- 4,063
- 1,339
Just a short bump in order to resolve this issue.
-
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.
Restricting Postponement of Threads Because of Calculation Issues
- Thread starter KingTempest
- Start date
- Status
- 11,037
- 2,377
as the title suggests, threads are no longer postponed when a calculation problem occurs.
- 164,949
- 71,659
I posted my take on this above.
- 13,838
- 5,948
- 164,949
- 71,659
@Arkenis
Go here instead please:
Calculation Evaluations (New forum)
This thread is intended for users to link to new blog post calculations, to relay them to the community, and have them evaluated by the calculation group, without contacting the members individually. To evaluate important off-site calculations, preferably copy them to blog posts in this wiki...
- 164,949
- 71,659
@AKM sama @KLOL506 @Qawsedf234 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Andytrenom @Arc7Kuroi @Damage3245 @KingTempest @DontTalkDT @DemonGodMitchAubin @ByAsura @FinePoint @JustSomeWeirdo @DarkDragonMedeus @UchihaSlayer96 @GodlyCharmander @Wrath_Of_Itachi @Arcker123
Would you be willing to help evaluate this please?
Would you be willing to help evaluate this please?
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,996
I do not trust in my own ability with the English language enough to write a draft text, especially when it's something as important as a rule. I apologize.
- 21,086
- 30,008
- Thread starter
- #91
Although I trust that my english is good enough, I don't think I'm the best for a draft text. I can help evaluate one, but to create one from scratch for a site wide issue isn't something I'm confident in
- 3,633
- 2,504
This issue is sort of old, but if I remember correctly, we essentially agreed that it's considered stonewalling to stop a thread for a complaint that's not actually established such as "I have a problem with this, I'm going to make a calc later."?
The current derailment section reads:
I'm not the best at this, but just to jumpstart the process, I suppose we could modify it to something like:
The current derailment section reads:
I don't think stonewalling is actually talked about in the rules yet.
I'm not the best at this, but just to jumpstart the process, I suppose we could modify it to something like:
- 29,834
- 30,757
I basically still stand by this general statement.
- 2,335
- 1,006
Do you mean this thread here, or for the one you have linked?
- 14,818
- 12,239
I completely disagree with the thread, in the way the OP worded it. I don't think people are maliciously holding their issues with the calc until the thread's posted or about to conclude, and we shouldn't allow a revision to be applied when there's oustanding issues with the calcs involved.
Letting incorrect calculations get onto profiles because you're impatient is ludicrous. And I am astonished that it has this much support among staff.
However, if you just want to apply "Unknown" or another accepted calc that doesn't have an issue, that's fine.
If the issues aren't actual issues (as some people here worried about) why would they delay the thread in the first place? Just have everyone else in the CRT immediately reject it, there'd be no need to delay it for weeks because of that. If the issues aren't voiced (as some people have worried about) I don't see a need to wait more than a few days for that, especially if they don't post a tl;dr of their issues.
The issue is that it isn’t a few days, I’ve consistently seen CRT’s dragged out for months because of this issue
Is that because the person was there every single day while other people were trying to push the thread through saying "Uhhh, trust me, I'll tell you my issue soon!" and everyone just believed that and delayed the thread for months? Or is it because there was a difficult, real, nuanced issue that needed months of discussion? or is it because someone brought up an issue and then no-one bothered to bump the thread for months?
The first one of those should not be an issue, even now. We cannot fix the last two, no matter what rules we create.
What should the standard operating procedure for starting a CRT be with a grace period be?
I do not agree with a grace period being some timer from the start of a thread. Just because some didn't notice a CRT until someone linked it to two months later doesn't mean you get to ignore glaring issues with it.
And if those issues turn out to be completely wrong to begin with and people still keep insisting they're right about it and want to make a CRT to delay it further? Action must be taken in those regards.
The action that's taken is applying it and closing the thread.
It's not just the stalling of threads that people have issue with, it's that you're stalling that thread only to make another thread and disregard all the discussion that happened previously instead of discussing it all within one single place more coherently.
If the new thread's pointless, thread mods should close it and redirect people to the old thread. This has happened many times before.
Generally try to avoid derailing content revision discussion threads from the original topic. We cannot deal with too many different subjects at once, so it is usually better to start a new thread instead. Also be mindful that issues with a revision or calculation should be addressed quickly and directly, rather than stall or "stonewall" discussion for an unreasonable amount of time.
I find it funny that this is the suggested text, considering how many people here were complaining about people making new threads, like the previous message I responded to.
Essentially, I think this issue has almost been resolved in this thread, the following text that is just waiting for more than one person's agreement before it's applied:
Letting incorrect calculations get onto profiles because you're impatient is ludicrous. And I am astonished that it has this much support among staff.
However, if you just want to apply "Unknown" or another accepted calc that doesn't have an issue, that's fine.
If the issues aren't actual issues (as some people here worried about) why would they delay the thread in the first place? Just have everyone else in the CRT immediately reject it, there'd be no need to delay it for weeks because of that. If the issues aren't voiced (as some people have worried about) I don't see a need to wait more than a few days for that, especially if they don't post a tl;dr of their issues.
The issue is that it isn’t a few days, I’ve consistently seen CRT’s dragged out for months because of this issue
Is that because the person was there every single day while other people were trying to push the thread through saying "Uhhh, trust me, I'll tell you my issue soon!" and everyone just believed that and delayed the thread for months? Or is it because there was a difficult, real, nuanced issue that needed months of discussion? or is it because someone brought up an issue and then no-one bothered to bump the thread for months?
The first one of those should not be an issue, even now. We cannot fix the last two, no matter what rules we create.
What should the standard operating procedure for starting a CRT be with a grace period be?
I do not agree with a grace period being some timer from the start of a thread. Just because some didn't notice a CRT until someone linked it to two months later doesn't mean you get to ignore glaring issues with it.
And if those issues turn out to be completely wrong to begin with and people still keep insisting they're right about it and want to make a CRT to delay it further? Action must be taken in those regards.
The action that's taken is applying it and closing the thread.
It's not just the stalling of threads that people have issue with, it's that you're stalling that thread only to make another thread and disregard all the discussion that happened previously instead of discussing it all within one single place more coherently.
If the new thread's pointless, thread mods should close it and redirect people to the old thread. This has happened many times before.
Generally try to avoid derailing content revision discussion threads from the original topic. We cannot deal with too many different subjects at once, so it is usually better to start a new thread instead. Also be mindful that issues with a revision or calculation should be addressed quickly and directly, rather than stall or "stonewall" discussion for an unreasonable amount of time.
I find it funny that this is the suggested text, considering how many people here were complaining about people making new threads, like the previous message I responded to.
Essentially, I think this issue has almost been resolved in this thread, the following text that is just waiting for more than one person's agreement before it's applied:
- 164,949
- 71,659
Okay. I will close this thread then.
We would appreciate help from other staff members here: https://vsbattles.com/threads/suggestion-for-a-new-discussion-rule.130657/post-4961334
We would appreciate help from other staff members here: https://vsbattles.com/threads/suggestion-for-a-new-discussion-rule.130657/post-4961334
- Status
