CRTs Done Easier

[KLOL506]

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?

That's also a problem.

 

[KLOL506]

Also, we already have a 2-day grace period for other staff and verse experts to weigh in their opinion anyway so I don't really get the Priority scale at all.

 

[Therefir]

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.

We just have to let the community choose the most popular, that's how representatives work, there is no place in the world where a representative can have the full support of their community, that's why we use majority.

As an example, let's say we go to the OPM General Thread and ask the community to choose 2 candidates that would be their representative vote when it comes to content review threads, and they choose Tural2004 and Kachon123 (not that I necessarily think they would be the ones chosen, they are simply regular users with many accepted/supported threads in their verse).

Then, the staff takes those two candidates and pick one of the two depending on what they think would be the best representative, (if one is more unbiased than the other, if their arguments are better constructed, etc.) and that would be basically it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Would any community really have the integrity of proposing a representative that is not biased in favour of it? I have serious doubts that anyone who regularly rejects upgrades would ever get the roll.

 

[Therefir]

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?

With smaller verses, we can choose the candidates ourselves, and if they are the ones making most of the CRTs for said verse, then it's not like they could just make a thread and accept it themselves, they would be just like any staff member.

 

[DontTalkDT]

if they are the ones making most of the CRTs for said verse, then it's not like they could just make a thread and accept it themselves, they would be just like any staff member.

Let's be real, any community would organize it so that someone else posts the CRTs so that the representative can approve them.

 

[Therefir]

Would any community really have the integrity of proposing a representative that is not biased in favour of it? I have serious doubts that anyone who regularly rejects upgrades would ever get the roll.

I choose to believe that most regular users are smart enough to choose excellent candidates with extremely good track records.

They wouldn't pick some random guy whose threads are never accepted because they're only interested in wanking their verse rather than improving it.

 

[AKM sama]

The current system might not be perfect, nothing is. Sure it can cause delay and there might be problems here and there but it is currently the best option we have. The suggested approach may speed things up a bit but also sacrifice a level of reliability in the process.

Many times what some may consider straight forward due to scans/calcs etc. all being there may not be straightforward due to the underlying verse-related or standard-related context. Staff members are chosen because they are mostly trusted with making the correct call, and even then mistakes can happen. It's best to wait to iron out any problems in the thread instead of applying it in a rush just to reverse it later.

We have members who are knowledgeable about a verse inputting on the threads and their input is considered above that of a normal user. It's not that their voices are not heard. It's heard and it's given importance by the people trusted to judge and make the right call based on it. And in cases where a member is knowledgeable and trusted enough to set aside bias and give reliable input about stuff, they usually end up getting promoted to staff.

I am not in favor of having any specific weight to anybody's opinions. Such a system could be gamed and could turn out to be unreliable. Things should always come down to validity of arguments. And there are people appointed to evaluate these things.

The current system is tried and tested. We had several discussions based on proposing a change to it. And although it may be slow at times but it is the best bet when it comes to reliability, which is given preference to above all things.

 

[Therefir]

Let's be real, any community would organize it so that someone else posts the CRTs so that the representative can approve them.

Is there really any evidence of there being such a complot behind the scenes?

To think that absolutely all regular members are biased, even those who have been very helpful, or that they would create such a plot to have their threads accepted, sounds extremely closed minded to me.

What's stopping an actual staff doing the same thing? We are not infallible, no one is, but we choose to trust each other, and trusting a single, well-regarded regular member will not be the end of the world.

 

[Damage3245]

Is there really any evidence of there being such a complot behind the scenes?

To think that absolutely all regular members are biased, even those who have been very helpful, or that they would create such a plot to have their threads accepted, sounds extremely closed minded to me.

What's stopping an actual staff doing the same thing? We are not infallible, no one is, but we choose to trust each other, and trusting a single, well-regarded regular member will not be the end of the world.

Staff have no need to do that. They cannot approve their own CRT's without other staff members, and if other staff members are evaluating it anyway then there is no need for them to get somebody else to post it as their vote will be counted either way.

 

[Therefir]

In addition, most large changes require at least 2 staff members to be accepted, having a single member with that power will only speed up things considerably, without having to leave the responsibility solely to this user.

There was an occasion not too long ago, when I had to wait half a month, for a quite simple, straightforward thread to be accepted, only because the second staff member refused to show up.

And that was with My Hero Academia, imagine the hell less popular verses have to go through simply because not enough staff members are interested in said threads.

And of course they are not interested, they are not as knowledgeable/passionate about those verses as a regular supporter might be.

 

[Therefir]

You know what pisses me off about the hilarity of these things, is that for years we've had serious problems with small verses getting shit done, with dozens, maybe even hundreds of threads with simple, straightforward changes being abandoned.

And you know what the site decides to do to fix this massive issue? Actually take away power from most of the staff members, effectively revoking their voting rights and leaving all responsibility of hundreds of threads to a handful of staff members with higher position.

If there were problems before, now they are multiplied tenfold.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I choose to believe that most regular users are smart enough to choose excellent candidates with extremely good track records.

They wouldn't pick some random guy whose threads are never accepted because they're only interested in wanking their verse rather than improving it.

Is there really any evidence of there being such a complot behind the scenes?

To think that absolutely all regular members are biased, even those who have been very helpful, or that they would create such a plot to have their threads accepted, sounds extremely closed minded to me.

Evidence of people talking with each other and organizing CRTs outside of forum threads? Yeah, it's not even a secret. It's also not like I haven't seen people talk about how to get their CRTs approved before. That's just natural. Evidence of them organizing who posts things in particular? Obviously not, as there currently is no point to do that. Also, if you really expect them to voluntarily give up their vote most of the time then there would be no point to their position. Their vote is the only difference they have.

And I'm not saying everyone is biased. I said no community would pick someone that is not. Therefir, I have been on this wiki for over eight years. I'm not talking based on paranoia here. I have plenty of experience with how our communities at large tend to favour high-end interpretations. It's really in the nature of the hobby, given as everyone that gathers here is really passionate towards their verses in particular. You wouldn't expect an ornithology club to select a president that says that there should be less funding for bird protection because it's needed more by someone else.

What's stopping an actual staff doing the same thing? We are not infallible, no one is, but we choose to trust each other, and trusting a single, well-regarded regular member will not be the end of the world.

Nothing other than a thorough selection process. And you know we are always searching for more staff members to make the wiki run more smoothly. It's just that not all that many people pass. If we applied the same standards to representatives... well, then we would just make them staff members.

 

[KLOL506]

Is there really any evidence of there being such a complot behind the scenes?

To think that absolutely all regular members are biased, even those who have been very helpful, or that they would create such a plot to have their threads accepted, sounds extremely closed minded to me.

You'd be surprised at what some people can do in their free time.

What's stopping an actual staff doing the same thing? We are not infallible, no one is, but we choose to trust each other, and trusting a single, well-regarded regular member will not be the end of the world.

Nothing really, that's why we need to be wary on both sides and moderate both sides.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I am very much in the same camp as AKM on this, aye. Our current system does all it can do to prevent tomfoolery behind the scenes- while obviously the default assumption is honesty, I believe you would need to be a fool to assume that dishonesty is absolutely a pandemic on boards such as these, one which must be fought with vigilance. The staff is far from perfect, a fact for which we have countermeasures, but I would take hand-picked informed members over any given user bright enough to show up to a thread.

 

[Therefir]

Nothing other than a thorough selection process. And you know we are always searching for more staff members to make the wiki run more smoothly. It's just that not all that many people pass. If we applied the same standards to representatives... well, then we would just make them staff members.

The staff we have is still not nearly enough to cover for the brunt of CTRs we have everyday, and representatives would only focus on one verse in particular, having no power in others.

Evidence of people talking with each other and organizing CRTs outside of forum threads? Yeah, it's not even a secret. It's also not like I haven't seen people talk about how to get their CRTs approved before. That's just natural.

If there are people trying to pass off threads of dubious veracity and we know they are doing so, shouldn't they just be banned?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It is my personal belief that these people tend to fully believe what they are saying. When you are a fan of something, it is easy to become enamored by nice, higher numbers. It is easy to allow bias to take you to places, in regards to scaling the verse, that a normal person would not generally go. I try not to fault the individual for overplaying the statistics or use of a given character or ability.

 

[Armorchompy]

I don't have a precise opinion on this topic, but I am definitely of the opinion that non-staff should have some power in threads. Even as a staff member I've always felt like I could get away with pretty unfair behavior in threads if I wanted to.

In regards to specifically how much power, I can't say, but I'm unhappy with the current system.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The representative person for the verse suggestion appears promising at first glance, but further discussion is required to determine appropriate measurements and settings for the suggestion. This is because small verses, which only have one supporter, can easily create their own content revision and require only one staff member's approval, provided that the CRT is not significant in size. However, larger CRTs necessitate the evaluation of more staff members.

Selecting a representative who may have a biased opinion regarding the verse is a concern. Therefore, it is essential that the chosen representative is rational, argumentative, and always willing to provide evidence and explanations, as these are fundamental characteristics for any representative.

 

[KLOL506]

Count me in for disagreeing with the whole "representative" approach. I still think the current system we use is more than adequate to handle CRTs.

 

[Antvasima]

I strongly agree with DontTalk, AKM, Bambu, and Damage here.

 

[KLOL506]

As for the Priority-based thing, it's whatever on my part.

 

[ImmortalDread]

As for the Priority-based thing, it's whatever on my part.

No, I disagree. You can't simply create a CRT, and get it concluded by no presence of staff member, it literally goes to every policy on content revisions.

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

 

[KLOL506]

No, I disagree. You can't simply create a CRT, and get it concluded by no presence of staff member, it literally goes to every policy on content revisions.

That's... literally not what I meant. I don't want staff gone from a CRT.

I do indeed want staff to be involved in this. But it's a question of how many staff is really necessary to see this through.

I was just talking about how each revision would be qualified as the following Priorities. That's all.

 

[ImmortalDread]

That's... literally not what I meant. I don't want staff gone from a CRT.

I do indeed want staff to be involved in this. But it's a question of how many staff is really necessary to see this through.

I am aware, but I just want to make you aware that the priority system can't be practiced and specially 3.

Also, to your second part, I think I have clarified it enough and made effort explaining how many staff members need to evaluate it (unless I misunderstood it)

 

[KLOL506]

I am aware, but I just want to make you aware that the priority system can't be practiced and specially 3.

Also, to your second part, I think I have clarified it enough and made effort explaining how many staff members need to evaluate it (unless I misunderstood it)

I edited in a third part which is the main focus of my comment.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I edited in a third part which is the main focus of my comment.

Mb, did not see the part. Alright then, I got it.

 

[Reiner04]

Just an Opinion; I do think it's quite bothersome and unlikely to give regular users some power over CRTs while being sure if they won't have some bias or just as @PrinceofPein said, start a FRA train. But I think all staff member (including CM, CGM, Image helpers), should have a power they used to have (we indeed lacking a number of staff there should be per CRT and most threads gets deserted with no Staff in it). There was no fault in that system to correct but was infact imo, better than current one, I mean sure they have their roles for particular work they're assigned to but I don't think it's right to just take their evaluating rights they used to have (and for how we deal things, staff members are indeed considered trustworthy). Gtg now.

 

[Arkenis]

I think I generally agree?
Not to name verses, but a lot of verses cough cough JJK have almost zero mods involved making CRTs impossible to pass. So yeah knowledge members of a verse should be enough to pass a CRT without needing cm or cgm.

Also this problem overall can be fixed by giving people who are knowledge on verses their own special box that says "Insert Verse Supporter" which just means their opinon and vote holds more water than cm or cgm who aren't actually knowledgeable on a verse. Since just being on the supporter list does absolutely nothing for a crt to get passed.

And looking at a problem might be an issue is someone being knowledgeable on 10 verses having 10 boxes would look unpleasant so it can only be reserved for those who are mostly invested in said verse or given to a certain amount for said verse. Say a verse has 10 supporters, all10 aren't gonna be usually active nor equally knowledgeable so certain ones would get the box, say maybe 5?

 

[ImmortalDread]

No, the idea of letting a CRT being passed without a presence of any staff member is a horrible idea.

 

[Agnaa]

I share some reservations over the representative idea (possibility of drama, those members should probably just be staff anyway), and don't share others (I don't think terrible members would get in it since it still needs staff verification).

I do find it strange that now CGMs and content mods don't have their voices counted as approval for threads. To me, it seemed like people usually got those positions instead of discussion mod because we need(ed) more staff in those positions. Only occasionally is it because they're actually not up to par in discussions. And even then, that's usually an issue with communicating or staying calm, rather than an issue with an understanding of the site's standards. For content mod/discussion mod specifically, it seems like we only give one or the other, even if someone's qualified for both, until they're qualified for admin (which is a higher standard than either of those individually).

As an example of that, I was offered discussion mod and got to choose content mod instead. If this really was purely about qualifications instead of only wanting to give one of those two roles to people until they can become admin, I just would've gotten both!

So my suggestion for expediting threads would be to allow at least content mods, and probably CGMs, to count as staff votes again.

On another note, the user Sparkive made a comment on this topic that they asked me to post on their behalf:

Instead of trying to fix the problem or totally denying the idea...
Want to look for a limited power would be better

1. It is created in a "Wiki Management" thread
2. The verses that can, discuss in their "general discussion thread" to choose 2 or 3 candidates
3. Someone unrelated to the candidates puts a message in the WM thread stating the verse, the candidates in question and the arguments said (which must also be decided in GD), and the Staff in question review and choose it to one
4. Whoever gets elected can vote on minor threads (basically non-controversial skill ones, accepted calculations that affect few characters, and minor changes in general)
5. A STAFF would still be needed (because being only for lower CTRs, they are probably always the ones that needed 2 staff to vote), and the STAFF vote has more weight, that is, if you disagree you can override the NO vote -STAFF and it would be up to him to convince the STAFF
6. The title can be revoked in case of bad behavior or large bias, but in order not to make it unfair, a single STAFF cannot remove it, but they would have to agree to this

Extra: if in the WM thread none is accepted, they must wait 30 days before suggesting the same verse, and the message cannot be 100% the same

 

[chosen]

@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

Man called the avengers

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I agree with the priorities thing.

There are possibilities where a crt can go south which would bump its priority from 3-2 or even 1. In which case, the opposition can call staff members to sort things out.

Knowledgeable non staff members will have to write an extensive post rather than resort to “Agree FRA”. They should point out what they agree with on a Priority 3 CRT.

---

I would also love for CGMs and especially Content Mods have their opinions hold just as much weight as Thread Mods. It was always strange to me that a Content Mod has no weight on Content Revisions or Calc Group Members having no weight on Calc additions.

 

[Dereck03]

I do find it strange that now CGMs and content mods don't have their voices counted as approval for threads.

All thanks to the new system that was recently implemented that practically nullified our votes and even as I said some members even explicitly say not to count our votes because of our specific "Role".

For content mod/discussion mod specifically, it seems like we only give one or the other, even if someone's qualified for both, until they're qualified for admin (which is a higher standard than either of those individually).

As an example of that, I was offered discussion mod and got to choose content mod instead. If this really was purely about qualifications instead of only wanting to give one of those two roles to people until they can become admin, I just would've gotten both!

Apparently you can be given the 2 positions at the same time and not be promoted to administrator, I was even told that such a position could be given to me but it is only a distant dream that was forgotten, so it only has to be one of the 2 if you are not qualified for administrator which I was told I qualify for, but that's another thing I'm not interested in or seeking for.

So my suggestion for expediting threads would be to allow at least content mods, and probably CGMs, to count as staff votes again.

Agree. Also terefir remarked it, many verses or revisions that go months without input from staffs with evaluation rights and even if CM or CGM give evaluation these cannot be applied because of lack of evaluation rights. I even value the evaluation of some CM, CGM members more than some others with evaluation rights.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I would be against assigning any considerable weight to the voice of any calc group member or image helper- they are staff by title only, and primarly serve as volunteers for a very specific function of this wiki. I held this position when I was just a calc group member, and I hold it now.

Content moderators are another issue. You guys are full and proper staff on this wiki, given positions not just for the usefulness you provide but, in my opinion, the rationality you display. While it may require us to be a bit pickier in regards to selecting new staff members, I'd be down with giving y'all a more considerable voice to help abate this problem.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Negative, the rationale behind not endowing policies with evaluation rights at the time of their creation was solely due to their respective allocation of responsibilities across other categories.

For instance,

• calculation members are tasked with carrying out all necessary computations and calculations (they are the only one who has every evaluation right in that category, while thread moderator has no say in that branch),
  
  
• content moderators are responsible for ensuring that the wiki remains organized and relevant.
• And image helpers provide assistance with image services and policies.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yes, I'm saying I would be fine with a revision to that. I think a Discussion Mod's rulings ought to hold greater weight, but I would not be opposed to giving Content Mods some level of power, if only so otherwise minor and forgotten CRTs can get a look.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Yes, I'm saying I would be fine with a revision to that. I think a Discussion Mod's rulings ought to hold greater weight, but I would not be opposed to giving Content Mods some level of power, if only so otherwise minor and forgotten CRTs can get a look.

I don't mind this, hence I actually wrote this, giving them some consideration

• 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.
  
  
• The input and comments of these staff members and trusted knowledgeable members should be carefully considered by those with evaluation rights, and may influence the final decision regarding the approval of a content revision.

I have created a policy specifically for bureaucrats, granting them greater authority over policies and VSBW standards.

However, with regards to the evaluation rights of content moderators, I maintain a neutral stance. While I do not discern any significant differences between content moderators and thread moderators in terms of evaluating and moderating threads, the former's evaluation rights should be slightly lower.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Yes, I'm saying I would be fine with a revision to that. I think a Discussion Mod's rulings ought to hold greater weight, but I would not be opposed to giving Content Mods some level of power, if only so otherwise minor and forgotten CRTs can get a look.

What are your thoughts on CGMs who are knowledgeable on a verse, having weight on calc related CRTs specifically. Like a simple Calc addition or Multiplier threads.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

What are your thoughts on CGMs who are knowledgeable on a verse, having weight on calc related CRTs specifically. Like a simple Calc addition or Multiplier threads.

I would not assign them a greater priority than any other knowledgeable member of the verse (that is, listen to them, take their thoughts into account, but do not give them authority to make a final judgement call on the verse). Even a calc addition can potentially have severe ramifications- in general it is as simple as adding an already agreed upon feat to the pages, but what of feats not agreed to? So, in general, I would be against it.