Important: CRTs Creation Limits

[Arnoldstone18]

Yes, it is easy since your interest is attached to the closure of CRT, so people mostly will conclude the thread, so they can start a new one.


This is the point of rule, it's not to create dead CRTs, it is to create more productive CRTs and faster results.

faster isn’t better. You’re arguing as if I hate slow progress, I just hate dead CRTs. I don’t mind shit being slow as long as there is activity.

I recommend 5 CRT limit as a compromise. And if you still insist on 3 then good luck I guess.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am not talking about faster or slower process.
I am talking about how it is inconvenient to moderate 5 CRTs or 6 CRTs while the chance of them being inactive is 30% which just generates constant inactive threads. This rule prevents such as that.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I am not talking about faster or slower process.
I am talking about how it is inconvenient to moderate 5 CRTs or 6 CRTs while the chance of them being inactive is 30% which just generates constant inactive threads. This rule prevents such as that.

Verses with 1000 supporters and frequent updates with new material should not be held to the same standard as a verse with 100 supporters, and it's run ended years ago

 

[ImmortalDread]

There is no need to spam CRTs just because a verse has many supporters. Instead, you can simply conclude one CRT and create a new one, if necessary.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

There is no need to spam CRTs just because a verse has many supporters. Instead, you can simply conclude one CRT and create a new one, if necessary.

The main problem is that these verses get weekly/monthly new chapters, and 3 crt's is not enough to update profile information every week

 

[ImmortalDread]

The main problem is that these verses get weekly/monthly new chapters, and 3 crt's is not enough to update profile information every week

Yes, they are pretty much enough to create a whole CRT to add/remove/update current verse when they get new updates and even conclude it within a day if it gets a good support.

And if it requires more discussions (because different topics), simply conclude the CRT within other supporters, and move on with other new one.
This will help staff members to moderate threads and not get overwhelmed.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Yes, they are pretty much enough to create a whole CRT to add/remove/update current verse when they get new updates and even conclude it within a day if it gets a good support.

And if it requires more discussions (because different topics), simply conclude the CRT within other supporters, and move on with other new one.
This will help staff members to moderate threads and not get overwhelmed.

******* dragon ball gets like 1-2 crts a day ( not an exaggeration), most of which dont really seem like spam imo. A sizeable number of threads get looked over by staff. For smaller verses, 3 threads is fine. But it's not reasonable to hold these larger verses to this same standard.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Foremost, no need to swear.

Second of all, yes and most of them get either inactive (which in matter of fact, this is why to conclude them before starting a new one) or concluded (which means simply create a new CRT) or closed (same as “concluded”).

Once again, you are complicating it. The rule pretty much fits to all sizes, and would make evaluation and schedule from staff members easier.

Also, this discussion is similar to before, so simply stop commenting and let staff members see both sides.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

There is no need to spam CRTs just because a verse has many supporters. Instead, you can simply conclude one CRT and create a new one, if necessary.

You’re so quick to call multiple CRTs that are barely more than 5 “spam”. Most of us are just trying to get so much work done quickly.

A 5 CRT limit still accomplishes your reasoning on why a limit needs to be had while also somewhat accounting for and accommodating several factors that especially involve popular fandoms: Several active CRTs that last a long ass time due to lengthy debates, accidental Threads posts due to difficulty tracking activity from a large active fan base, inactive threads that just sit there for months before we regard them as “dead threads” etc.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

People. Same thing I said to Ziller apply to you all.

 

[Flashlight237]

1. Why aren't you content mod yet?
2. Yeah, bigger/more popular verses like Dragon Ball and One-Punch Man have their issues. No idea why my minor Dragon Ball CRT is in that graphic, but it's something.

It took some perseverance to take a Garfield ability CRT to get through after over a month, and even then it only got ONE staff member in. I had tried to make CRTs easier, but I know that is all but rejected. I'm trying to get a Debby the Corsifa is Emulous CRT through (It had Executer N0's approval, but I need one more staff approval because idrk), plus I have a Garten of Banban CRT over a simple calculation. Like, bro. I gave you the receipts. I shouldn't have to wait longer than business days to get 'em looked over.

 

[Deagonx]

This is, at the end of the day, a discussion about site policy and its not helpful to have you guys arguing amongst yourselves here.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

This is, at the end of the day, a discussion about site policy and its not helpful to have you guys arguing amongst yourselves here.

I don’t get it, why can’t we argue on it?

 

[ImmortalDread]

1. Why aren't you content mod yet?
2. Yeah, bigger/more popular verses like Dragon Ball and One-Punch Man have their issues. No idea why my minor Dragon Ball CRT is in that graphic, but it's something.

It took some perseverance to take a Garfield ability CRT to get through after over a month, and even then it only got ONE staff member in. I had tried to make CRTs easier, but I know that is all but rejected. I'm trying to get a Debby the Corsifa is Emulous CRT through (It had Executer N0's approval, but I need one more staff approval because idrk), plus I have a Garten of Banban CRT over a simple calculation. Like, bro. I gave you the receipts. I shouldn't have to wait longer than business days to get 'em looked over.

1- Why is this relevant to the discussion?
2- They have their issues because supporters simply never finish the CRTs they start and simply create a new one, and thus in conclusion it creates more inactive CRTs which the rest of members here are pushing this concept.

3- (which you did not list it as a point) this rule takes its place, so staff members who have evaluation rights don't need to deal with 10+ a single verse CRTs and never deal with other verses, simply because of its size and popularity, while supporters could conclude or focus on one CRT to conclude it which does not create new inactive/never done CRTs.

 

[Deagonx]

I don’t get it, why can’t we argue on it?

You can, just not here in this thread. Discussions about site policy are meant to be discussed amongst staff.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I’d say 5 tbh.

Imagine a verse like Dragonball having to wait for months for a crt to be considered dead before another one is put out. I recommend 5 CRTs max if that’s the case. To somewhat account for dead unfinished CRTs and size of fandom. However if you guys insist on 3 CRTs then 3 months of inactivity for a CRT for it to be considered dead just seems unreasonable and unfair.

faster isn’t better. You’re arguing as if I hate slow progress, I just hate dead CRTs. I don’t mind shit being slow as long as there is activity.

I recommend 5 CRT limit as a compromise. And if you still insist on 3 then good luck I guess.

You’re so quick to call multiple CRTs that are barely more than 5 “spam”. Most of us are just trying to get so much work done quickly.

A 5 CRT limit still accomplishes your reasoning on why a limit needs to be had while also somewhat accounting for and accommodating several factors that especially involve popular fandoms: Several active CRTs that last a long ass time due to lengthy debates, accidental Threads posts due to difficulty tracking activity from a large active fan base, inactive threads that just sit there for months before we regard them as “dead threads” etc.

To illustrate my point:
In 4 different posts in this thread you have argued the exact same thing. You made.your suggestion, you elaborated it. That's it. Stop after that.

This will be the last time I will ask this.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

You can, just not here in this thread. Discussions about site policy are meant to be discussed amongst staff.

News and annoucements has never really had a strict policy on that, like the staff discussion section
usually people just say their piece and leave it at that, but this is a more controversial announcement.
This affects quite a bit, I personally think people should be allowed to say their piece

 

[Arnoldstone18]

You can, just not here in this thread. Discussions about site policy are meant to be discussed amongst staff.

Then move this to staff discussion

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't mind with moving it. @Deagonx you can do it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

But also, I would simply delete all messages that brought no relevance in the thread.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

But also, I would simply delete all messages that brought no relevance in the thread.

this is taking it too far
there’s no reason to not archive the counterarguments given, there’s no harm in them staying
deleting them is petty as ****

 

[ImmortalDread]

I said “no relevance”, your comments pretty much were relevant.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

To illustrate my point:
In 4 different posts in this thread you have argued the exact same thing. You made.your suggestion, you elaborated it. That's it. Stop after that.

This will be the last time I will ask this.

incorrect.

post 1: suggestion

post 2: to accommodate dead CRTs

post 3: responding to counter arguments: faster doesn’t always make it better

post 4: starting a negotiation by explaining that my proposal helps both parties.

I do not appreciate you undermining each and every one of my post as “spam” or “the same thing”.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Staff only threads are one thing (and even those can be an issue), but in this case all I see is people trying to aggressively suppress any attempts at discussion here
never have I ever seen such quick swiftness go discredit all counterarguments as spam and delete multiple posts in an OPEN DISCUSSION
it’s a bit of an abuse of power considering there has been no wrongdoing in this thread, only normal discussion. It’s absolutely insane.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I said “no relevance”, your comments pretty much were relevant.

Is this hard to grasp?

 

[ZillertheBucko]

How is talking about the topic of the thread not relevant??? What else would we even talk about?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Imagine being extended the courtesy of having your suggestions be heard on a news and announcement thread about something already accepted, which should've already been enforced.

And when asked to not continuously argue on a thread that's not even a discussion one, be told you are only trying to suppress discussion. Amazing.

 

[Deagonx]

I personally think people should be allowed to say their piece

Sure. Say your piece. Don't repeat it 4+ times

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I think it’s fair to say that at least a few users here would like to respectfully contest your decision. This is, by default, open for normal discussion, and there is absolutely zero justification for disallowing highly relevant discussion in what is currently not even a staff thread, that is something that some people might call an abuse of staff power. If Antvasima is watching still, I’d like to at least hear his opinion on this matter before giving in to anything.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

As such, shouldn't we discuss how to solve these issues while avoiding spam in our staff forum before we create a public announcement thread?

Amazing.

 

[Flashlight237]

1- Why is this relevant to the discussion?
2- They have their issues because supporters simply never finish the CRTs they start and simply create a new one, and thus in conclusion it creates more inactive CRTs which the rest of members here are pushing this concept.

3- (which you did not list it as a point) this rule takes its place, so staff members who have evaluation rights don't need to deal with 10+ a single verse CRTs and never deal with other verses, simply because of its size and popularity, while supporters could conclude or focus on one CRT to conclude it which does not create new inactive/never done CRTs.

1. Why should a compliment (or being nice in general) be "relevant"?
2. Hmm, fair point. At the same time, however, there is also the issue with bigger verses having more fans and/or are more well-known in "who would win in a fight?" circles, and a larger population will make things harder to enforce. Not saying this as an argument for or against anything here, I'm just supplementing things from a neutral stance.
3. It should be noted that supporters should not be used as a general operating term for people who create or partake in CRTs. I'm not necessarily a Garfield or a Garten of Banban supporter and yet I have participated in a CRT for the former and made a CRT for the latter. Also, I'm pretty sure that most of the time the staff who do show up in CRTs may not be supporters, especially when it comes to smaller verses. I personally try and avoid pushing CRTs onto staff members not because I don't want them concluded (I do; it just takes time), but because I personally feel I'm just bugging them if I were to do so, which I feel isn't right. This is bearing in mind that I've actually seen calc group members being okay with posts on their message walls (as noted in the "New Rule to Help Calc Group members") thread, yet in no place have I seen staff bring up being okay with posting CRTs on their walls. There is a CRT promotion thread, but ennh... I still have days left before I can post something new there.

And no, out of what little experience I have, being staff myself does not boost the signal.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Amazing.

In response to the concerns being currently raised, if that was unclear.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Amazing.

Also still not a staff forum.

 

[ImmortalDread]

1. Why should a compliment (or being nice in general) be "relevant"?

Why do you think I deserve content moderator? Most people generally think I deserve thread moderator. But thanks anyway

2. Hmm, fair point. At the same time, however, there is also the issue with bigger verses having more fans and/or are more well-known in "who would win in a fight?" circles, and a larger population will make things harder to enforce. Not saying this as an argument for or against anything here, I'm just supplementing things from a neutral stance.

Noted.

3. It should be noted that supporters should not be used as a general operating term for people who create or partake in CRTs. I'm not necessarily a Garfield or a Garten of Banban supporter and yet I have participated in a CRT for the former and made a CRT for the latter. Also, I'm pretty sure that most of the time the staff who do show up in CRTs may not be supporters, especially when it comes to smaller verses. I personally try and avoid pushing CRTs onto staff members not because I don't want them concluded (I do; it just takes time), but because I personally feel I'm just bugging them if I were to do so, which I feel isn't right. This is bearing in mind that I've actually seen calc group members being okay with posts on their message walls (as noted in the "New Rule to Help Calc Group members") thread, yet in no place have I seen staff bring up being okay with posting CRTs on their walls. There is a CRT promotion thread, but ennh... I still have days left before I can post something new there.

And no, out of what little experience I have, being staff myself does not boost the signal.

Thank you for bringing the notice to my attention. It is possible for me to use the term “supporter” to refer to someone who is interested in creating CRTs for this specific verse.

The underlying purpose of this rule, which was in place even before I made modifications to it, is to allow thread moderators to better manage their time and give equal attention to CRTs for smaller verses. This is important because such threads may otherwise become inactive over time or fail to generate as much interest as CRTs for larger and more popular universes that tend to have more threads created for them on a daily basis.

 

[Antvasima]

I think 3 months is a good starting point for being inactive, but can be tweaked over time.

Okay. So would something like this be appropriate then?

A single verse shouldn't have more than three active content revisions threads running simultaneously, regardless of the perceived importance of the verse. If three content revision threads are already active for a verse, our community should prioritize concluding one of them before creating a new one.

• Marvel and DC Comics are an exception to this rule because of the enormous quantity of story material produced within them. They are respectively allowed to have a maximum of six threads running simultaneously.
• If a certain recent content revision thread is very clearly ill-considered and of poor quality, please ask a thread moderator or administrator to close it to provide room for more useful alternatives.
• A discussion thread is considered as inactive if no replies have been posted to it for at least three months.

Do we have a way to automatically close threads in the CRT forum after 3 months of inactivity?

I do not seem that would be appropriate, but our members can request that such threads should be closed if they have been rejected, are blatantly ill-considered, or similar.

 

[Antvasima]

Imagine a verse like Dragonball having to wait for months for a crt to be considered dead before another one is put out. I recommend 5 CRTs max if that’s the case. To somewhat account for dead unfinished CRTs and size of fandom. However if you guys insist on 3 CRTs then 3 months of inactivity for a CRT for it to be considered dead just seems unreasonable and unfair.

there is nothing faster about forcing massive verses to a small crt limit, all that does is slow down revisions
We should hold smaller verses to smaller standards, and allow big ones more breathing room

I suppose that these seem like reasonable concerns.

 

[Antvasima]

So would something like this be better?

A single verse shouldn't have more than three active content revisions threads running simultaneously. If three content revision threads are already active for a verse, our community should prioritize concluding one of them before creating a new one.

• Marvel and DC Comics are an exception to this rule because of the enormous quantity of story material produced within them. They are respectively allowed to have a maximum of six threads running simultaneously. We also make this type of exception for extremely popular verses such as Dragon Ball.
• If a certain recent content revision thread is very clearly ill-considered and of poor quality, please ask a thread moderator or administrator to close it to provide room for more useful alternatives.
• A discussion thread is considered as inactive if no replies have been posted to it for at least one month.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

So would something like this be better?

A single verse shouldn't have more than three active content revisions threads running simultaneously, regardless of the perceived importance of the verse. If three content revision threads are already active for a verse, our community should prioritize concluding one of them before creating a new one.

• Marvel and DC Comics are an exception to this rule because of the enormous quantity of story material produced within them. They are respectively allowed to have a maximum of six threads running simultaneously. We also make this type of exception for extremely popular verses such as Dragon Ball.
• If a certain recent content revision thread is very clearly ill-considered and of poor quality, please ask a thread moderator or administrator to close it to provide room for more useful alternatives.
• A discussion thread is considered as inactive if no replies have been posted to it for at least one month.

It’s a working resolution I’d say

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

So would something like this be better?

A single verse shouldn't have more than three active content revisions threads running simultaneously, regardless of the perceived importance of the verse. If three content revision threads are already active for a verse, our community should prioritize concluding one of them before creating a new one.

• Marvel and DC Comics are an exception to this rule because of the enormous quantity of story material produced within them. They are respectively allowed to have a maximum of six threads running simultaneously. We also make this type of exception for extremely popular verses such as Dragon Ball.
• If a certain recent content revision thread is very clearly ill-considered and of poor quality, please ask a thread moderator or administrator to close it to provide room for more useful alternatives.
• A discussion thread is considered as inactive if no replies have been posted to it for at least one month.

Yea,that seems better, but what would be your definition of extremely popular?

 

[Antvasima]

It is hard to set a precise non-intuitive limit to extreme popularity, especially how popular a verse/setting/fiction is in this particular community.