Verse Expert Proposition

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Due to the nature of this site's workings, there's naturally a lot of friction between staff and regular users; Staff have all the formal authority, while regular users have none. Even if a regular user is highly respected by staff due to their knowledge and contributions to a single verse, their vote ultimately counts for nothing at all. Worse yet, they may not be able to reach an equal status due to not being online often enough, not working on things beyond their own few select verses, or not doing anything resembling actual moderating. To amend this, the idea of a 'verse expert' role has cropped up occasionally, mainly in the form of a psuedo-staff position. To my knowledge, this topic has not been discussed at length, so this thread exists to do exactly that.

There are, of course, some rules that need to be put in place since I'm aware "give power to those filthy know-nothing bluenames" is a controversial proposal. These are in place to ensure that, while verse experts can offer valuable input that is weighted more than an average user's post, they will not be able to force through various downgrades or upgrades at will.

-Verse experts are chosen by other supporters of the verse they are nominated by (eg; A Naruto verse expert will be chosen by Naruto supporters).
-After an expert is chosen, a thread will be created where staff evaluate if their knowledge and contributions are significant enough to be given the position.
-A verse expert cannot nominate themselves.
-Staff members cannot be verse experts (it'd be pretty redundant lol)
-There can only be up to two verse experts per verse (maybe this would require renaming the position to avoid confusion?).
-Verse experts may act as staff support in minor content revisions (such as small changes to the stamina or intelligence sections of a character, or ability additions to a single character). However, verse expert input alone is not sufficient to apply such threads.
-Verse experts may act as a tiebreaker in the case that staff cannot come to a consensus in a given thread pertaining to their verse.
-Verse experts by default have permission to create or speak in staff threads pertaining to their verse.

This would also necessitate the creation of labels for verse experts, denoting the verse in question in the title (eg; Naruto Expert).

Agree: @Shmooply, @azontr, @Tdjwo, @Rikimarox2
Disagree: @KLOL506
Neutral:

 

[Shmooply]

Here to say based before it gets moved to the Staff Discussion sub-forum.

 

[azontr]

W

 

[Noneless21]

this will totally not going to devolved into who is more knowledgeable in one verse over the other

 

[Rikimarox2]

Good thread. I 100% agree with this.

Finally, some power for us blue name peasants.

 

[KLOL506]

Guess I ain't a verse expert anymore LOL, nor can my homies who taught me to be one (Some of whom are also staff and are far more knowledgeable than I am) be eligible anymore.

Nah, I disagree with this. This seems far too restricting for my taste. In the name of power you just took it away even more.

Some of the evaluation methods also look whack. Really whack.

 

[Tdjwo]

I one billion percent agree with this. About time someone made this. There are multiple verses here that either have no staff member support or the staff members are always offline and that makes certain revisions become moot since other staff members either don't care for the verse or are clearly biased against it. And when the verse is under a revision and taken to a staff only thread, the knowledgeable members who aren't staff members are either not allowed to make any comment or are restricted to just one comment.

As a Nasuverse supporter for example, this problem has occured multiple times for the verse. The verse currently has no staff member and the knowledgeable regulars pretty much have no say in crts regardless of how many of them are in favour or against a thread while the staff members who have close to no knowledge on the verse always have to decide on where the verse ranks despite not understanding the complexity and complicacy of the verse that a knowledgeable member who happens to be a regular non-staff might have.

So yes, this is a very good idea. I'm fully in support of this idea.

 

[KingNanaya]

shouldn't this be a staff thread?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Guess I ain't a verse expert anymore LOL, nor can my homies who taught me to be one (Some of whom are also staff and are far more knowledgeable than I am) be eligible anymore.

Nah, I disagree with this. This seems far too restricting for my taste. In the name of power you just took it away even more.

Some of the evaluation methods also look whack. Really whack.

I literally said that "verse expert" might need to be changed because it'd be confusing otherwise. In no way do I want to imply that staff aren't experts; I just want a designation for users who aren't staff, but have their opinions given more weight than bluenames. Could you at least elaborate on how this is restricting or how the evaluation methods are bad?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

shouldn't this be a staff thread?

I'll request for it to be moved if needed, but I think it's kinda important to have regular users give input here since it affects us more than anyone else on the site.

 

[KingNanaya]

I'll request for it to be moved if needed, but I think it's kinda important to have regular users give input here since it affects us more than anyone else on the site.

I can understand that, but it still directly affects wiki policy

 

[Majinere566]

Following

 

[Arkenis]

Me realizing I had this exact idea back in May hoping someone would make a crt for it knowing JJK struggles to get CRT passed.

-There can only be one verse expert per verse (maybe this would require renaming the position to avoid confusion?).

Definitely think 2 would be more useful given the inevitable that the expert likely isn't gonna be on always so another one can be called on.

 

[Bobsican]

I recall I brought this kind of idea off-site before, ironically it was deemed inappropiate as instead of mitigating the gap of impact regular users have compared to staff, it just increases it.

The "verse expert" role would just devolve into a staff position merely limited to that verse and more "normal" members would be discouraged to step in out of having even less of an impact. You aren't building a bridge, you're building a wall.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

That's just objectively not true lol, the only special privileges that verse experts would get would be verse-specific evaluation rights (which has less precedent than actual staff evaluation), the ability to act as a tiebreaker, and limited staff thread comment rights. Any other staff member has far more rights than that, even if we limit them to a single verse.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Me realizing I had this exact idea back in May hoping someone would make a crt for it knowing JJK struggles to get CRT passed.

Definitely think 2 would be more useful given the inevitable that the expert likely isn't gonna be on always so another one can be called on.

Probably a good idea.

 

[Arkenis]

The "verse expert" role would just devolve into a staff position merely limited to that verse and more "normal" members would be discouraged to step in out of having even less of an impact. You aren't building a bridge, you're building a wall.

I don't see how exactly. Sure the position can become another mini staff member but it won't have full control over that verse and it's opinion would just be taken into account much more.

-Verse experts may act as staff support in minor content revisions (such as small changes to the stamina or intelligence sections of a character, or ability additions to a single character). However, verse expert input alone is not sufficient to apply such threads.

This here limits the power they would have within that verse.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Maybe it'd help if I gave an example.

Say I want to give Character A a couple of small abilities, like fire manipulation or forcefield creation. A thread mod says it's okay, but I still need one more vote to apply the revision. A verse expert also says it's okay, and since they have their vote counted in content revisions, the thread is now fine to apply.

However, if two verse experts agreed, that'd still only count as one agreement, so I'd still need staff input. If a thread is really small and only needs one agreement, even then a verse expert evaluation wouldn't let me apply the changes.

 

[KLOL506]

I literally said that "verse expert" might need to be changed because it'd be confusing otherwise. In no way do I want to imply that staff aren't experts; I just want a designation for users who aren't staff, but have their opinions given more weight than bluenames. Could you at least elaborate on how this is restricting or how the evaluation methods are bad?

-Staff members cannot be verse experts (it'd be pretty redundant lol)
-There can only be up to two verse experts per verse (maybe this would require renaming the position to avoid confusion?)

I disagree with both. We should not be placing limits on how many people can be deemed experts.

 

[KingTempest]

This shit ass

 

[Planck69]

I feel that another issue here is just how nebulous and arbitrary the label of an expert is in this case. At what point is someone considered a supporter? Or having enough knowledge on a verse? What stops supporters from just nominating a member they know will push only for higher ends rather than actual impartial judgement?

This feels ill-thought out and I say this as someone who abhors the fact that only a section of the staff have thread input as it is.

 

[KLOL506]

-Verse experts are chosen by other supporters of the verse they are nominated by (eg; A Naruto verse expert will be chosen by Naruto supporters).

This feels like something that is prone to fall to bias. Staff members who disagree with the verse's ratings may be deemed as "hateful" or "ignorant" of what they deem should be the true rating.

-Verse experts may act as staff support in minor content revisions (such as small changes to the stamina or intelligence sections of a character, or ability additions to a single character). However, verse expert input alone is not sufficient to apply such threads.

This is peak redundancy at its finest. We already need staff evaluation to get threads through regardless of whether verse experts agree or not.

-Verse experts may act as a tiebreaker in the case that staff cannot come to a consensus in a given thread pertaining to their verse.

This is the only part I agree with.

-Verse experts by default have permission to create or speak in staff threads pertaining to their verse.

That just creates room for derailment, but I can consider giving exceptions for those who create said staff threads or are/were at least involved heavily in contributing large parts of the contents of the thread (Like say, a revision that has been planned in advance for a long time or so).

 

[KLOL506]

I feel that another issue here is just how nebulous and arbitrary the label of an expert is in this case. At what point is someone considered a supporter? Or having enough knowledge on a verse? What stops supporters from just nominating a member they know will push only for higher ends rather than actual impartial judgement?

This feels ill-thought out and I say this as someone who abhors the fact that only a section of the staff have thread input as it is.

You got ninja'd boyo. Better luck next time UwU

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

-Staff members cannot be verse experts (it'd be pretty redundant lol)
-There can only be up to two verse experts per verse (maybe this would require renaming the position to avoid confusion?)

I disagree with both. We should not be placing limits on how many people can be deemed experts.

That isn't what I mean; Anyone can be an "expert", I'm talking about a specific role.

Also, the reason staff can't have the role is because they have those priviliges by default. "You have a role that grants special priviliges, and we're going to promote you by giving you a role that gives you the same priviliges but Less Good" is just silly.

I feel that another issue here is just how nebulous and arbitrary the label of an expert is in this case. At what point is someone considered a supporter? Or having enough knowledge on a verse? What stops supporters from just nominating a member they know will push only for higher ends rather than actual impartial judgement?

-After an expert is chosen, a thread will be created where staff evaluate if their knowledge and contributions are significant enough to be given the position.

I literally explained how to avoid that; Even if verse supporters push some random jackass through, it still falls on staff to decide if they actually deserve it.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

-Verse experts are chosen by other supporters of the verse they are nominated by (eg; A Naruto verse expert will be chosen by Naruto supporters).

This feels like something that is prone to fall to bias. Staff members who disagree with the verse's ratings may be deemed as "hateful" or "ignorant" of what they deem should be the true rating.

I'm begging yall to learn to read

-After an expert is chosen, a thread will be created where staff evaluate if their knowledge and contributions are significant enough to be given the position.

-Verse experts may act as staff support in minor content revisions (such as small changes to the stamina or intelligence sections of a character, or ability additions to a single character). However, verse expert input alone is not sufficient to apply such threads.

This is peak redundancy at its finest. We already need staff evaluation to get threads through regardless of whether verse experts agree or not.

If a thread needs two staff evaluations, and only one staff has agreed, then a verse expert's vote can be used to apply the thread. But that same privilege doesn't apply outside a specific verse or if only verse experts agree with no staff.

 

[Deceived3596]

I recall I brought this kind of idea off-site before, ironically it was deemed inappropiate as instead of mitigating the gap of impact regular users have compared to staff, it just increases it.

The "verse expert" role would just devolve into a staff position merely limited to that verse and more "normal" members would be discouraged to step in out of having even less of an impact. You aren't building a bridge, you're building a wall.

I just fundamentally disagree with this notion.

Granting normal members the ability to enact someone as a "verse expert", which they majorly agree with being the most knowledgeable person on that specific verse, wouldn't create a "wall" between both parties. It would grant those normal members an actual level of autonomy through the process of democratic vote.

This argument about it making a "wall" instead of a "bridge" doesn't make much sense, it's tantamount to saying that making that knowledgeable member a regular mod, without the process of enactment from the blue members in collaboration with actual mods, but instead just having the mods make the decisions. Would cause more "normal" members to be discouraged to actually comment on those threads since a mod with actual evaluation weight comments on them. It's just factually incorrect, people wouldn't be discouraged from commenting on threads just because someone with higher power comments on it.

As for evidence of this being true, look at the threads made for the most popular verses on this wiki, and see the engagement from mods and non-mods alike and you'll see that having someone with more evaluation weight compared to a group of others doesn't really affect those people's want to comment on those threads. People will comment on those threads if they so desire.

I'm neutral on the OP itself currently, I just believe this argument is factually incorrect and it needed to be called out.

 

[KLOL506]

Also, the reason staff can't have the role is because they have those priviliges by default. "You have a role that grants special priviliges, and we're going to promote you by giving you a role that gives you the same priviliges but Less Good" is just silly.

Eh, no, not necessarily. Not all staff are qualified to give opinions on Tier 1. Not all staff have the knowledge, time or patience to evaluate massive DC/Marvel revisions. Not all staff know the ins and outs of super-obscure verses to give judgment. Hell, content mods ATM aren't even allowed to evaluate CRTs despite actively dealing with adding content to pages and what-have-you, I remember @Agnaa making such a comment with more detail but I might be missing some.

I literally explained how to avoid that; Even if verse supporters push some random jackass through, it still falls on staff to decide if they actually deserve it.

You do realize this applies to staff who are verse experts as well, right? What stops them from falling to the same bias as the supporters?

 

[StekFence]

If they are biased, then as it currently stands, crts that they are biased towards are still gonna pass easily right?

 

[KLOL506]

If a thread needs two staff evaluations, and only one staff has agreed, then a verse expert's vote can be used to apply the thread. But that same privilege doesn't apply outside a specific verse or if only verse experts agree with no staff.

Then just make those people staff members, because that's what they will become at the end of the day, but without the color, and limited to specific verses. I honestly don't see the point of this.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Eh, no, not necessarily. Not all staff are qualified to give opinions on Tier 1. Not all staff have the knowledge, time or patience to evaluate massive DC/Marvel revisions. Not all staff know the ins and outs of super-obscure verses to give judgment. Hell, content mods ATM aren't even allowed to evaluate CRTs despite actively dealing with adding content to pages and what-have-you, I remember @Agnaa making such a comment with more detail but I might be missing some.

I mean I'm fine with letting this be applied to CGMs and content mods in that case.

You do realize this applies to staff who are verse experts as well, right? What stops them from falling to the same bias as the supporters?

This is making my head hurt.

"We can't let bluenames have power because of Bias, and staff members will also be Biased, but staff members should still have power (dw about the Bias though)".

Then just make those people staff members, because that's what they will become at the end of the day, but without the color, and limited to specific verses. I honestly don't see the point of this.

That's??? Literally what this is??????????????????

 

[DaReaperMan]

So, what is done when verses only have one or two actually supporters?

Cause like, that's most of the verses I'm super knowledgeable on, Heroes of the Storm, Dark Deception, Realm of the Mad God, World of Warcraft(At least for people DOING SHIT), and Overwatch, each have at most 1 other person doing shit, so what happens, do we just nominate eachother for verse expert? Hehe, I shouldn't need to say why that's a problem

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

People don't need to be staff to get recognized; in fact, there are times where I trust certain blue names regarding scaling takes for certain verses than I do most staff. Furthermore, I generally think verse experts have a better sense of judgement when it comes to certain policies such as outliers and PIS for certain verses in question as I do know that it's a common habit for various staff unfamiliar with verses to either be too strict or too lenient on outlier policy due to being unfamiliar with what a verse is supposed to be about. And making staff positions for each and every verse that has "Experts" seems Ridonculous.

They, I do think various people need to comment regularly on certain verse related topics and show decent senses of judgement before someone should add their name to verse specific experts and people who are either borderline biased towards or against a verse probably shouldn't be considered experts if all they do is wank or downplay respectively.

 

[Arkenis]

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

How would this apply to small verses which only have like 2-3 supporters?

 

[KLOL506]

"We can't let bluenames have power because of Bias, and staff members will also be Biased, but staff members should still have power (dw about the Bias though)".

Thing is tho, you're making the bluenames budget staff so literally there's no difference at this point.

 

[DaReaperMan]

How would this apply to small verses which only have like 2-3 supporters?

I literally just asked that lmfao, and I know which verse you're specifically on about most likely too

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

People don't need to be staff to get recognized; in fact, there are times where I trust certain blue names regarding scaling takes for certain verses than I do most staff. Furthermore, I generally think verse experts have a better sense of judgement when it comes to certain policies such as outliers and PIS for certain verses in question as I do know that it's a common habit for various staff unfamiliar with verses to either be too strict or too leniant on outlier policy due to being unfamiliar with what a verse is supposed to be about. And making staff positions for each and every verse that has "Experts" seems Ridonculous.

I mean that's all well and good, but the point of this thread is to give those bluenames actual authority over those verses rather than just "being listened to by staff sometimes (and then overruled by staff that don't know the verse)".

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

I literally just asked that lmfao, and I know which verse you're specifically on about most likely too

I didn't see oops.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

They, I do think various people need to comment regularly on certain verse related topics and show decent senses of judgement before someone should add their name to verse specific experts and people who are either borderline biased towards or against a verse probably shouldn't be considered experts if all they do is wank or downplay respectively.

Yeah, exactly, That's why having each nomination be accepted by staff is a requirement lmao

Thing is tho, you're making the bluenames budget staff so literally there's no difference at this point.

if there's no difference then why is one good and one bad

 

[DaReaperMan]

I didn't see oops.

It's fine lmfao

if this goes through you're nominating me for all of my verses right?