Obvious Revisions Revision (Staff Only)

[Deagonx]

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.

Yes, but thread mods actually cannot vote on site policy, only admins can. So it'd basically be 5-4 which I think is still fine. All votes are in favor of some kind of reduction for obvious changes, so I don't think it'd be a significant issue to just move forward on the one that did have more votes.

 

[Antvasima]

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.

I think so, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but thread mods actually cannot vote on site policy, only admins can. So it'd basically be 5-4 which I think is still fine. All votes are in favor of some kind of reduction for obvious changes, so I don't think it'd be a significant issue to just move forward on the one that did have more votes.

That is true.

Which bureaucrats and administrators currently think what here? We preferably need a more conclusive consensus in order to apply this change.

 

[Deagonx]

That is true.

Which bureaucrats and administrators currently think what here? We preferably need a more conclusive consensus in order to apply this change.

According to the OP:

12h: DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Agnaa, Sir_Ovens
18h:
24h: Damage3245, Qawsedf234 (Is fine with 12, but favors 24 because of tight timeframe differences), LordGriffin1000, DontTalkDT, Antvasima

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but thread mods actually cannot vote on site policy, only admins can. So it'd basically be 5-4 which I think is still fine. All votes are in favor of some kind of reduction for obvious changes, so I don't think it'd be a significant issue to just move forward on the one that did have more votes.

That is true.

Which bureaucrats and administrators currently think what here? We preferably need a more conclusive consensus in order to apply this change.

According to the OP:

12h: DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Agnaa, Sir_Ovens
18h:
24h: Damage3245, Qawsedf234 (Is fine with 12, but favors 24 because of tight timeframe differences), LordGriffin1000, DontTalkDT, Antvasima

@AKM sama @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @ByAsura @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath

Are you willing to also evaluate this please?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Lean in favor of 24h over 12h.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your reply.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Dereck03]

Bump.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Dunno how many votes the OP is missing, but mine definitely isn't up there. If there was an updated tally, perhaps this would be less close-cut?

 

[Theglassman12]

24 hrs should be good enough, just enough time for anyone to give any inputs without it dragging on for way too long for what is not that major of a revision.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Dunno how many votes the OP is missing, but mine definitely isn't up there. If there was an updated tally, perhaps this would be less close-cut?

Nah not really, the only vote that was missed besides yours was, Firestorm’s. The tally as of now is 5-6, slightly in favor of 24 hours.

Edit: 5-7

12 hours (5): DDM, Elizaa, Agnaa, Sir Ovens, Firestorm,

18 hours:

24 hours (7): Damage, Qawsedf, LordGriffin, Antvasima, DonttalkDT, Bambu, DarkGrath

48 hours:

Some other Admins who may actually be interested in responding here are:

@DarkGrath @Crabwhale @Maverick_Zero_X

It would be appreciated if you could please assist with reaching a consensus here.

 

[Crabwhale]

I saw the thread the first time.

To be quite honest I have no real opinion on the topic.

 

[DarkGrath]

I prefer 24 hours. The point of a grace period in the first place is to ensure that anyone who might warrant evaluating a thread has an adequate chance to do so, which requires both accounting for time-zones + the amount of time it takes to evaluate a thread. 48 hours for regular revisions does a good job of this, but for the kinds of revisions that can be evaluated by anyone familiar with the verse with a cursory glance at the evidence, just 24 hours to ensure that anyone across the world could realistically examine it in their time-zone at some point is enough. 12 hours is too short for the grace period to be anything more than a formality, as that's well within the range that a revision thread could be started and ended before even an active member has any chance to see it.

 

[Catzlaflame]

12 hours (5): DDM, Elizaa, Agnaa, Sir Ovens, Firestorm,

18 hours:

24 hours (7): Damage, Qawsedf, LordGriffin, Antvasima, DonttalkDT, Bambu, DarkGrath

48 hours:

This is the current vote.

The 24h end seems to be what people favor, albeit, by a slight margin. Other members have been tagged, however, nobody else seems interested in voting. Given that the 24 hr option is still a leap in the same direction as the 12 hr end, I believe we should move forward with applying because waiting for input that probably won't come is only going to make us forget this thread exists.

Basically, is this okay to apply on a 7-5 margin? @Antvasima @DontTalkDT @Mr._Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Pretty close-cut, acknowledging that Ant and DT are Bureaucrats and their votes hold more weight here. Still, given the stagnation of the topic and the apparent lack of interest amongst some staff, I'd say it's as good as we're going to get and can probably suffice.

 

[Damage3245]

Agreed with that.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that it (barely) seems fine to apply now.

So, is somebody willing to write a draft for a Discussion Rules page text, and in which section of that page should we place the text?

 

[Dereck03]

I don't believe this is an addition to the rule text, it is a modification. Kingtempest quotes the relevant portion in the OP. I believe we just need to change the 48 to a 24, which I have done now.

This is not the proposal, by changing this you make it appear that the change applies to all CRTs in general, the only thing it applies to would be minors and self-evidents.

So perhaps something like this could work?

*For content revision suggestions, a grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the reviewing staff members to evaluate and approve them. This grace period applies to larger revisions that may require more input from other staff members. Until this grace period has elapsed since the time of the thread's creation, the revision should '''not''' be applied to the profiles.
**This grace period applies to both minor and self-evident revisions, but the period will be reduced to 24 hours.

It is just a mix of what we already have adapted to what is proposed. It will look like this when applied.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Note: Ignore my deleted message, I was in a rush.

Regardless, Here is the current write-up:

• For all content revision suggestions, a grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the reviewing staff members to evaluate and approve them. This grace period applies to both minor and self-evident revisions, as well as larger revisions that may require more input from other staff members. Until this grace period has elapsed since the time of the thread's creation, the revision should not be applied to the profiles.
  • This is to ensure that all staff members have the opportunity to review the suggested revisions and provide their input, even if the initial explanation post in a content revision thread is quite large and complicated.

A modified version would be:

• For content revision suggestions, generally, a standard grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the reviewing staff members to evaluate and approve them. However, in the case of extremely blatant, self-evident revisions, a grace period of 24 hours is acceptable. Until this grace period has elapsed, since the time of the thread's creation, the revision should not be applied to the profiles.
  • This is to ensure that all staff members have the opportunity to review the suggested revisions and provide their input, even if the initial explanation post in a content revision thread is quite large and complicated.

Edit 2: @Dereck03 yes, thats kinda why I deleted it lol

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm switching to 24 hours via DarkGrath's reason.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Catzlaflame's new rule text seems fine to apply.

 

[Catzlaflame]

I think that Catzlaflame's new rule text seems fine to apply.

@KingTempest may I apply this, or would you like me to unlock it for you to apply ?

 

[Catzlaflame]

Guess they are indifferent. As such, I have applied this. We can close this thread now.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems good to me. Thank you for helping out.

Discussion Rules

VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc. However, certain topics keep popping...

vsbattles.fandom.com