do have voting rights. For someone's voice to not matter at all, it'd either have to be a matter of pure opinion, or literally every voting staff member would have to be biased or unwilling to engage. And if things get to that point, then shit's ****** regardless of whatever rules we try to put in place.

That’s just an idealistic perspective to have in my honest opinion, it just doesn’t bear out, it’s why you have mods, who are good debaters, who do have great rhetoric, and who are capable of creating persuasive arguments, feel like their votes don’t matter. Acting like people are easily convinced on this website by good argumentation, without personal preferences getting in the way just seems idealistic. Maybe it’s because I'm jaded after being here for a decent length of time, but I'm definitely not the only person here who believes this.

I’m not making the statement that people who have no evaluation rights don’t have no voice at all, it’s just small and muffled when compared to the loud and bravos of those who do have evaluation rights.

Ideally, I see this site's CRT process as like:

Bunch of non-staff familiar with the verse check and agree. One staff member gives it a quick look to see if anything's up. If there's nothing controversial, it goes through, otherwise...

People deliberate it for a bit, and then we see where a few staff members stand. If they agree, or can compromise, that goes through, otherwise repeat this, bringing in more staff members and narrowing down the types of contributing staff members each time, until we get to just admins or just bureaus. Hopefully a solution's reached somewhere.

I think vote counting's mainly useful as getting a look at how people feel about the changes. What things aren't controversial, and what things are, so that we can go "Oh, 90% of {group} agree, why bother bickering with the last 10% for so long? Just pass it" or "Actually this is kinda contentious, let's compromise". The general trend of votes is a useful indicator, but I don't think it's useful to get so bogged down in the details of it.

Then that’s just a fundamental difference we have between each other then, because that’s not how I’ve perceived the multitude of CRT’s I’ve created and (or) participated in actually happening.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The relevant policies I created for those issues (which are available in the page)

• 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.
• Staff members and trusted knowledgeable members who do not have content revision thread evaluation rights are still encouraged to provide their insights and observations regarding suggested revisions.

My dissent aligns with the viewpoints expressed by @Damage3245 and @PrinceofPein. However, I submit that the staff members articulate their reasons for disagreement in a logical and persuasive manner, so as to avoid any perceived bias and to facilitate comprehension of the underlying rationale.

@PrinceofPein's assertion (a bit of nitpicking I am doing here) that opponents of verse cannot exhibit bias is incorrect. In reality, bias can manifest in anyone regardless of their stance on verse, rendering the distinction irrelevant.

Now to your recommendations:

1. Use the Priority system from the CRT Promotion Thread as a guide as to whether a CRT necessitates staff approval for it to get through or not.
2. Allow some weight for a CRT from regular members. You know, those without fancy rectangles.
3. Promote careful observation and readership.

1- There is already an indirect priority system, such as

• big CRTs
• controversial CRTs
• self-content CRTs
• Cosmological CRTs.

They are all already clarified in discussion rules --> Content revisions.

2- I already listed some policies for those, so I don't think their arguments are being ignored.
3- This is one of the duties of staff members, if you get any issue with a staff member, simply talk to human resources.

Also, lastly, the topic about “knowledgeable members”, there are factors of measuring knowledgeable members, and simply they are all subjective ones.

• Those who has many contributions
• Those who gives argumentative reasons
• Those who are knowledgeable in the tiering system

What is a knowledgeable member? Someone who is expertise in a scope of subject? Or someone who knows each piece of the verse? Because even then, their duties are to provide all relevant information in the CRT, and staff members need to decide the outcome.

A recent example of a CRT going without staff approval for ages was the Garfield CRT Ikelaggan put up, and it took a whole month before literally just one staff member dove in (before you bring up who it was, the forum really doesn't care who jumps in as long as there's a colored rectangle under their name). By current wiki standards, two staff members are needed, maybe more for a Priority 1 CRT. That's two people with a fancy rectangle under their name. Some of the comics posted had straightforward showings on what they're looking for.

Subsequently, I find this thread to be invalid. I fail to comprehend the rationale behind utilizing instances of rule violation threads to support one's argument.

3 regular member votes = 1 staff vote, or 5 regular member votes = 2 staff votes; I'm still working on that bit.
1 well-thought-out regular member essay = 1 staff vote (saying that since any essay opens up a new avenue for debate, plus colleges require that for good grades)

It is highly unlikely that this voting system will ever be deemed practical. The present circumstances demonstrate that members can simply spam For/Against responses and be granted an equivalent weightage as someone who has conscientiously read through the entire post or is a staff member. Consequently, this approach is poised to generate additional issues and engender inequitable outcomes.

 

[Agnaa]

Just for clarity's sake, it wouldn’t be decided within every single contentious thread that this specific person would hold this power, but rather a general thread would be created for that person to have generalized voting weight within those CRT’s.

Sounds like that could be useful, if everyone can peacefully come to that choice. For safety, we'd probably want a bit of staff input for that. I do worry that such a system could easily cause drama if the choice is divisive. Like, if the non-staff fans have a few general groups, and someone from one group gets picked over another. Or if the person most non-staff prefer isn't approved by staff, but some other person most non-staff disagree with is. If they're not approved by staff, then that only removes one potential cause for drama, and opens up abuse of that position.

I could see it working, but I'm cautious. 80% in favour of just giving it a go, though.

That’s just an idealistic perspective to have in my honest opinion, it just doesn’t bear out, it’s why you have mods, who are good debaters, who do have great rhetoric, and who are capable of creating persuasive arguments, feel like their votes don’t matter. Acting like people are easily convinced on this website by good argumentation, without personal preferences getting in the way just seems idealistic. Maybe it’s because I'm jaded after being here for a decent length of time, but I'm definitely not the only person here who believes this.

I don't think it's easy! It can be like pulling teeth! And I haven't seen you around, so idk if you already realise this, but imo a decent part of this is suspecting that someone won't be convinced, and calling in half a dozen other staff members in hopes that 2-3 will respond and actually be convinced. I'm somewhat idealistic, but only to the extent that I think enough staff will give a reasonable evaluation, if you point the thread out to them.

Then that’s just a fundamental difference we have between each other then, because that’s not how I’ve perceived the multitude of CRT’s I’ve created and (or) participated in actually happening.

As you can see by my recent edits, I haven't been on much recently, but in the time before my break started I saw quite a shift towards vote-counting. Sounds like it's gotten more ruthless, with content/image/calc mods being ignored, rather than only being removed in later stages. And there being less acknowledgement of non-staff experts (whether in specific wiki policies, or verses). But I wouldn't expect those groups to be ignored to the extent implied in this thread; we still have the Knowledgeable Members List for Wiki Terminology, which has like 9 non-staff users, and like 6 non-bureau/admin/dm staff on it.

Due to my inactivity idk what the cause is. My first guess would be trying to systematize this sorta thing in the first place. Instead of having a bureaucrat/admin look at the general sentiment or votecount of a thread and opaquely say "I think this can be applied" or "This verse expert seems to have a point". Maybe that's not the issue, and nowadays that sorta thing would just be treated as a "vote" by the bureau/admin for that non-staff member's side?

EDIT: Since I don't think this deserves a new post. I think DT's assessment below is way too harsh, and paints non-staff with way too broad of a brush. I don't think things are that bad, or are bad for those reasons. But ultimately, I think those risks, even at their actual lower extent, still are reason enough to reject the OP's idea. I would still wanna try the elevated knowledgeable member thing.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Someone would need to judge what is an "uncontroversial change" which regular members sadly frequently fail to do. I so often run into stuff someone thinks is an obvious addition and I consider completely wrong. Similar problem with the "Just don't count idiots"-approach.

Additionally, one of the big reasons we have the staff system, is that for popular verses it's not rare for supporters to massively outnumber everyone else. Which basically means that if they can just vote on their own, the pathway is open to completely unchallenged wank.

Lastly, as others pointed out, regular members are often insufficiently informed of our wikis rules and standards, while additionally frequently lacking the analytic abilities to properly apply them even when informed.

So, in short, no offense, but this would just lead to the worst wank on profiles ever as the average member on this site has not the slightest interest into maintaining standards or giving their favourite characters anything but the highest possible rankings. When we pick staff members we try to filter out those who do.

This is a very hard no.

 

[Maitreya12]

Just briefly skimming through a lot of the thread….my personal take on it is this:

I get the kinda worry for giving non-staff voting rights especially because that could easily lead down a road where things get out of hand, but some of the points brought up in the OP could be pretty valid with some rework.

Like for example, OP brought up how priority 3 threads shouldn’t need staff approval for it, maybe instead of that though, for priority 3 threads a CGM evaluating the thread could act like a staff vote to not only make it easier to pass but also give some staff input and approval without solely for non-staff members. Because from what I understand about our current standards, only thread mods and above votes count as staff votes. Maybe allowing CGM’s votes to qualify for priority 3 verses would help with the proposal by the OP.

I’m also personally against putting a ‘numbers system’ on regular members to see how many of them would “equal” a staff member vote. I don’t personally find that idea appealing or probably good in the long run, however the point for non-staff votes to count more in threads can probably be talked about further with other solutions.

For example, say a priority 2 thread is made right, and it needs at least 2 staff approvals to get passed. Say 1 staff member agrees with the CRT while another staff doesn’t, if everyone else in that CRT, from knowledgeable members and such also agree with the CRT at hand with only again minimal disagreement, I think it should be considered as ‘more weight’ has been put on to the agreement side of the CRT rather than it just being totally equal with one staff agreeing and another staff disagreeing. This helps I think with allowing non-staff to have their input and arguments be given more weight to them, without necessitating an actual numbered figure be put on them to see how much their vote is “worth” compared to a staff members.

Those are just my initial thoughts on the matter. Take of them what you will.

 

[Therefir]

What if for each verse of the wiki, we elected an extremely knowledgeable and level-headed member to represent the vote of their entire community? That way, regular users wouldn't feel so powerless when it comes to content revision threads, and they would have someone who would be their voice and vote when it comes to matters related to the verse in question.

Of course, this person would be chosen by the staff themselves, judged by their previous actions with the verse they support, how much helpful they have been, and this person's vote would have the same weight as a staff member's vote.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Seems like a great idea to me.

 

[Damage3245]

What if for each verse of the wiki, we elected an extremely knowledgeable and level-headed member to represent the vote of their entire community? That way, regular users wouldn't feel so powerless when it comes to content revision threads, and they would have someone who would be their voice and vote when it comes to matters related to the verse in question.

Of course, this person would be chosen by the staff themselves, judged by their previous actions with the verse they support, how much helpful they have been, and this person's vote would have the same weight as a staff member's vote.

Sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. How could one person equate to the wishes of the entire community when the community is divided on a topic?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. How could one person equate to the wishes of the entire community when the community is divided on a topic?

Choose two sides, one for opponent and one for supporter side, I may understand the concern in perspective of actual big verses, but this could be helpful to small-medium size.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Although, if staff members are confused which one is suitable to be representative, a community can vote for the person or suggest one.

 

[PrinceofPein]

What if for each verse of the wiki, we elected an extremely knowledgeable and level-headed member to represent the vote of their entire community? That way, regular users wouldn't feel so powerless when it comes to content revision threads, and they would have someone who would be their voice and vote when it comes to matters related to the verse in question.

Of course, this person would be chosen by the staff themselves, judged by their previous actions with the verse they support, how much helpful they have been, and this person's vote would have the same weight as a staff member's vote.

There are thousands of verse in this wiki, that means the current staffs will have to participate in like hundreds of CRT for each verse to pick a member for those said verses.
It is not practical at all

 

[Therefir]

Sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. How could one person equate to the wishes of the entire community when the community is divided on a topic?

This person would have to be a supporter, a non-staff member and someone known for their really well-made content revision threads, with a history of having being accepted by both staff and regular members.

If they can get the support of the majority of people in their community, it means they can feasibly represent it.

They don't necessarily need the support of absolutely everyone in their community, just someone who regularly gets the support of most of regular members in their threads.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Dear Princeofpain, it is possible to create a thread and compile a list of verses who are frequently active.
People can then be invited to vote or make suggestions within this thread.

Additionally, I have formulated a concept for the CRT, but I require further insight into the essential factors that will ensure a representative selection.

 

[Damage3245]

I'm heavily opposed to that idea. If the community can put forward a proposal for evaluation, giving them a default vote of approval from this 'representative' seems pointless.

 

[Therefir]

There are thousands of verse in this wiki, that means the current staffs will have to participate in like hundreds of CRT for each verse to pick a member for those said verses.
It is not practical at all

We can just make a thread and choose one between few candidates for the verse on the wiki, I really doubt there would be any issue with that.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This person would have to be a supporter, a non-staff member and someone known for their really well-made content revision threads, with a history of having being accepted by both staff and regular members.

If they can get the support of the majority of people in their community, it means they can feasibly represent it.

They don't necessarily need the support of absolutely everyone in their community, just someone who regularly gets the support of most of regular members in their threads.

Tho, what about big verses such as one piece or OPM? They have great amount of supporters.
Which measurement tools do staff members use to select the representative?

 

[Therefir]

Tho, what about big verses such as one piece or OPM? They have great amount of supporters.
Which measurement tools do staff members use to select the representative?

I believe the community should have the option to choose their own candidates, even if they are just a few, but in the end, it is in the hands of the staff to decide if this candidate is prepared for the position.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I believe the community should have the option to choose their own candidates, even if they are just a few, but in the end, it is in the hands of the staff to decide if this candidate is prepared for the position.

Seems a great idea! This may solve the issue that has been heavily debated for over months.

 

[KLOL506]

Not too sure about the whole... representative idea. For one, there could be multiple representatives equally as contributive with the same level of expertise as one another.

 

[Damage3245]

Not too sure about the whole... representative idea. For one, there could be multiple representatives equally as contributive with the same level of expertise as one another.

And then you also have verses which might have nobody but one or two users interested in them. Do they suddenly gain a staff vote just because they're the only users who care about the verses?