Limit on Active CRTs per user

[Deagonx]

Hello,

To some extent this may be an attempt to address a relatively limited issue, so maybe a rule isn't necessary. It's not my intention to make this about a specific person, but to provide background I noticed that a user had posted 12 DC CRTs in a span of 7 weeks, and another user had posted 8 in the same time frame. Some of them were applied, but after I thought about it I realized that this rule might be helpful.

In a nutshell, similar to how we have a rule on how many active CRTs a single verse can have (which is often not enforced very much) I think it could be helpful to have a rule about how many active CRTs an individual user can have. This would help with a degree of self-moderation for those users who tend to post many many CRTs in a short time frame, by requiring them to either A) Seek out the closure of their own threads or B) Make sure it is applied before moving on to a new argument.

My initial recommendation was 3 active CRTs total, with only 1 per verse. Antvasima felt this might be too strict, so I am open to other numbers, that was just a first-take to get the ball rolling, so don't focus too much on that number. If you have something else in mind (or just disagree with the concept in general), feel free to suggest different numbers.

 

[Antvasima]

Some kind of restriction seems very reasonable, but the initial one was likely too strict, yes.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

Your input would be appreciated here.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

My initial recommendation was 3 active CRTs total, with only 1 per verse.

3 active CRTs total, with only 1 per verse? Does this mean that your intention is to have an imposed limit of active CRTs that a single user can have in general, and then have a different or separate limit for the same verse?

I think that 3 - 1 might be too restrictive.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, he later revised the suggestion to 4 in total and 2 per verse, which seemed more reasonable to me.

 

[Deagonx]

Does this mean that your intention is to have an imposed limit of active CRTs that a single user can have in general, and then have a different or separate limit for the same verse?

Indeed. But I want to clarify that this is just a suggested way of applying such a rule, I am not married to a specific approach. I think it would be helpful to have a stricter verse-specific limit so that those users who focus solely on a single verse do not spam too many CRTs about it without making sure that their earlier threads have reached a satisfactory conclusion. Whereas it is natural to have a larger total amount for those who are running multiple CRTs for different verses.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, he later revised the suggestion to 4 in total and 2 per verse, which seemed more reasonable to me.

This seems more reasonable.

 

[Deagonx]

That makes sense to me.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Spamming revision threads is just something you shouldn't do naturally.

Well, he later revised the suggestion to 4 in total and 2 per verse, which seemed more reasonable to me.

This is fine to me.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I think it should just be 1 CRT per verse for each users and no hard limit on the total, I can support 5 verses and work on all of them at the same time and make a CRT for each within a span of a month which is reasonable
Some CRTs takes weeks or months to finish and most times it is due to lack of staff participation or arguments going on e.t.c., so if I have 4 CRTs going on already and all of them going on for months, this means that I can't create CRT to fix another verse entirely unless those CRTs are concluded?

 

[Deagonx]

so if I have 4 CRTs going on already and all of them going on for months, this means that I can't create CRT to fix another verse entirely unless those CRTs are concluded?

In my opinion, instead of creating a fifth active CRT, you should focus your efforts on either A) Trying to achieve a decisive consensus in one of the other four, or B) Recognizing that the CRT has likely failed and request its closure.

But it should be pointed out that this is a staff only discussion.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Such a limit makes sense. No big opinion on the number.

On that note, this should probably be followed up with some rule not to add new proposals to existing CRTs in the middle of the debate. Otherwise, 12 DC CRTs turn into 1 DC CRT that got updated 12 times during the week. (Also had a debate recently where every reply new proposals for additional abilities to be added were made and that's just about the most annoying thing to evaluate)

 

[Deagonx]

Such a limit makes sense. No big opinion on the number.

On that note, this should probably be followed up with some rule not to add new proposals to existing CRTs in the middle of the debate. Otherwise, 12 DC CRTs turn into 1 DC CRT that got updated 12 times during the week. (Also had a debate recently where every reply new proposals for additional abilities to be added were made and that's just about the most annoying thing to evaluate)

I agree. It should be limited solely to extremely related issues that are best covered on the spot. Not just a rolling "well let's add this thing too"

 

[Abstractions]

I am fine with imposing some form of limit, most users aren't creating a litany of CRTs at once and this encourages that people follow through on those ones before attempting to flood the board with more.

The only time I can potentially see this becoming a problem is for users who may not have gotten enough input on currently active CRTs, perhaps for a lengthy period and now they are possibly unable to continue working elsewhere until those are officially concluded to no real fault of their own.

I don't see this affecting the majority, of course. But it's probably something that will come up a couple of times.

 

[Firestorm808]

I am fine with there being a limit.

 

[Deagonx]

The only time I can potentially see this becoming a problem is for users who may not have gotten enough input on currently active CRTs, perhaps for a lengthy period and now they are possibly unable to continue working elsewhere until those are officially concluded to no real fault of their own.

That's true, and it is a valid concern. I think this can help to encourage them seeking more input or recognizing when there is no feasible path towards a consensus and having the thread closed, perhaps attempting it another time. I think overall it will help encourage a degree of self-policing the amount of clutter in that regard.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Bump,

lets get this finished.

A limit is universally agreed on and for good reason. However no-one has really chosen what the exact limit should be.

As someone heavily involved in one verse at a time, I think 2 CRTs per user are fine. Having 4 CRTs in total is more than sufficient. This approach also works well in cases where a CRT needs to be conducted due to something that arises in another CRT, often within the same verse.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are our current conclusions here?

 

[Deagonx]

Everyone seems to agree 4 and 2 is fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Is somebody willing to write a discussion rule draft text for this then?

 

[Reiner04]

Bump, ig @ImmortalDread can be of help.

Okay. Is somebody willing to write a discussion rule draft text for this then?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Is somebody willing to write a discussion rule draft text for this then?

Bump, ig @ImmortalDread can be of help.

@ImmortalDread

 

[Reiner04]

@ImmortalDread

Dread has left the wiki few days ago. So someone else have to handle it.

Bump.

Ig?

 

[Antvasima]

Dread told me that she has apparently reconsidered, but will not return quite yet.

 

[Reiner04]

Dread told me that she has apparently reconsidered, but will not return quite yet.

Was and will be nice to see her around.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, she is very helpful, but unfortunately other members have a tendency to bully her for being a bit socially clueless, much like I am.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

If Dread is unavailable, I'll draft the discussion rules. How's this?

• A member may have up to four active content revision threads active at once, no more than two of which can be about the same verse.
• Do not add new topics to existing content revision threads mid-discussion unless they are closely intertwined issues that discussion can settle on the spot, as doing so clutters threads and makes evaluation difficult.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler

What do you think about this?

 

[Damage3245]

Seems fine to me.

 

[Qawsedf234]

What do you think about this?

I guess I'm fine with it since it can limit bloat.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

• A member may have up to four active content revision threads active at once, no more than two of which can be about the same verse.
• Do not add new topics to existing content revision threads mid-discussion unless they are closely intertwined issues that discussion can settle on the spot, as doing so clutters threads and makes evaluation difficult.

I'm alright with that.

 

[Deagonx]

Looks good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your replies.

Should we apply that rule then?

 

[Deagonx]

I think so, yes. We have considerable staff agreement.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

@Just_a_Random_Butler

Would you be willing to handle it please?

 

[Agnaa]

Thank you for helping out.

@Agnaa

What do you think about this?

I currently have 19 threads in my "to-evaluate" backlog, I've added this to the list, and will get to it eventually.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks fine to me.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Okay.

@Just_a_Random_Butler

Would you be willing to handle it please?

Alright. Check if the change is satisfactory.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out. It looked good to me.

Is there anything left to do here, or should we close this thread?

 

[Firestorm808]

Seems so.