• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

CRTs Done Easier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arnoldstone18 said:
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.
Click to expand...
A Calculation being mathematically correct is a different topic to a Calculation being acceptable to be used in a revision. The CGM's handle the former; they can't just decide to approve a revision related to adding in a calc though.
 
Arnoldstone18 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Calculation staff members possess complete evaluation rights concerning all calculation-related content.
 
Damage3245 said:
A Calculation being mathematically correct is a different topic to a Calculation being acceptable to be used in a revision. The CGM's handle the former; they can't just decide to approve a revision related to adding in a calc though.
Click to expand...
I do feel the need to stress that CGMs don't just handle the math. There are pages upon pages of standards for what makes a calc usable beyond the math. The most striking example, in my mind, is Laser/Light Beam Dodging Feats. If they can properly evaluate by standards like that, shouldn't they be able to evaluate by other standards?

That's an actual non-rhetorical question. I haven't looked hard enough to be able to answer myself, so I'd rather defer to others (and so far, a person I've asked has said they occasionally can't).
 
Yeah this is a complicated matter, I definitely understand the desire to make regular users more important, but I have to agree with DontTalk, AKM, Bambu, and Damage here. While yes, Staff are not unfallible and can make mistakes when it comes to approving CRT's and the like, they do an effective job on getting CRT's approved for others. A lot of CRT's that don't become full on back and forth debates usually go very smoothly in terms of actually getting the things that need to be approved done. Yeah it can take a very long time, that's a consequence for literally any unpopular verse that does not have a staff supporter, but generally, very obvious and direct CRT's do get approved without much conflict. The issue is that a lot of regular users do not know how the site works fully and don't know all the rules, standards, etc. I've seen many a time where all the regular users were unanimous and waiting to apply changes from a CRT only for one staff to come in and inform them of the standards of the site and how the CRT that everyone was agreeing with doesn't fly with our standards. Staff exist to be a very site informed and unbiased tool that help filter out the wank and absurdities that are proposed on the daily.

And here's another thing, Staff Members themselves need approval from other Staff Members constantly. No Staff Member can just make a CRT himself, say it's approved and apply changes, that's not how it works. No Staff Member is capable of approving their own content without contacting other Staff to help give their opinion. I've created many CRT's before and after becoming Staff and let me be honest, it's a nearly identical process. I have always needed to contact other staff members to help get my CRT's approved and sometimes it just takes a very long time. That's just how it works. Also it's easy to forget, but all Staff that exist now were previously regular users who showed extensive knowlegde of the site and it's standards, while also demonstrating effective skills in discussion and calc creation. Most Staff are Staff because they did all the things that the OP is suggesting certain regular members who should be Pseudo Mods do.

Anyways, that's just my reasoning on why the whole change is unnecessary and wouldn't effectively make things better. If you as a regular user want to have a CRT be changed or applied, you need to go through our in place checks and balances first. I know a lot of people wish they could just go out on their own and easily apply their CRT's, but the chaos that could result from that is very likely not favorable.
 
I'll reiterate what I said on Discord: I find it a strange conundrum that, were we to push this responsibility to calc group members, that we may have to reject a given member because of a certain proclivity for supporting nonsensical revisions, or just haphazardly supporting something with little engagement with the CRT, even if their work with calculations is otherwise pretty good.
 
About the representative thing -

It seems like a major issue people have with it (that being the potential to shotgun upgrade threads uncontested) doesn't seem to have much basis? For starters, said representatives would have to be chosen by staff, and staff tends to be pretty decent at spotting bias. An openly biased member - whether they be for or against their respective verse - wouldn't get the opportunity to become a representative at all, I'd imagine. Similarly, we don't often rely on the opinions of 1 person when it comes to accepting or rejecting a thread; It's usually 2 or more, so the representative would have to come to an agreement with other knowledgeable staff. Also, representatives wouldn't be strictly necessary across the board, as some verses will have staff opinions present within hours of posting (a lot of shonen verses come to mind). I feel like the potential issues are a bit overblown, and are mostly remedied by the systems we already have in place.

That aside, I agree with content mods getting more authority in this regard, and otherwise think that just letting the popular vote from regular members accept/reject CRTs is a bad idea (I've been in several threads where there's a dozen "agree/disagree FRA" posts before any counterarguments are actually made.

Apologies if this is coming in too late or if I'm not allowed to comment here, I just felt the need to address this.
 
Fully disagree with the representatives proposal and largely in the same boat as DontTalk, AKM, Bambu, and Damage.

I also think content moderators having more say in CRTs is a good idea.
 
I will work on the content moderator matter with Bambu and others in private.
 
Kachon123 said:
"Whole point" is a stretch, but I don't see what good it does to randomly decide to discuss something that people have already been talking about here, somewhere private.
Click to expand...
Because it is irrelevant to the thread, also we still need to discuss with Ant about it. Please don't drag it further.
 
Asked Pegasus to comment here.

As a normal user I should say that I definitely don't feel like my voice or other non-staff users isn't ignored in a crt, specially if we are knowledgeables in a verse, our arguments matter and can actually greatly influence a crt. Using myself as example I had various times a great impact in crts from verses like Arifureta, Death Mage, Tsuki Ga and I Reincarned For Nothing, verses in which I'm knowledgeable and have demostrated that, but even outside those my arguments have also influenced crts from verses that I don't actually know a lot, my points have affected both normal users and staff, and I know as a matter of fact (because I have see it) that all the other normal users that commented in this thread had also greatly impacted crts and had their voices heard, they weren't ignored at all. If a user really get "ignored" is not because their position, but because their points aren't good/strong enough to affect the view of others, be it staff or normal users.

So, considering how we actually matter and have influence in crts, the idea of give us more power is bad because of the potential dangers already mentioned previously, that staff act as the last seal of approval is the way to assure that things don't become chaotic. The current system works, not perfectly obviously, there are likely things that could be improved, but it do the work well enough that some big changes like this one aren't necessary.

Regarding the votes of other staff besides discussion mods, personally I think their votes should matter in the crts of verses they are knowledgeable since they possess a better judgement than most normal users (otherwise they probably wouldn't be staff even if they were good with numbers or images), and in the specific case of content mods they spend a good chunk of time revising profiles so they certainly have the qualifications to judge what is good to go to profiles. That said though, at the end I'm not staff and this wasn't the thing I wanted to initially comment here, just thought to share a bit of my opinion about this.
 
Expectro2000xxx said:
So, considering how we actually matter and have influence in crts, the idea of give us more power is bad because of the potential dangers already mentioned previously, that staff act as the last seal of approval is the way to assure that things don't become chaotic. The current system works, not perfectly obviously, there are likely things that could be improved, but it do the work well enough that some big changes like this one aren't necessary.
Click to expand...

But the issue at hand is that straightforward CRTs often just go dead due to less staff input. So, the OP is proposing that "more power" be given to us regular members in cases like this, where simple, straightforward CRTs can be passed without having to wait several months.

I agree that we get some level of voting rights in these cases alone such that a CRT can be concluded if many of us have given input. With a few guidelines being that:

Must be knowledgeable on the topic and must show that by forming substantive opinions other than just agreeing or disagreeing based off what someone else has said.



So yes the system works to a degree, however it is just extremely time consuming for verses with little to 0 knowledgeable (or even non knowledgeable) staff members to conclude a thread.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
I'll reiterate what I said on Discord: I find it a strange conundrum that, were we to push this responsibility to calc group members, that we may have to reject a given member because of a certain proclivity for supporting nonsensical revisions, or just haphazardly supporting something with little engagement with the CRT, even if their work with calculations is otherwise pretty good.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's a legitimate concern. And it's not like we don't give our CGMs other staff ranks in addition if they prove suitable.

And the one thing that frequently takes longer than getting a CRT approved is getting a calc approved. So, to begin with, I'm not sure if it's wise to give the CGMs additional duties if our goal is to speed up our processes. On one hand, it might occasionally speed things up when they are voting anyway, on the other hand, it splits their focus.
 
Arnoldstone18 said:
But the issue at hand is that straightforward CRTs often just go dead due to less staff input. So, the OP is proposing that "more power" be given to us regular members in cases like this, where simple, straightforward CRTs can be passed without having to wait several months.

I agree that we get some level of voting rights in these cases alone such that a CRT can be concluded if many of us have given input. With a few guidelines being that:

Must be knowledgeable on the topic and must show that by forming substantive opinions other than just agreeing or disagreeing based off what someone else has said.



So yes the system works to a degree, however it is just extremely time consuming for verses with little to 0 knowledgeable (or even non knowledgeable) staff members to conclude a thread.
Click to expand...
My man, as the son of lawyer I can assure you that even in real life quite simple things can get months to be approved by a system, this isn't a problem of the wiki but of most functional systems that needs qualified human approval for their process.

And it isn't like we can't do things to make a crt receive more attention and be evaluated quicker, we can very easily contact staff, promote crts in other threads or conversations, or bump to constantly bring attention to a crt. Also, isn't like every crt end lasting months without input, those types of threads are relatively speaking not that frecuent (and yes, I say this as someone with crts that lasted more than a month to end applied).

Ideally the idea sound good, however in reality there are more dangers to take just for the purpose of solve a problem that essentially is "the process take time so we need to wait".
 
I haven't read all the replies, but here's my two cents anyways

A ton of regular people cannot be trusted with voting, but we should have more non-staff users who are able to vote
perhaps something like giving out a common "knowledgeable" ranking on certain verses for members who have established themselves, as to prevent it from being just a staff only voting thing but also preventing a bunch of no-name npcs from voting on threads
the specifics could be adjusted if you want, but in my opinion the goal should just be to allow more non staff to vote, but only people who deserve to vote
 
ZillertheBucko said:
I haven't read all the replies, but here's my two cents anyways

A ton of regular people cannot be trusted with voting, but we should have more non-staff users who are able to vote
perhaps something like giving out a common "knowledgeable" ranking on certain verses for members who have established themselves, as to prevent it from being just a staff only voting thing but also preventing a bunch of no-name npcs from voting on threads
the specifics could be adjusted if you want, but in my opinion the goal should just be to allow more non staff to vote, but only people who deserve to vote
Click to expand...
I actually agree with this.
 
ZillertheBucko said:
I haven't read all the replies, but here's my two cents anyways

A ton of regular people cannot be trusted with voting, but we should have more non-staff users who are able to vote
perhaps something like giving out a common "knowledgeable" ranking on certain verses for members who have established themselves, as to prevent it from being just a staff only voting thing but also preventing a bunch of no-name npcs from voting on threads
the specifics could be adjusted if you want, but in my opinion the goal should just be to allow more non staff to vote, but only people who deserve to vote
Click to expand...
Was this not suggested above? I feel like this could use a more in-depth look regardless, since it's been buried among the other topics in this thread.
 
Expectro2000xxx said:
My man, as the son of lawyer I can assure you that even in real life quite simple things can get months to be approved by a system, this isn't a problem of the wiki but of most functional systems that needs qualified human approval for their process.

And it isn't like we can't do things to make a crt receive more attention and be evaluated quicker, we can very easily contact staff, promote crts in other threads or conversations, or bump to constantly bring attention to a crt. Also, isn't like every crt end lasting months without input, those types of threads are relatively speaking not that frecuent (and yes, I say this as someone with crts that lasted more than a month to end applied).

Ideally the idea sound good, however in reality there are more dangers to take just for the purpose of solve a problem that essentially is "the process take time so we need to wait".
Click to expand...

Okay then,

I am content with the fact that Content Mods get voting power, which should somewhat curb this issue we are discussing.

Although I would prefer CGMs to have voting rights over Calc related CRTs as well. Even more so based on Agna’s point.
 
Last edited:
Dereck03 said:
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".
Click to expand...
It's not a new system. It has been like this for years. Content mods are chosen because they are good with maintaining standards on pages. What we look for while selecting a candidate for, say, content mod position, are these requirements. None of these requirements include the part where they are expected to have a good sense of judgment in order to evaluate a thread. If we did include such a requirement, we'd have considerably less content mods in our ranks working on maintaining order on profile pages. Each position has its own set of specialties and is suited for an important task in the functioning of the wiki. You don't expect the human arm to do the work the stomach does. They are both important but have their own jobs.

Yes, there are some exceptions. Some people are skilled enough to handle multiple roles. But exceptions aren't the norm. Those people end up getting promoted to a higher level eventually.
 
AKM sama said:
It's not a new system. It has been like this for years
Click to expand...
Nah, recently there was a recent thread where they were discussing all that about the weight of the evaluation or whatever I don't remember and that's where it got worse because before that our votes could get to have validation but now we are at the point where users don't even get to count our votes because it's not our role, a complete fraud.
 
Anyway, that's going on a different tangent. This thread is not about staff position requirements or making a change to it. The thread was about whether we can speed up the CRTs by letting normal users evaluate threads. I think many staff members have already rejected the idea so it should probably be closed now?
 
AKM sama said:
Anyway, that's going on a different tangent. This thread is not about staff position requirements or making a change to it. The thread was about whether we can speed up the CRTs by letting normal users evaluate threads. I think many staff members have already rejected the idea so it should probably be closed now?
Click to expand...
Yeah sure.
 
Just a note regarding that, unlike what was stated earlier in this thread, I consider all staff members to be real staff members, but they were enlisted because they are good at handling different types of jobs, not all of which include content revision thread evaluations. It would be like claiming that a plumber is automatically a good accountant and vice versa.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
LegendariumOfLies
Berserk Canon & Stats - APPROVED
Replies
15
Views
964
AThe1412
AThe1412
Catzlaflame
  • Locked
Sandboxes and CRTs
Replies
11
Views
1K
Catzlaflame
Catzlaflame
Mugen_no_Setsuna
  • Locked
Fortissimo verse's annihilation thread
Replies
26
Views
3K
Mugen_no_Setsuna
Mugen_no_Setsuna
Wokistan
Distortion Detective cleanup
Replies
14
Views
636
MysticBrawler
Back
Top