Admins & Moderators on CRTs: The Most Controversial Staff Thread

[Kachon123]

I can assure you that we have the same idea of what constitute as "minor" CRT, it isnt a hard to grasp concept, especially once you formally ironed it out. Users lying to your face about it shoudnt be the roadblock that prevents 10 other users using the system truthfully.

I mean, we sort of already have loose guidelines on what constitutes as a minor CRT, though I guess it could be expanded on in the instance that we go through with the subforum concept.

Discussion Rules

VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc. However, certain topics keep popping...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

So should I create a new private discussion thread for all of our higher-ranking staff members that would solely be dedicated to suggesting new verse moderator candidates, and as long as nobody objects after, for example, 2 weeks, we appoint the candidates, after which they have the authority to accept what we have decided to be self-evident revisions in our new sub-forum for this purpose?

Lots of discussion threads for self-evident revisions would have to be moved to our new sub-forum though, and I think that our forum system manager would likely have to modify the staff rights of our current thread moderators and administrators so they work in our new sub-forum as well, if I remember correctly how he set them up originally.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It occurs to me that the subject of manpower may be more easily solved than I thought. I had mentioned earlier in the thread that we do just allow regular users to suggest themselves for a staff position. The (brief) reference to Minecraft servers also brings up the memory that despite these being a community, where people largely knew one another, users would apply for a position of Helper, or Builder, or so on and what have you.

Suppose, then, we just created a formal staff application process? Perhaps something like a Google form wherein users could give their "resume", as they saw fit, and we could take that and get a more readily usable list of potential recruits? Because it is my perception that a major issue with recruitment is that we are not omniscient, we do not know everyone who might be capable of the position, and we (the bureaucrats) rely on recommendations and our own eyes to decide on new users to offer positions. An application provides another vector by which users may be found, and it would assure us that they at least want the position (it has happened before that we offer a position, and the person declines).

In my view, it would go something like this:

1. Submit application; this should ideally include some evidence of capabilities related to the desired role (translation helper, discussion mod, etc).
2. This application is first reviewed by bureaucrats (or perhaps just one, since it involves a new duty being added to the Duty Pile).
3. If accepted there, the user can be added to the recruitment drive for the given role. This inherently includes filtering via those in the position already; CGMs would look at potential CGMs, the general staff base would look at more general roles, I believe Translation Helpers review potential Translation Helpers, etc. The only one this does not go for, afaik, is Image Helper, but this also can be handled as the results of that role can be easily understood by anyone (e.g., can they make an image transparent without butchering it).

As it stands, our recruitment drives are often pertaining to promotions, even now, because we simply don't have enough potential people that are up for discussion mod. So. Acknowledging that this would need ironed out, does anyone have any ideas or thoughts on this as a potential solution to the manpower dilemma?

 

[Antvasima]

I like Bambu's idea as such, but it does not seem realistic that any of our current bureaucrats should alone be tasked with investigating the linked evidence of merits for all the people who will likely suggest themselves indepth, or at least I don't have the time for even more work than previously, and we would likely still have the problem we encountered (again) in our last staff recruitment survey: We thought that we had found some good discussion moderator candidates, but then almost no current staff members were familiar with or remembered the candidates, so we couldn't promote them as a result.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I like Bambu's idea as such, but it does not seem realistic that any of our current bureaucrats should alone be tasked with investigating the linked evidence of merits for all the people who will likely suggest themselves indepth, or at least I don't have the time for even more work than previously, and we would likely still have the problem we encountered (again) in our last stsff recruitment survey: We thought that we had found some good discussion moderator candidates, but then almost no current staff members were familiar with or remembered the candidates, so we couldn't promote them as a result.

I don't propose that a single bureaucrat handles it. I think it could work on a ticket system-- that is, any bureaucrat could review any given application. If you wanted, I wouldn't be opposed to extending this to super moderator roles as well, but my initial thought was that this would be outside the general duties associated with the position, since their expanded responsibilities largely have to do with registration issues.

 

[FinePoint]

As it stands, our recruitment drives are often pertaining to promotions, even now, because we simply don't have enough potential people that are up for discussion mod. So. Acknowledging that this would need ironed out, does anyone have any ideas or thoughts on this as a potential solution to the manpower dilemma?

Letting someone actually make a case for themselves would definitely improve the rates of people voting things other than "I don't know anything about them."

That said, it also creates an entirely new workload (reviewing applications).

If nothing else, we could let people know if they're up for consideration and have them optionally prepare an application so that people voting have more than just a name to work with.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't propose that a single bureaucrat handles it. I think it could work on a ticket system-- that is, any bureaucrat could review any given application. If you wanted, I wouldn't be opposed to extending this to super moderator roles as well, but my initial thought was that this would be outside the general duties associated with the position, since their expanded responsibilities largely have to do with registration issues.

Well, I am very overworked, you have real life duties, AKM doesn't have almost any time to directly participate in our community anymore due to extensive real life duties, but is kind enough to handle important administrative tasks, and I am not sure how available DontTalk is, so extending the initial evaluation right to our super moderators as well, if we handle things in the manner you suggested, seem like a good idea, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

Letting someone actually make a case for themselves would definitely improve the rates of people voting things other than "I don't know anything about them."

That said, it also creates an entirely new workload (reviewing applications).

If nothing else, we could let people know if they're up for consideration and have them optionally prepare an application so that people voting have more than just a name to work with.

Yes. That is true.

 

[Reiner04]

My kidney still tries to leave my body sometimes, and I've mostly just been playing Rimworld (though we finally got an appointment for next Thursday.)

So, no, I haven't had much time to draft up full concept.

But if I were to start now, I'd imagine like:


Not included: any kind of moderation privileges (like threadbans, closing threads, replying to RVRT, approving posts, etc.)

Badge could be like: "Advisor (One Piece)" or "Advisor (OPM/Naruto)"
Or just "Advisor" with the specifics listed elsewhere, maybe on the staff list.

Requirements basically the same, but verse-specific and more forgiving (like instead of 'intimate familiarity with the site's rules and regulations' maybe just 'familiarity with site rules and regulations as relevant to the verse(s) they advise.')

Naturally we'd consider this position faster and with less scrutiny than a full Thread Moderator position, and someone being a successful Advisor for a while wouldn't guarantee becoming a Thread Moderator later but definitely look good on their resume if it were proposed.

What about the Finepoint suggestion? Imo, that could make the evaluation of CRTs much more efficient and help lessen the burden on the current evaluating and also seems to be more beneficial as long as we limit it to self-evident ∩ simple P&A.

This is his appointment suggestion:

Suggestion: Have the appointment discussed among staff, but less formally. More like: "I'm considering promoting X to Advisor for Y because Z. Thoughts?" If those thoughts are mostly positive or neutral, it's probably fine to try. If they're mostly or loudly negative, that's a red flag. Then they can make their decision based on that feedback, rather than any lengthy voting process.

 

[Shadowslash125]

I have woken up. Will read this soon.

 

[Naito-desu]

I've thought about what to say for this because I do struggle with the process of greenlighting changes. I personally like the suggestion of a verse-specific Advisor, especially for verses with little to no support among higher moderators. It's made getting some changes past quite tricky, and I think this can help streamline the need to always call for a moderator.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Permission granted by @Reiner04

Granted, we are in the next step of having suggestions that we can choose, but I want to speak out
As someone who always tried helping the verses I followed/wanted to help by contacting the staffs, this issues that need to be addressed are a good send, because it's really tasking for me to go through many crts and then send it to the staffs for evaluation, which might or might not be responded sooner or later, and as many staffs here have pointed out, there are many factors that prevented them to evaluate as much as CRT that has been requested, which is understandable, but it became a problem when a CRT got stagnant for how long, like the HSR CRT about Heirs paths abilities addition who got stagnant because Vietthai being way too busy, or Ultraman Scaling CRT that hasn't been touch for almost a year now
We know that we need to be patient, but if it took this long then it gotten frustrating, alongside that the popular verses CRT always got the priorities while left the niche/obscure verses in the dust

Tho this point that I have said might been addressed in previous page, I just want to let this out from my chest considering I always doing this job for helping the verses as the bridge for the staffs to evaluate for so many years

Now whether which suggestions that getting approved, I wouldn't opposed as long it will be ended up helping both sides, anyway that's all I want to say

 

[Naito-desu]

In part, I do believe the issue is great enough that I wish to contribute a hand if only to alleviate the burden of so many uncertified CRTs and so many staff members up to their necks with requests to review their threads.

But I do think there should be a stopper against unverified and hastily approved CRTs but there are cases like Genshin where a certain frivolous CRT can get approved while attempts to reverse it get stalled, which lowkey makes it a competition of who can get more mod votes than a genuine attempt at discussion on changes

 

[Shadowslash125]

I ended up having to do something irl, so I have to delay my replies. In the meantime,

Vietthai being way too busy

Not pointing fingers or pulling attacks, but Vietthai isn't entirely spotless. Much of how I even decided to even make this post here is from the experiences I had with him. He's one of the staff I had problems with when I had to deal with my fair share of crts. Blud wouldn't touch a straightforward crt when he was doing it to everyone else, not to mention that this thread had so much hiccups that I had to ask for his help three times, to deaf ears. Some words could've been exchanged if he really didn't want to do it so badly, but nooo. Hence, my final solution.

Speaking of, what does everyone think of Solution 5?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I ended up having to do something irl, so I have to delay my replies. In the meantime,


Not pointing fingers or pulling attacks, but Vietthai isn't entirely spotless. Much of how I even decided to even make this post here is from the experiences I had with him. He's one of the staff I had problems with when I had to deal with my fair share of crts. Blud wouldn't touch a straightforward crt when he was doing it to everyone else, not to mention that this thread had so much hiccups that I had to ask for his help three times, to deaf ears. Some words could've been exchanged if he really didn't want to do it so badly, but nooo. Hence, my final solution.

Speaking of, what does everyone think of Solution 5?

This thread ought not be reduced to "this staff member didn't look at my post!" rhetoric, man. Knock that off if your interest is in reaching solutions, as is the want of the rest of us.

 

[Antvasima]

I would appreciate staff input regarding my contemplations about this issue in my previous posts here.

Also, yes, no bashing of staff members please. They are doing their best with the time they have available here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well, the obvious problem is that how exactly should we maintain security for the reliability of our wiki statistics if just a very limited number of members (our bureaucrats and likely our super moderators) should routinely have to hand out lots of verse moderator positions to members we would mostly be unfamiliar with or only half-remember. We wouldn't get the security buffer of the memories of most of our staff evaluating whether they remember if a potential staff member seems reliable or not, and also much more limited benefits, given the much more limited reach, and I strongly doubt that AKM would be able and willing to practically handle staff recruitment surveys more frequently than once every 3 months or so as currently.

To speak on this: it is my opinion, still, that this role is an unfeasible option. There are a lot of variables that render it so.

The option of a "if nobody objects" thread is daunting; it leaves us vulnerable. The only way I could see it being done is for verses that are large enough to necessitate a constant staff presence (perhaps using that list we conpiled some months ago of the most controversial verses?) and they came with the direct approval of a staff member (preferably admin) closely associated with the verse, or went through with the standard recruitment protocol.

I would not like to see such a role given out en masse, and I would like us to be very, very certain when picking these users.

 

[Shadowslash125]

This thread ought not be reduced to "this staff member didn't look at my post!" rhetoric, man. Knock that off if your interest is in reaching solutions, as is the want of the rest of us.

************, I just want to give the example, why you need to saying something like this? Even if you don't intentionally pulling attacks or pointing the mistakes, this came out pretty disrespectful and not benefits anything for this thread

Frustration is frustration, I get it, but at least don't let it lashed out

Whoop de-do. Won't deny, I totally deserved that.

Enough complaints, I'm back. Idk where to start, since I missed a lot of paragraphs (I read them all), but I'm back.

First off, a quota system would definitely not work, for more reasons other than staff pressure. I agree with Ant on this one, what's a quota going to do for unpaid volunteer workers if they meet it? Just a few numbers on someone's profile wouldn't motivate the staff to set aside everything they have to slave away here. Thermor's suggestion has good intentions, but he's trying to use a system that's incompatible with what we have here.

I'm glad that Mr Bambu, DDM and FinePoint acknowledge the problems that currently plague the current staff, and the fact that these problems don't have clear-cut solutions. The talk about verse/trial/advisor mods, while not everyone agree with how it should be dealt exactly, seems to be the most favoured of the bunch. While the problem of security are convincing enough to not just have them applied immediately, we also can't deny that we have to bring forth some sort of change. We know the problems at hand, and even if we have to face challenges in trying to solve this problem, I'd reckon that facing it this way is far better than having no change and becoming stagnant as a whole. AKA we'll deal with the problems when we get there. Like First_Witch mentioned, the most we have to worry about is a terrible crt that hits the wiki, which we can just undo. While not ideal, it would be better to deal with shit like that than to have this talk again in a short time span after this.

For the verse/trial/advisor mod debate, I'd chime in to say that the idea is nice, but I agree with Bambu on this one. For my own thoughts beyond what he has already said in my stead, I think the inherent problem is that there are more than enough staff for popular verses that have been mentioned in Arkenis' post.

Trial Mods are smaller versions of Thread Mods, and while it would deal with the workforce better, FinePoint's point hits home in the regard that these members have a good chance to be goody two shoes, then go 'rogue' when they promote to something better.

Advisors sound like they work, but are still slightly susceptible to the pitfalls of other mod types. I do also like Mr Bambu's way of opening up the staff application. And no, I'm not literally calling it a secret society, just that it isn't easy to get in there (even at your best behaviour), but that's probably just me.

Just a heads-up, as someone who supports a very niche verse, not to be seen as having an agenda, but most of these solutions are dealing with verses that have active support and staff at the ready to help out in their matters. We should also broaden our scope to check up on lesser-known verses that do not have staff supporters or even ones that are only supported by one vsbw member.

And I've seen stuff talking about me pinning specific tactics that just certain staff members do on every staff, so I sincerely apologize for that. While I am aware, and have had experiences dealing with reasonable staff members, it wasn't good of me to have these problems and arguments generalised to all the staff based on what I (and likely many others) have dealt with. I can see that the staff members that gave their 2 cents here have good intentions and unbiased opinions on this subject, and me blowing a fuse like that isn't something that I should've done for someone who genuinely wants to help out in bringing a change. A lapse in judgement from my poor behaviour. With that in mind, I'll do my best to be as objective as I can irrespective of my experiences to bring whatever semblance of a middle-ground between staff members and users alike.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Reminder to non-staff users that they need to ask for permission to comment here.

If you ask a thread mod for permission, you only get 1 comment.
If you ask an admin, you get 3.
You need to ask a bureaucrat to get unlimited comments.

However, please do not use your permission for useless comments, only to things relating to the discussion.

 

[Shadowslash125]

Reminder to non-staff users that they need to ask for permission to comment here.

If you ask a thread mod for permission, you only get 1 comment.
If you ask an admin, you get 3.
You need to ask a bureaucrat to get unlimited comments.

However, please do not use your permission for useless comments, only to things relating to the discussion.

Chat, am I gonna end up in RvR? /s

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Chat, am I gonna end up in RvR? /s

You're the OP, don't worry

 

[Shadowslash125]

You're the OP, don't worry

Ik, I was just ice-breaking (or breaking the tension), if that's allowed or something.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Advisors sound like they work, but are still slightly susceptible to the pitfalls of other mod types. I do also like Mr Bambu's way of opening up the staff application. And no, I'm not literally calling it a secret society, just that it isn't easy to get in there (even at your best behaviour), but that's probably just me.

I want to say something on this, at least; this is not to you, since I'm only distantly familiar with you, but rather to everyone.

The plain truth of things is that no matter how well adjusted and behaved a user is, this alone cannot give them a position on the staff. Inevitably, not everyone is going to have the qualities we look for in potential staff members. This might be as plain as "the user doesn't always understand our policies" to "the user doesn't apply critical judgement regarding things they agree with". These aren't character flaws, and to not be offered a role on the staff team is not a negative judgment. It's just common sense that since everyone is in some way unique, not everyone will have the combination of traits we are aiming at.

Don't take it personally if you are never offered a staff role. It's not a thing to strive towards.

 

[Shadowslash125]

I want to say something on this, at least; this is not to you, since I'm only distantly familiar with you, but rather to everyone.

The plain truth of things is that no matter how well adjusted and behaved a user is, this alone cannot give them a position on the staff. Inevitably, not everyone is going to have the qualities we look for in potential staff members. This might be as plain as "the user doesn't always understand our policies" to "the user doesn't apply critical judgement regarding things they agree with". These aren't character flaws, and to not be offered a role on the staff team is not a negative judgment. It's just common sense that since everyone is in some way unique, not everyone will have the combination of traits we are aiming at.

Don't take it personally if you are never offered a staff role. It's not a thing to strive towards.

All's fair.

To be fair, you technically don't really need to be a staff to help out in verse/site stuff anyways; being staff certainly does make it easier. Realistically speaking, I don't mind whether I'd be in the radar for possible mod recruitments, since my way of dealing with things (for the lack of a better phrase) has always been different from many others, for better or for worse. Certain aspects may not be my strong suit, and as I've likely showcased here, my personal feelings can get in the way of objective problem-solving. But I do have good intentions and genuinely want to have VSBW improve, even if my feelings compromise me at times. After all, I can always help out in the sidelines via a longer and more convoluted manner as a mere member of the community.

I probably won't object if I do get the opportunity, but there's always some other way I can help anyway.

Ok, I will stop glazing myself.

 

[Vietthai96]

Oke, seriously i'm still not well enough (bad weather in my country) but i have some question regarding verse moderator solution. From what i see, verse moderator gonna get a pseudo-TM power that limited to specific verse:

1. Not everyone support a single verse, so how do we deal with this?
2. Verse that already have mod who have voting right

There are issues too

1. So as Bambu have said, we can't carelessly giving out verse mod. That mean we need to monitoring individual to see potential person for the position, discussion between high-ranking staff to give out the position, then again you can't just disappear after that, you still need to monitoring the verse mod to see if they doing their job properly so they don't abuse power, and revoke their position in case they do something wrong, which requires another discussion

2. Evaluation of the thread with verse mod is also another issue. Verse mod is pretty much non-factor to me, because why, it could be somewhat easier if no one contesting with verse mod, but what happened when we have a contention?. Mod still need to step in and evaluate it. Thread mod, me personally can't just jump in and "hey this guy is a verse mod so he is likely more accurate so let side with him" without actually checking some stuff at least

3. Obscure, unpopular verses with absolutely 1 to 3 supporting members?. For example, Azur Lane verse which is already on our wiki, only have 2 supporting members, 1 is me and other is Jamesthetaker. How do we use verse moderator solution on these verses?, for these kinds of verse, verse mod have almost total control on how the verse is present in the wiko at least, that mean in order to counter biasness, we still need mod evaluation

So from my view, it sound good on paper, but is almost, forgive my language, bad in practice. On paper it sound like it gonna lessen the burden for staff, but in truth, it add more job to them, it reduce the evaluation effort but increases the moderation effort because staff need to spend time to moderating verse mod. It is also exchange quality with quantity, you potentially get more thread accepted, but in turn also potentially reduce the accuracy of the accepted contents, which also in turn, more job for staff since they also potentially need to re-evaluate them in a potential future thread

The only place it could help is self-evident thread that need no evaluation, but if it need no evaluation, why not just add it directly to the profile?. And if in case self-evident, straight-forward thread somehow get extreme contention between member, that thread again still require the presence of staff, so.......

 

[Shadowslash125]

Snip

We should try and impose limits to a verse for VMs. Like say how many VMs should be there for a verse. Thinking of a few prerequisites like how many supporters must be there in a verse to warrant a certain amount of VMs, or how many staff members already supports a verse. Ideally, VMs should be given to verses that either lack a staff supporter and/or those that have a relatively small amount of supporters (not extremely small like 2/3 supporters). Also, VMship should also be given to the lesser-known verses rather than ones with already manageable manpower.

EDIT: I recommend a VM only be allowed to represent one verse.

 

[Shadowslash125]

Also, what does everyone make of solution 1 and 4? They may or may not affect anything, but it's something (???)

The FinePoint method wasn't meant to be hitting quotas, or anything of that sort. I was in the mindset that if everyone can try like FinePoint, the workload that's drowning staff alike can be alleviated somewhat. This obviously isn't meant to force staff to work on verses or at a pace they're unable to evaluate due to their reasons. Evaluating in an orderly fashion makes having to track things easier is what I'm trying to say.

The Solution 4 is meant for communication between staff and users. Like how Jamesthetaker has mentioned here, it can be used to notify users that this staff is busy, or only evaluates certain verses. While this may not help in the acceleration of crts being develop, I figure that it'd be able to somewhat reduce the frustration due to the fact that the staff are human beings as well. A good example is like Armorchompy's wall or even Bambu's one. The openness of one's walls can be like Dalesean's (or downscale it, depending on your privacy).

 

[Antvasima]

For any constructive results, I think that we should switch track on this thread to strictly focus on the issues that our staff members here have discussed after First Witch gave their suggestion. To be blunt, the issues mentioned in the original post of this thread are not nearly comparatively relevant, and I think that they have already been addressed here previously.

 

[Shadowslash125]

For any constructive results, I think that we should switch track on this thread to strictly focus on the issues that our staff members here have discussed after First Witch gave their suggestion. To be blunt, the issues mentioned in the original post of this thread are not nearly comparatively relevant, and I think that they have already been addressed here previously.

And the other solutions? They might not make as much progress as increasing manpower, but try thinking of them as quality of life changes (???).

 

[Antvasima]

As far as I recall, you mostly focused on assigning blame and making unreasonable demands on people who are working for no pay to help others, rather than acknowledge that they are drowning in work here, which isn't a constructive approach, so please let us continue to discuss whether we can figure out any sensible and realistic solutions without interfering further. Thank you.

 

[Shadowslash125]

As far as I recall, you mostly focused on assigning blame and making unreasonable demands on people who are working for no pay to help others, rather than acknowledge that they are drowning in work here, which isn't a constructive approach, so please let us continue to discuss whether we can figure out any sensible and realistic solutions without interfering further. Thank you.

Am I actually being shafted out of the staff thread I made?

Joking aside, first off, those were the problems and arguments of the OP post, which in hindsight wasn't the right way to have put it. I even issued an apology here after actually getting to know the circumstances and povs of the VSBW staff. Even after bringing up those 'things', my solutions even acknowledged that there's not much we can do about these circumstances, and are tailor-made to bring change in even the smallest ways possible. I tried to explain my solutions as to not be as intrusive as possible here, but if it genuinely gives more trouble than it should, then by all means point it out for me so that I can improve upon it or something.

I may not be much, but as a supporter of a niche verse that have these problems (no, I'm not blaming the staff this time, pls put your guns down), I can provide my perspective on the other proposed solutions as unbiased and as objectively as possible.

TLDR: I want to help too, even if how I do it has been misguided.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I apologise if I was too harsh here, but this is an extremely important issue that we need to properly evaluate any potentially reasonable solutions to, and I have the impression that you are currently interfering in that purpose with mostly irrelevant posts. So I think that it would be best if you step back and let us continue here. Thank you.

 

[Shadowslash125]

If you say so. I doubt y'all need it, but if you need a perspective from a niche verse supporter, I'm here.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for being reasonable.

Also, Random-Helper323 and I are currently talking in private about a potential suggestion for how we can more efficiently increase our staff manpower, but it would require active help from our current administrators and discussion moderators.

 

[FinePoint]

Thank you for being reasonable.

Also, Random-Helper323 and I are currently talking in private about a potential suggestion for how we can more efficiently increase our staff manpower, but it would require active help from our current administrators and discussion moderators.

Well if it's a new idea then please share with the class.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that I can just mention my thoughts so far about the issue I mentioned above here already. Maybe other staff members can refine my rough outline into something workable?

Basically, would our current administrators and discussion moderators be willing to attempt to coach members they think seem promising in areas of rational thinking, reasonable unbiased mindset, regulated temperament, and helpfulness and reliablility, by giving them instructions and testing how well they can evaluate different content revision threads?

If those members pass the tests so to say, they can write applications in which they give examples for what they are capable of in a manner similar to what I think FinePoint suggested here earlier, to make it easier for our current staff members to evaluate them, rather than having to go by memories alone, so we avoid staff recruitment survey situations like most recently, when we had several new candidates and had to reject almost all of them due to insufficient input/familiarity with them from our current staff.

However, this would be focused on gradually finding full discussion moderators, not merely verse moderators, which seems like more constructively spent work.

And we can obviously combine that suggestion with a new "self-evident content revisions" forum.

 

[FinePoint]

To speak on this: it is my opinion, still, that this role is an unfeasible option. There are a lot of variables that render it so.

Obviously I'm very open to modifications and new ideas, but I do feel like something's gotta give.

If we're too afraid to make any change I fear that the wiki will only continue to get worse until it's entirely unreliable.

That is to say, I appreciate everyone taking this discussion seriously, and I hope that we end up trying something rather than nothing, even if that option doesn't end up being perfectly comfortable with no risks.

 

[FinePoint]

Basically, would our current administrators and thread moderators be willing to attempt to coach members they think seem promising in areas of rational thinking, reasonable unbiased mindset, regulated temperament, and being helpful and reliable, by giving them instructions and testing how well they can evaluate different content revision threads?

In the short-term, this would obviously slow things down even more as we'd then have to split our time between actually doing revisions and coaching.

Though, in the long-term, I could definitely see how it could eventually pay off with more total staff members.

So, I don't hate that idea either, but another problem is if we think these skills can just be taught like that. I'm not entirely certain.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I was more thinking that basic instructions would be given to members who already seem suitable, after which they are tested a bit with evaluating content revision threads for verses they are unfamiliar with, and if they pass those tests, they can then write simple applications in which they describe and link to what they have done, so our current staff can much more easily evaluate each of them during staff recruitment surveys, as currently it has been very hard to promote competent but less well-known members.

I can also look through my old list of candidates that were rejected merely due to insufficient input and ask our current administrators and discussion moderators if they are willing to test them a bit.

 

[FinePoint]

Well, I was more thinking that basic instructions would be given to members who already seem suitable, after which they are tested a bit with evaluating content revision threads for verses they are unfamiliar with, and if they pass those tests, they can then write simple applications in which they describe and link to what they have done, so our current staff can much more easily evaluate each of them during staff recruitment surveys, as currently it has been very hard to promote competent but less well-known members.

I can also look through my old list of candidates that were rejected merely due to insufficient input and ask our current administrators and discussion moderators if they are willing to test them a bit.

I see. That could definitely work then. Probably not as a fix for this entire issue, but at least to fix the 'nobody knows them' part of our current hiring process.