Obvious Revisions Revision (Staff Only)

[Duedate8898]

I do think this is just a case where the community should just be patient. If the thread is fine and approved easily, it can wait two days to be implemented. Plus, simple things can turn out not to be as simple as we think they are so that window for approval is good to just ensure more things don't slip by just because no one gave it any thought.

For now, I think everything is fine as is.

 

[Antvasima]

There is difference between minor and self-evident revisions. I would prefer the latter to be only 12 hours and the former 24 hours.

You can have a minor thread of tons of "non-controversial abilities" stack and may really require more time than one single self-evident ability addition.

But it depends how you define minor and self-evident.

At least, when I wrote this rule, this is what I meant.

I think that seems like a very good point.

 

[Flashlight237]

Oh! I never stated my vote on both. Count me in for 12 hours self-evident, 24 hours minor.

 

[Elizhaa]

The 12-hour grace period looks fine.

 

[Deagonx]

I strongly agree with Damage here and I'm not sure why he is being met with hostility.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Hostility... where, exactly?

 

[Propellus]

I strongly agree with Damage here and I'm not sure why he is being met with hostility.

I believe you're getting the wrong idea, as I don't really see him being met with hostility anywhere

 

[Flashlight237]

Hostility? I just took that as KLOL being a bit firmer than usual.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Let's not get into a debate about that, I don't see there was hostility either. Nonetheless, I'm leaning toward the 12-hour wait period.

 

[Flashlight237]

Yeah, I'm already on thin ice with the wiki staff, so it's best not to go further with that.

Speaking of the topic at hand, I'll have to pose a question in regards to calcs and their status as revisions. When would a calc be considered a minor revision under this proposed new rule and when wouldn't it? Also, where would feats available in our References for Common Feats page fall under in the CRT department?

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't think any Calc Discussion Threads would really fall under a self-evident revision, and I bet only very few would end up being minor (if we make a distinction between self-evident and minor).

 

[Flashlight237]

I don't think any Calc Discussion Threads would really fall under a self-evident revision, and I bet only very few would end up being minor (if we make a distinction between self-evident and minor).

Yeah, I can whole-heartedly agree with calcs not being self-evident. Although I'm pretty sure I asked in regards to CRTs, as it would be pretty weird to post a thread that says, for example, "Koromon is Wall Level+" with a linked calc for him destroying a large rock for instance, or a thread involving a character pulling off a door in a CRT involving a Common Feat in the Calc Group Discussion threads, ya feel me?

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think that's a case-by-case situation, depending on the calc. While an already accepted calc may seem like an automatic minor revision on paper, you'll need to consider things like, for instance, whether or not it's an outlier or if it makes sense in the context of the verse. Stuff like that

That's what I'm making of what you're saying. Apologies if I got it wrong

 

[Flashlight237]

I think that's a case-by-case situation, depending on the calc. While an already accepted calc may seem like an automatic minor revision on paper, you'll need to consider things like, for instance, whether or not it's an outlier or if it makes sense in the context of the verse. Stuff like that

That's what I'm making of what you're saying. Apologies if I got it wrong

Nah, you didn't get it wrong; I see what you mean. Thanks.

 

[Psychomaster35]

Yeah, this should be fine. I assume these obvious revisions include calc replacements?

 

[KingTempest]

Yeah, this should be fine. I assume these obvious revisions include calc replacements?

Depends, does everyone else here think so?

 

[ImmortalDread]

It is not self-evident. A calculation replacement would require some discussion whether which calculation is more preferable and consistent with the narrative.

 

[Dereck03]

Depends, does everyone else here think so?

I believe that replacements of Calculations should be on a case by case basis. It is not the same to replace a calculation that only scales one or a few characters and does not affect a larger chain of a verse, than to replace another one that completely affects a scaling of a verse and then there could be scaling problems related to it where even more discussion is evidently necessary.

I think that seems like a very good point.

Yeah, I also think that 12 hours for self-evidents and 24 for minor threads is a good option.

 

[KingTempest]

It is not self-evident. A calculation replacement would require some discussion whether which calculation is more preferable and consistent with the narrative.

That needs a CGM thread. If a CGM thread settles "this calc is better", then implementing it into the scaling in a CRT should be simple

 

[Flashlight237]

Depends, does everyone else here think so?

I'm with the others that it's not exactly self-evident and it's a case-by-case basis. If there are minor corrections made, then I can easily see that needing a minor revision. If a Common Feat in a profile gets modified/updated, that sort of replaces itself no CRT required. A major correction, that would more than likely need a normal CRT.

 

[ImmortalDread]

That needs a CGM thread. If a CGM thread settles "this calc is better", then implementing it into the scaling in a CRT should be simple

I am not talking about mathematics difference between those two calculations.

 

[KingTempest]

I am not talking about mathematics difference between those two calculations.

You're talking about seeing if which calculation is more consistent and more preferable, which ain't what we do

We accept 1 version of a calc. If it's accepted, we put it into scaling. If a new version is made and it changes it, then the new version covers it

There is no "which calc is more consistent" it's "which calc is accepted". All that needs to be done is a value change, which is the simplest thing in the world

 

[Agnaa]

From just reading the OP, 12 hours seems fine.

 

[KLOL506]

@Maverick_Zero_X @LordGriffin1000 @DarkGrath @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Ultima_Reality @Firestorm808 @Colonel_Krukov @Starter_Pack @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @SamanPatou

 

[Antvasima]

I don't think any CRT's grace period should be shorter than 24 hours.

What is self-evident to one user may not necessarily be so for another user.

I was speaking more generally. Yes, there are specific cases where I don't think anybody could really deny an ability being added - but what if the ability in question was sourced from a non-canon OVA and somebody accepting the thread didn't realize until another user pointed it out?

That's just a hypothetical scenario and I'm not saying this kind of disagreement with an obvious ability happens frequently, but as a general rule of thumb I think people ought to be patient for at least a day before they get their threads applied to the profile even if someone agrees in the first 30 seconds of it being posted. Just... give people a chance to see the threads. What's the rush?

What exactly are we classing as just self-evident revisions? Just ability additions? No scaling alterations?

I can understand not wanting it to take 2 days for that, and I do agree that we should lower the grace period for that. I just think 24 hours would be better.

It is 24 hours since the thread is first posted after all, not waiting 24 hours after the thread is accepted. I don't think it would be too long if it had to be a minimum of a day passing since the thread was started.

Put me for minor threads 24 hours, and self-evident ones for 12 hours. There is a significant difference between both.

There is difference between minor and self-evident revisions. I would prefer the latter to be only 12 hours and the former 24 hours.

You can have a minor thread of tons of "non-controversial abilities" stack and may really require more time than one single self-evident ability addition.

But it depends how you define minor and self-evident.

At least, when I wrote this rule, this is what I meant.

So what do our staff members here think about the two suggestions above? I think that they bring up good points.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Imo I'm leaning more towards 24 hours due to possible timezone differences. 12 hours does work but it can be pretty tight sometimes.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I'm in favor of 24 hours.

 

[Antvasima]

24 hours seems safer, yes.

 

[Dereck03]

Bump. What are the conclusions here?

 

[KLOL506]

We need to find out how many votes there are for 12 hours and 24 hours each, as well as a vote count for "12 hours for self-evident threads, 24 hours for minor CRTs".

 

[KLOL506]

Actually no wait, this needs more admin approval.

@Celestial_Pegasus @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Mr._Bambu @GyroNutz @SamanPatou @Maverick_Zero_X @LordGriffin1000 @DarkGrath @Everything12 @Firestorm808 @Just_a_Random_Butler @Colonel_Krukov @Abstractions @Starter_Pack @Andytrenom @Ultima_Reality What do you think of this?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

12 hours works for me. Although "self-evident" could be explained in greater detail so there isn't a grey area where people can sneak in fake feats.

Ideally "self-evident" feats should be feats that are just plainly communicated to us either through text or visual aid.

 

[Firestorm808]

If it's a super basic and obvious revision with little to no opposition, same day implementation seems appropriate.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think everything should be at least 24 hours, due to timezones, people having to work and people maybe just checking in once a day. Everyone should always at least have a chance to react.

I will also say that calc replacements are neither minor nor self-evident. That's because calc group members check that the math & physics are correct, but not always the context and legitimacy of verse intern assumptions. I.e. accepted calculations often should additionally be checked by supporters for reasonability, which would happen in their respective CRT.

 

[KLOL506]

I think everything should be at least 24 hours, due to timezones, people having to work and people maybe just checking in once a day. Everyone should always at least have a chance to react.

Vote counted.

I will also say that calc replacements are neither minor nor self-evident. That's because calc group members check that the math & physics are correct, but not always the context and legitimacy of verse intern assumptions. I.e. accepted calculations often should additionally be checked by supporters for reasonability, which would happen in their respective CRT.

Don't think we put calcs as a basis for this thread to begin with.

 

[KingTempest]

Bump, currently 12's in the lead

 

[Damage3245]

Bump, currently 12's in the lead

Antvasima did most recently seem to prefer 24 going by this post:

24 hours seems safer, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

So, given that two bureaucrats and three administrators favour a waiting time/safety net of 24 hours, should we apply that now, in lack of better options?

 

[Deagonx]

Are we able to move forward with this?

 

[Damage3245]

Are we able to move forward with this?

With your vote for 24 hours as well, that makes it 6 in favor of 24 hours and 4 in favor of 12 hours (or 5 including KT actually).

So I think we can conclude this with 24 hours being the accepted outcome.