Restricting Postponement of Threads Because of Calculation Issues

[HammerStrikes219]

Just a short bump in order to resolve this issue.

 

[AKM sama]

What exactly is being proposed?

 

[Greatsage13th]

What exactly is being proposed?

as the title suggests, threads are no longer postponed when a calculation problem occurs.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we write some kind of rule text, that takes both the necessity to be able to point out valid calculation errors that need to be adjusted, and that unreasonable prolonged stonewalling needs to be avoided, into account? In that case, constructive suggestions would be very appreciated.

I posted my take on this above.

 

[Arkenis]

Shen's Staff Expansion

Evaluate plsss.

 

[Antvasima]

Shen's Staff Expansion

Evaluate plsss.

@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...

vsbattles.com

 

[Antvasima]

@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?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/restricting-postponement-of-threads-because-of-calculation-issues.137798/post-4837713

 

[GodlyCharmander]

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.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem. I would still appreciate help from other members here though.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I’ll DM KT as he is the creator of this thread

 

[KingTempest]

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

 

[FinePoint]

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:

• 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.

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:

• 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.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Obviously if an approved calculation is mandatory for a content revision, it is strongly preferred if the calculation is correct. But it's extremely common for a lot of newer or lesser known/not too active regular users knit pick calculations in every detail and either push for practices that either intentionally lowball or intentionally highball a calculation to the point of extremes on either ends.

I basically think that instead of either making a lengthy post-pone or rushed pace, it should just be we have a multiple calc group members discuss it on the content revision and basically treat calc groups as having more mod/adminship rights of approving the calc based content revision.

I basically still stand by this general statement.

 

[KLOL506]

This isn't exclusively a calculations issue per se, but a general wikiwide issue, it can even happen with power addition threads and whatnot.

 

[Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer]

Would you be willing to help evaluate this please?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/restricting-postponement-of-threads-because-of-calculation-issues.137798/post-4837713

Do you mean this thread here, or for the one you have linked?

 

[Agnaa]

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:

For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else if free to argue in their stead.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa makes sense here. Should we close this thread and continue our discussion in the one that he linked to instead then? I likely mixed them up in my memory after the last bump here anyway.

 

[FinePoint]

That seems appropriate, since this thread is essentials just a needlessly more specific version of that one.
In addition, I think the text Agnaa posted is reasonable as well.

 

[Antvasima]

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