Sandboxes and CRTs

[Catzlaflame]

Introduction
This thread attempts to create a standard around something that, for the longest time, has been an unwritten courtesy on content revision threads.

Issue
Often times, when someone is changing lots of stuff on a profile, they’ll just re-create the entire profile in a sandbox and paste the link into a thread.

Its really convinenent because, when the time comes to make any edits, its really easy to implement the changes.

The problem though is, for evaluation staff, its REALLY difficult to go through a sandbox and determine whats new, and whats already been accepted.

Ngl I’ve seen some stuff get accepted that im like 99% sure wouldn’t otherwise have been accepted, if it wasn’t shrouded among other stuff in a sandbox.

Proposal
We should now require users to list all proposed changes if they link an entire sandbox for a CRT.

The following can be added to the discussion rules:

If you choose to link a sandbox that includes any proposed changes to a profile, please make sure to outline the individual changes in the respective thread

Agree (4) Planck, Dereck, Ant, JaRB,
Disagree (0)

 

[Planck69]

I don't mind this addition to our rules. Honestly, I've been an offender of this as well, due to the convenience and not wanting to bloat the thread but I can see how much of an issue this can be for very large changes or overhauls.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that this seems like a very sensible addition to our rules.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Agreed . It’s clear and straightforward. It promotes transparency, which I very much like.

 

[Dereck03]

Bro cooked.

I agree, normally in the threads that I evaluate users tend to list the changes made to the sandboxes in the same CRT, although also sometimes they are just formatting changes so no problem, although I don't doubt that there may be some that don't list the changes and there may be irregularities that we wouldn't normally accept as you say in the OP.

Seems fine.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Thank you to everyone who inputted. Lemme see if I can get a few more opinions.

@DarkDragonMedeus @DarkGrath @Mr. Bambu @SamanPatou @Damage3245 @Maverick_Zero_X

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with this; it's often important to give TLDR summaries for those who do not have time to go over everything bit by bit.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yep, mentioned disdain with this in the past, approve. A changelog is necessary, lest something be missed in the game of Spot the Difference.

 

[Damage3245]

Wait, we did this already? I swear I already had this added in as a rule.

EDIT: This one:

 

[CloverDragon03]

Wait, we did this already? I swear I already had this added in as a rule.

EDIT: This one:

I guess people just... didn't follow this lol

 

[Quibster]

Out of curiosity, I have a Staff Thread up dedicated to updating the Chaos Manipulation page. In it, I've linked both the current Chaos Manipulation page, and the proposed Sandbox to be updated over the current page.

I totally wouldn't mind listing all of the changes, usually I just link the current ability page to cross-reference. Is there anything outstanding that I should clarify in the thread as an example of this change? Thanks.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Wait, we did this already? I swear I already had this added in as a rule.

EDIT: This one:

Yea I missed that entirely ngl, did not know someone already beat me to it. I will say that I think it’s significant enough to add it as its own bullet point, but that’s mostly formatting stuff anyway.

Closing.