• 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.

Verse Expert Proposition

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are choosing two experts for every verse I would suggest...uhh... choose one person who supports the verse and another person who opposes it(while still being knowledgeable) to avoid conflict of interests.
 
Darksmash said:
If you are choosing two experts for every verse I would suggest...uhh... choose one person who supports the verse and another person who opposes it(while still being knowledgeable) to avoid conflict of interests.
Click to expand...
We don't do that "Supporter"/"Opponent" bullshit anymore, we opted to gut it and replace it with "Knowledgeable Members" while also effectively getting rid of the "Knowledgeable Members (Verses)" page in a recent CRT.
 
So It would look something like this instead of a forum/wiki role?

Experts (link to the thread where the person was accepted as an expert)​

Supporters​

Opponents​

Neutral​

 
KLOL506 said:
We don't do that "Supporter"/"Opponent" bullshit anymore, we opted to gut it and replace it with "Knowledgeable Members" while also effectively getting rid of the "Knowledgeable Members (Verses)" page in a recent CRT.
Click to expand...
This totally wouldn't lead to two of the verse's biggest dickriders getting elected as verse experts and wank singularity
 
Although it seems like it could be flawed in some ways it would help a lot for really small verses where some staff just don't care to evaluate CRTs for at all. Where instead of 2 staff votes you would just need a staff member to vet the "Expert"s revision.
 
KLOL506 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is true.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
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)".
Click to expand...
Staff have to have their promotions widely agreed upon by other staff members, and they can be demoted, in an effort to reduce bias.

Giving similar powers to non-staff to "avoid bias" doesn't work, since it removes guardrails against bias.

Overall, I disagree with this. If they're good enough to get through a staff-worthy "background check", they should just get promoted to staff anyway.
 
KLOL506 said:
Really? You don't know why making literally everyone here staff is a bad idea?
Click to expand...
My brother in christ I literally just based that off of what you said.

I know the logic is faulty; That's because your logic is faulty.

BestMGQScalerEver said:
So It would look something like this instead of a forum/wiki role?

Experts (link to the thread where the person was accepted as an expert)​

Supporters​

Opponents​

Neutral​

Click to expand...
Honestly, that'd be much more practical.

Darksmash said:
If you are choosing two experts for every verse I would suggest...uhh... choose one person who supports the verse and another person who opposes it(while still being knowledgeable) to avoid conflict of interests.
Click to expand...
Ideally, yes, but I hate that I need to keep mentioning that a verse expert needs to be accepted by a majority of community members for the verse and a number of staff members. Getting a hardcore wanker or downplayer as a verse expert would be nigh impossible.

Agnaa said:
This is true.

Staff have to have their promotions widely agreed upon by other staff members, and they can be demoted, in an effort to reduce bias.

Giving similar powers to non-staff to "avoid bias" doesn't work, since it removes guardrails against bias.
Click to expand...
That is... quite literally the same criteria I'm proposing here, except less strict because verse experts also need to be nominated by verse supporters (so you need support from bluenames and staff, not just staff).
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
That is... quite literally the same criteria I'm proposing here, except less strict because verse experts also need to be nominated by verse supporters (so you need support from bluenames and staff, not just staff).
Click to expand...
It's not the same if it's less strict.

If it's less strict, it's more open to bias.

Ergo, you're trying to solve bias, by being more open to bias.

If it's more strict, they'd be able to get those powers by just being promoted to staff anyway.

This seems like a bad idea. Just continue with the status quo of staff members listening to arguments, knowing from experience who's trustworthy, etc.
 
Agnaa said:
It's not the same if it's less strict.

If it's less strict, it's more open to bias.

Ergo, you're trying to solve bias, by being more open to bias.

If it's more strict, they'd be able to get those powers by just being promoted to staff anyway.

This seems like a bad idea. Just continue with the status quo of staff members listening to arguments, knowing from experience who's trustworthy, etc.
Click to expand...
Agnaa that is quite literally the opposite of what I said... Becoming a verse expert is more strict, because it requires verse supporter AND staff member nominations. By your own account, staff members are chosen through staff alone.

Also appealing to the status quo is absurd when I can pick a random bluename out of a hate and there's a 90% chance they'll say the hate the status quo.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Agnaa that is quite literally the opposite of what I said... Becoming a verse expert is more strict
Click to expand...
Ah, I got confused about what you meant by less strict.

In that case, this revision would effect no-one, since everyone who has qualified for staff would get offered a promotion anyway.

Maybe it effects 2 or 3 people who got approved for promotions, but rejected it, but who would want this pseudo-promotion for some reason? But their voices should really be elevated in these sorts of threads anyway. That's something I'd be willing to change.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Also appealing to the status quo is absurd when I can pick a random bluename out of a hate and there's a 90% chance they'll say the hate the status quo.
Click to expand...
It's not "we should have the status quo because it's the status quo", it's "we should have the status quo because this idea seems bad".
 
While I agree with making it more strict to become a verse expert, leaving it solely up to knowledgeable members and staff without actually testing them what they know about the verse just sounds like a really bad, god-awful precedent.

What they agree to or disagree doesn't matter, they need to have spent enough time to thoroughly know the verse, its ins and outs and its mechanics. Sorry if that sounds elitist to some certain people, but that's why people are considered "knowledgeable" in the first place, because they can back up the shit they say by posting this and that when needed.

And even then, there's always the bragging rights issue of "Who knows the verse more", as Planck pointed out.
 
Agnaa said:
Ah, I got confused about what you meant by less strict.

In that case, this revision would effect no-one, since everyone who has qualified for staff would get offered a promotion anyway.

Maybe it effects 2 or 3 people who got approved for promotions, but rejected it, but who would want this pseudo-promotion for some reason? But their voices should really be elevated in these sorts of threads anyway. That's something I'd be willing to change.
Click to expand...
?????
I think you might be misunderstanding what this thread is even about.

This is specifically for regular members who are knowledgeable in, and heavily contribute to, a specific verse. They can be nominated as an expert for that verse, granting them limited privileges such as staff thread permissions, acting as a tiebreaker on staff votes when it pertains to their verse, and having limited evaluation rights for minor CRTs.

This is not about people who rejected staff promotions; Simply verse supporters who go above and beyond what is expected of them. Most staff would not need the promotion, as they have the aforementioned rights as an extension of their staff role.

Agnaa said:
It's not "we should have the status quo because it's the status quo", it's "we should have the status quo because this idea seems bad".
Click to expand...
Well the status quo is in a dire state regardless, so if you have an alternative, by all means, share it.

KLOL506 said:
While I agree with making it more strict to become a verse expert, leaving it solely up to knowledgeable members and staff without actually testing them what they know about the verse just sounds like a really bad, god-awful precedent.

What they agree to or disagree doesn't matter, they need to have spent enough time to thoroughly know the verse, its ins and outs and its mechanics.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think a nomination CRT that lists their notable contributions (profiles/blogs made, CRTs made, time spent on the wiki, etc) would be best. I did mention a CRT like this in the OP but didn't really elaborate on what it'd be like.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
?????
I think you might be misunderstanding what this thread is even about.

This is specifically for regular members who are knowledgeable in, and heavily contribute to, a specific verse. They can be nominated as an expert for that verse, granting them limited privileges such as staff thread permissions, acting as a tiebreaker on staff votes when it pertains to their verse, and having limited evaluation rights for minor CRTs.

This is not about people who rejected staff promotions; Simply verse supporters who go above and beyond what is expected of them. Most staff would not need the promotion, as they have the aforementioned rights as an extension of their staff role.
Click to expand...
I know.

You say "This will have as much strictness as promoting people to staff, if not more!"

My response to that is "If someone getting this pseudo-position would meet the criteria to become staff anyway, why have this pseudo-position?"
 
KLOL506 said:
We don't do that "Supporter"/"Opponent" bullshit anymore, we opted to gut it and replace it with "Knowledgeable Members" while also effectively getting rid of the "Knowledgeable Members (Verses)" page in a recent CRT.
Click to expand...
Can you link the page on the wiki
 
Agnaa said:
I know.

You say "This will have as much strictness as promoting people to staff, if not more!"

My response to that is "If someone getting this pseudo-position would meet the criteria to become staff anyway, why have this pseudo-position?"
Click to expand...
Because they might not contribute as much to other verses, they might not be online enough to qualify, or they might not have the temperament/moderating experience necessary. These people are evaluated on the basis of their knowledge and their knowledge alone (and that's all that's expected of them, by extension). They just have to pass through two systems of checks and balances instead of one.
 
well here is my (unimportant) opinion

this could work well, especially for many verses that has only like, 1 non staff supporter or a bunch of verses that has some supporter but none of those are staffs

but again, this issue will bring out a very relevant stuff, that is bias

We all can deny it, but we just have some bias towards the verse we support (or anything really), this is true for all of us no questions asked, that's why a third party (usually staffs) is required to check the crt if this is viable or not.

my guess is that this "verse expert" should have a more viability than, for example, a random dude that just joined or another user that never touched said verse and not that notable in vs indexing either. But their vote is still won't be more important than a staff vote. That's my kinda take
 
Agnaa said:
I know.

You say "This will have as much strictness as promoting people to staff, if not more!"

My response to that is "If someone getting this pseudo-position would meet the criteria to become staff anyway, why have this pseudo-position?"
Click to expand...
I assume that there's enough folks around here that are very passionate about their verses, but wouldn't want to have all the expectations and responsibilities of being staff for a whole site. That's quite the commitment and some might not be able to handle/want it. I know my anxiety-ridden ass wouldn't.

Not saying I agree with the proposal as is, but wanted to provide insight.
 
I want to be more than that someday, so I disagree with that, one day I will be able to help everyone on vsbttles with green or red

^___________________^
 
OverlordDonnelly said:
I assume that there's enough folks around here that are very passionate about their verses, but wouldn't want to have all the expectations and responsibilities of being staff for a whole site. That's quite the commitment and some might not be able to handle/want it. I know my anxiety-ridden ass wouldn't.

Not saying I agree with the proposal as is, but wanted to provide insight.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that as well.

I could bear being saddled with the title of "that bitch who knows a lot about 2hu", but actual moderation? lol, lmao even
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Because they might not contribute as much to other verses
Click to expand...
That doesn't effect promotions. There isn't a minimum verse count.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
they might not be online enough to qualify
Click to expand...
We're pretty lenient on this for promotions.

If they are online so rarely, say, only posting once every month, how helpful would it really be to give them a staff vote?

Hell, how confident could we be in them being suitable for that position?
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
or they might not have the temperament/moderating experience necessary.
Click to expand...
Then it sounds like they shouldn't participate in such threads, so they shouldn't be included regardless.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
These people are evaluated on the basis of their knowledge and their knowledge alone (and that's all that's expected of them, by extension). They just have to pass through two systems of checks and balances instead of one.
Click to expand...
Knowledge of the verse alone isn't all that matters. If we just care about siphoning their knowledge, then they shouldn't have a vote, and should just provide information to those who participate. Since those people are familiar with the site's standards, and are known to be good at evaluating arguments.

These flaws sound far worse than the gains, so I am against this proposal.
OverlordDonnelly said:
I assume that there's enough folks around here that are very passionate about their verses, but wouldn't want to have all the expectations and responsibilities of being staff for a whole site. That's quite the commitment and some might not be able to handle/want it. I know my anxiety-ridden ass wouldn't.

Not saying I agree with the proposal as is, but wanted to provide insight.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen, that's exceptionally rare. Plus, there's effectively no actual responsibilities, other than having a pulse and not being a complete asshat. People don't get demoted for not locking enough threads, or patrolling enough edits, they get demoted for being completely missing for months without warning.

And as I said earlier, I'd be happy to allow people who were offered promotions to thread mod to have evaluation rights in threads, even if they reject the position.
 
Agnaa said:
I know.

You say "This will have as much strictness as promoting people to staff, if not more!"

My response to that is "If someone getting this pseudo-position would meet the criteria to become staff anyway, why have this pseudo-position?"
Click to expand...

What if we make it a proxy-position instead. Staff members who are not knowledgeable on the verse could look to an expert to see if the crts are solid before said staff votes.

This way crts will be processed faster especially for unpopular verses

Evalutions will be way easier

Staff power isn’t diluted.
 
Arnoldstone18 said:
What if we make it a proxy-position instead. Staff members who are not knowledgeable on the verse could look to an expert to see if the crts are solid before said staff votes.

This way crts will be processed faster especially for unpopular verses

Evalutions will be way easier

Staff power isn’t diluted.
Click to expand...
Staff members can already choose to FRA things without reading closely. I don't think that should be more strongly encouraged.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
image.png

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:
Click to expand...

• As long as it's limited to 2 experts per verse only, then no, I disagree.
• By skimming through the thread, I never saw an answer for what happens if a verse has few supporters. If it was answered then just quote the message.
 
Agnaa said:
...Exactly?

I'm saying we shouldn't encourage that, by giving people a badge that says "Blindly agree with me without reading my arguments :3".
Click to expand...
But thing is, it's on the staff for blindly agreeing. Not inherently an issue with the proposal when it's also proposed that the staff should also look at what is being proposed and use their better judgement.
 
BestMGQScalerEver said:
But thing is, it's on the staff for blindly agreeing. Not inherently an issue with the proposal when it's also proposed that the staff should also look at what is being proposed and use their better judgement.
Click to expand...
Double-checking since there's two proposals in this thread; you do know that I was talking about Arnold's proposal, right?
Arnoldstone18 said:
What if we make it a proxy-position instead. Staff members who are not knowledgeable on the verse could look to an expert to see if the crts are solid before said staff votes.

This way crts will be processed faster especially for unpopular verses

Evalutions will be way easier

Staff power isn’t diluted.
Click to expand...
This is calling for "verse experts" to exist so that staff can skip looking at the actual arguments.

It's calling for blind agreement. That's a fundamental issue of the proposal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DemonicDude
  • Locked
One-Punch Man verse (Visual Update 2024)
Replies
21
Views
1K
DemonicDude
DemonicDude
Frieza_force_soldier_100
Restoring Welcome to the Game verse and profiles
Replies
25
Views
1K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Sbogi
Caesar Intelligence Additions (Planet of the Apes)
Replies
0
Views
342
Sbogi
Sbogi
Grand_Astartes
Small Profile Update for Naruto/Boruto: Speed
Replies
2
Views
728
Grand_Astartes
Grand_Astartes
Arkenis
Twin Star Exorcists: Spiritual Power Nature
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
Theglassman12
Theglassman12
Back
Top