Admins & Moderators on CRTs: The Most Controversial Staff Thread

[Antvasima]

Yes, and it can hopefully lead to many more suggested candidates as well, but like I said, our current staff members need to be willing to actively help out with this task if it is going to work.

 

[AKM sama]

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.

I like this idea. To be blunt, this problem cannot be solved. Because it has not been solved in the last (almost) 15 years. There is a perpetual shortage of staff members because our userbase is big, the number of CRTs are huge and only a small percentage of people seem driven and capable enough to tackle them. Most of our userbase is mostly interested in making small changes pertaining to their verses. And this small group of people are tasked with evaluating such a large pool of threads. If you ask me, no matter what solution you implement, the problem just won't go away. I guess, it's part of the parcel. It's hard to find people to spend time on verses they don't affiliate with, and even if we do find them, they eventually burn out.

The obvious answer may seem "hire more", but we still need quality over quantity and I'd take accuracy over speed any day. Recruiting too many people will have us compromising on accuracy in the long run because most people can't keep the bias at bay, consciously or subconsciously. And more staff members will just make the already popular verses move faster, not necessarily solve the problem of niche verses, as people who dwell on those aren't many or aren't very active on other threads, or they don't cover all niche verses. But, if the problem can be reduced, that's also good. I think Ant's suggestion will help in getting people promoted more quickly, which might help alleviate the issue. This will not solve the problem completely and you'd still have threads in a bump-loop, but if we keep up this practice it might reduce it a little bit.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that if we put what I suggested into system, it can potentially reduce the problem quite a lot, but obviously not completely.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

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.

The conditions I mentioned in that post were my offer of "something giving". Verse Mods could work if their work is very public (large verses only, where we absolutely would want a dedicated staff member to free up some work resources for other staff), and if they either A. come with the explicit approval of an upper staff member (not that I don't trust people like you, Fine), or go through a process basically similar to our current staff recruitment method.

I like this idea. To be blunt, this problem cannot be solved. Because it has not been solved in the last (almost) 15 years. There is a perpetual shortage of staff members because our userbase is big, the number of CRTs are huge and only a small percentage of people seem driven and capable enough to tackle them. Most of our userbase is mostly interested in making small changes pertaining to their verses. And this small group of people are tasked with evaluating such a large pool of threads. If you ask me, no matter what solution you implement, the problem just won't go away. I guess, it's part of the parcel. It's hard to find people to spend time on verses they don't affiliate with, and even if we do find them, they eventually burn out.

The obvious answer may seem "hire more", but we still need quality over quantity and I'd take accuracy over speed any day. Recruiting too many people will have us compromising on accuracy in the long run because most people can't keep the bias at bay, consciously or subconsciously. And more staff members will just make the already popular verses move faster, not necessarily solve the problem of niche verses, as people who dwell on those aren't many or aren't very active on other threads, or they don't cover all niche verses. But, if the problem can be reduced, that's also good. I think Ant's suggestion will help in getting people promoted more quickly, which might help alleviate the issue. This will not solve the problem completely and you'd still have threads in a bump-loop, but if we keep up this practice it might reduce it a little bit.

Out of curiosity, did you read the other suggestions not in the OP? I know the thread is rapidly lengthening but I am interested in your thoughts on those (not to be petty, but chiefly am I interested in your thoughts of simply allowing people to apply for a staff position, to offer their "resumes" so that we might find people we would otherwise have passed over).

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

AKM sama is correct, we would sooner (And/or more likely) promote our best Thread/Content Mods into Admins, promote our best Admins into Super Moderators, and possibly even select more Super Moderator(s) into Bureaucrats than we would increase our number of staff. Or in Antvasima's ideas about something requiring Bureaucrat approval could be extended to say Super Moderators can do some of the same things. Which wouldn't resolve the issue either; though it could give already existing staff more powers to evaluate bigger stuff, but there also lies the issue. Sometimes, you'd think promoting staff would make them more active, but often times the stress of having more responsibilities is among the main driving forces of them becoming less active (Besides RL stuff obviously). Quality over quantity is indeed a priority, especially when there have been too many cases of people pretending to be hardworking or well meaning contributors. They initially showcased good input skills or what looked like them, but when they got their promotions, they ended up either dipping in activity or U-turn into being the biggest "Agenda scalers" on the platform who either want nothing more than their absolute favorite verses to dominate their rival verses or just downgrade for the sake of downgrade because their agenda is something along the lines of "Realism obsession" or "Ludonarrative dissonance" among other things.

But all in all, it is indeed an issue that cannot be fixed. But some of the ideas of either anyone from any staff position is allowed to approve revisions that are simple or basic, such as adding Fire Manipulation as an ability that doesn't change stats. Those sound like things I wouldn't mind too much instead of having to message at least one Thread Moderator to approve something so basic.

Edit: It's also worth mentioning that our high demand for translation helpers are higher than ever, but there aren't enough people versed on the Japanese, Chinese, or Korean languages. Especially Japanese.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Permission from @Dalesean027 to comment.

Coming out of the woodwork as I saw this thread while scrolling, and wanted to leave a few thoughts I had myself to add to this. Apologies, also, if this is coming out of nowhere.

First, I’d like to thank @Shadowslash125 for making this thread. Before I went inactive here for my own personal reasons, back then, I had actually thought of making a similar thread to address the concerns with the process of Staff-CRT evaluation myself. But I had never really found the opportunity to make this at length, so I thank you for bringing attention to these issues, and in a much better comprehensive way than I could’ve. I won’t weigh too much into this, especially as a non-staff member, as a lot of issues were already brought up. What id like to say is most likely just a sub-set of something already mentioned, also. But there is something I’d like to still bring up to add to this discussion.

I’ll get right to the point. On top of what Shadowslash already explained, I think another problem that arises from the lack of staff evaluating CRTs is that this creates, at least a disingenuous, and at worst dangerous, precedent for improper evaluations to be taking place, dismissing potential concerns that get brought up concerning different verses that never really meet the light of day. And in the process, makes any potential job for a staff member that much harder.

An example of this that I personally experienced in a former thread I made was this Ben 10 / Alien X thread I created in the past. Ben 10 being (somewhat) a more popular series than the typical niche verse #25.

To make my point clear, the end results are not the problem I’m speaking about. Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, the thread happened & it was rejected. The results spoke. That’s fine. However, the issue I want to bring forward is HOW this thread went down, & how this speaks more to what the OP spoke about & other potential concerns. 2 glaring ones in particular.

The first problem, of course, is the huge lack of staff members taking part in evaluating. Looking at the voting difference alone, you can see the vast majority of people contributing were non-staff users. A number of staff I can count on one hand, exactly 5, participated in this entire thread. In an almost 10 page thread I might add. What’s even more problematic here is that a larger number of staff actually acknowledged this thread’s existence, but never in any capacity participated themselves. This one single comment, early into page 1, got a number of likes from users thats about 2x larger than the total people who even participated in the thread. And out of those people, 7 other staff members, who could have given input in the process, didn’t touch the thread outside of liking this comment.

The second glaring problem? Out of the 5 staff members who did contribute at the time, 2-3 of them are supporters of the verse the thread is speaking about, & are also administrator level staff (whom, AFAIK, hold the “priority” when it comes to evaluations). Now, obviously, I am not saying that users are explicitly biased or hold agendas against specific CRT threads involving upgrades or downgrades. And i’m also not suggesting staff members need to be forced into contributing to verses they have little to no interest in, while already doing what’s pretty much volunteer work. The OP speaks about this at length already, and I’m sure the replies here since then have as well.

That being said, it should really go without saying here that people are naturally going to have a bigger-bias towards the verses they are supporters for, whether you’re a staff-user or not. And in the case of wanting to achieve genuine evaluations for CRT’s, things like this are part of the big on-going problems with how they’re to be handled. My thread in particular being an example.

Regardless of the results of a thread being accepted/rejected, right or wrong, the process of how it reaches those results can be better. For a thread to be noticed & ignored by a larger number of staff-users, than the very ones who did contribute, without offering any level of contribution is obviously not okay. Especially when threads like this are guaranteed to be indirectly sabotaged from the very beginning, making the very effort of making the CRT pointless from the start. And when I say “indirectly sabotaged”, in other words, this is me saying the result of the thread being fixed before the thread even starts as a result of the user, small staff & expected voting difference. Unintentional of course. As my thread demonstrates, theres going to be situations where one person attempts to present their case to a larger group of people, pretty much being that one small fish in a big pond of users who either have an echo-chamber, herd mentality, or grouped consensus, of arguments they think is right vs what the one person believes is wrong. Whether it’s an upgrade, a downgrade, an ability removal, an ability addition, etc. With a small number of staff to help manage the whole revision process to begin with, we regular users are forced to rely on each other for the bigger part of getting things done. And when one person is up against a group of users who are supporters of a verse, their arguments don’t have a leveled-playing field to be presented & are guaranteed to never see the light of day in getting a genuine revision process, when X side who opposes it starts off with the advantage of bigger voting numbers, FRA trains, getting standards revised such as discussion rules, & among other things.

This is even more apparent when staff members are apart of the latter & oppose the one user trying to present their case, shortening the already small required staff evaluations.

As for other concerns, another problem I can muster up that may contribute to the lack of staff evaluations may also be because of the length of the very thread itself. Particularly the more controversial ones for the more popular, well-known verses. As others have said here already, staff members do this as a hobby. Volunteer work among their busy IRL schedules & responsibilities. With the tendency of popular threads reaching multiple pages of discussion and (needless) back & forth, some going beyond a number of double digits, it should go without saying that many staff possibly get discouraged from evaluating these threads when many pages of points have been made prior to their participation. And assessing all of them, within the free time they have to contribute to the wiki, is difficult to say the least.

Obviously, like @Mr.Bambu and im sure others have said, there are no right answers to completely fix this problem, and not every scenario similar to my case are cases in bad faith. But this is something I took concern with in the past that, seeing this thread being made, I wanted to bring forward for everyone to acknowledge.

One solution I did want to briefly suggest to be discussed is that, to possibly cut down on staff members workload, and to make threads effectively compile important discussion points without growing to be too large at length, should we try somehow enforcing CRT arguments to be contained within 1-2 pages of a thread? And then leave voting to be done after both sides cases have been presented as much as possible? I could go into more detail of how this suggestion could work, but alas, who am I to speak more on this?

This will most likely be my only comment to be made here. Just wanted to make my thoughts known. If this is something that was later covered, then you can dismiss or delete this. I’ll leave this up to the discretion of staff. Thank you.

 

[Reiner04]

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.

This looks like a fine idea to me. I remember there being quite a few candidates in the previous surveys whom I found to be just as capable as, or even better than myself. they likely didn't make the cut simply because they weren't as well known. But yeah, with this staff members would be able to evaluate them more efficiently.

 

[FinePoint]

Should we try somehow enforcing CRT arguments to be contained within 1-2 pages of a thread? And then leave voting to be done after both sides cases have been presented as much as possible? I could go into more detail of how this suggestion could work, but alas, who am I to speak more on this?

And what if a CRT genuinely needs more than two pages of discussion to reach a proper conclusion? What's stopping one side from having multiple people flood their opinion and leave no room for counter-argument or new evidence? What if the first two pages simply miss a really important argument?

Too much debate can make a thread hard to evaluate, but there's really no way to stop that without creating a slew of even worse problems.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

And what if a CRT genuinely needs more than two pages of discussion to reach a proper conclusion? What's stopping one side from having multiple people flood their opinion and leave no room for counter-argument or new evidence? What if the first two pages simply miss a really important argument?

Too much debate can make a thread hard to evaluate, but there's really no way to stop that without creating a slew of even worse problems.

Only coming back just to clarify what I meant by this.

Of course I agree with this, I never meant for this to mean that no further discussion couldn't take place after the grace period. Obviously it can. Just to clarify, what I meant for this proposal was maybe if we could attempt to contain the most important discussion points within 1-2 thread pages, BEFORE voting can begin, so that the most important information could be reviewed and analyzed by staff, rather than them needing to continuously read through a double digit paged thread and then decide what side sways them.

Which of course, means cracking down on disallowing things like needless discussion that has nothing to do with the topic and only focusing on the most important stuff first, and anything else come voting, should be brought up later with less priority.

Basically, this is what I tried referring to:

Spoiler: My Proposal

Step 1: X user makes CRT about [insert here] arguments.

Step 2: Thread has a grace period of [insert here] to present their cases, of why X or Y should or shouldn't be applied. Side A argues their case. Side B, the opposition, gives counter arguments. This goes on until grace. Both sides give the most important discussion points pertaining to the thread topic.

Preferably, if possible, we keep arguments contained within 1-2 pages of discussion, so everything is organized and brief for staff to analyze it.

ONLY arguments. Voting doesn't start until discussion is over. Any irrelevant off topic points get dismissed.

Step 3: After grace period, voting can start.

Step 4: If further discussion is necessary (especially if more users & staff have new things to add, or if they have questions), debating can continue. Voting can get paused and restarts up when new arguments have been laid out.

This ensures a lengthy discussion, with equal opportunity for cases from both sides to be made, and for staff to weigh in, while attempting to keep threads short and not be a dozen or more pages long. Even if further discussion points get mentioned later, the most relevant information with biggest priority would already be discussed at this point.

Of course, this isn't the best solution I thought up, and if seriously considered, would need a more lengthy discussion of how this would work. But nonetheless, this was the idea I thought of for consideration, and am just clarifying what I meant.

EDIT: Something else I thought of also that could help. If a discussion needs to go beyond the grace period to reach a conclusion, this would also help distinguish the thread as needing bigger priority for more staff to weigh in on sooner rather than later.

A thread that goes beyond the specified number of pages could be marked to have larger priority, such as in the evaluation promotions thread.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Permission from @Dalesean027 to comment.

Coming out of the woodwork as I saw this thread while scrolling, and wanted to leave a few thoughts I had myself to add to this. Apologies, also, if this is coming out of nowhere.

First, I’d like to thank @Shadowslash125 for making this thread. Before I went inactive here for my own personal reasons, back then, I had actually thought of making a similar thread to address the concerns with the process of Staff-CRT evaluation myself. But I had never really found the opportunity to make this at length, so I thank you for bringing attention to these issues, and in a much better comprehensive way than I could’ve. I won’t weigh too much into this, especially as a non-staff member, as a lot of issues were already brought up. What id like to say is most likely just a sub-set of something already mentioned, also. But there is something I’d like to still bring up to add to this discussion.

I’ll get right to the point. On top of what Shadowslash already explained, I think another problem that arises from the lack of staff evaluating CRTs is that this creates, at least a disingenuous, and at worst dangerous, precedent for improper evaluations to be taking place, dismissing potential concerns that get brought up concerning different verses that never really meet the light of day. And in the process, makes any potential job for a staff member that much harder.

An example of this that I personally experienced in a former thread I made was this Ben 10 / Alien X thread I created in the past. Ben 10 being (somewhat) a more popular series than the typical niche verse #25.

To make my point clear, the end results are not the problem I’m speaking about. Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, the thread happened & it was rejected. The results spoke. That’s fine. However, the issue I want to bring forward is HOW this thread went down, & how this speaks more to what the OP spoke about & other potential concerns. 2 glaring ones in particular.

The first problem, of course, is the huge lack of staff members taking part in evaluating. Looking at the voting difference alone, you can see the vast majority of people contributing were non-staff users. A number of staff I can count on one hand, exactly 5, participated in this entire thread. In an almost 10 page thread I might add. What’s even more problematic here is that a larger number of staff actually acknowledged this thread’s existence, but never in any capacity participated themselves. This one single comment, early into page 1, got a number of likes from users thats about 2x larger than the total people who even participated in the thread. And out of those people, 7 other staff members, who could have given input in the process, didn’t touch the thread outside of liking this comment.

The second glaring problem? Out of the 5 staff members who did contribute at the time, 2-3 of them are supporters of the verse the thread is speaking about, & are also administrator level staff (whom, AFAIK, hold the “priority” when it comes to evaluations). Now, obviously, I am not saying that users are explicitly biased or hold agendas against specific CRT threads involving upgrades or downgrades. And i’m also not suggesting staff members need to be forced into contributing to verses they have little to no interest in, while already doing what’s pretty much volunteer work. The OP speaks about this at length already, and I’m sure the replies here since then have as well.

That being said, it should really go without saying here that people are naturally going to have a bigger-bias towards the verses they are supporters for, whether you’re a staff-user or not. And in the case of wanting to achieve genuine evaluations for CRT’s, things like this are part of the big on-going problems with how they’re to be handled. My thread in particular being an example.

Regardless of the results of a thread being accepted/rejected, right or wrong, the process of how it reaches those results can be better. For a thread to be noticed & ignored by a larger number of staff-users, than the very ones who did contribute, without offering any level of contribution is obviously not okay. Especially when threads like this are guaranteed to be indirectly sabotaged from the very beginning, making the very effort of making the CRT pointless from the start. And when I say “indirectly sabotaged”, in other words, this is me saying the result of the thread being fixed before the thread even starts as a result of the user, small staff & expected voting difference. Unintentional of course. As my thread demonstrates, theres going to be situations where one person attempts to present their case to a larger group of people, pretty much being that one small fish in a big pond of users who either have an echo-chamber, herd mentality, or grouped consensus, of arguments they think is right vs what the one person believes is wrong. Whether it’s an upgrade, a downgrade, an ability removal, an ability addition, etc. With a small number of staff to help manage the whole revision process to begin with, we regular users are forced to rely on each other for the bigger part of getting things done. And when one person is up against a group of users who are supporters of a verse, their arguments don’t have a leveled-playing field to be presented & are guaranteed to never see the light of day in getting a genuine revision process, when X side who opposes it starts off with the advantage of bigger voting numbers, FRA trains, getting standards revised such as discussion rules, & among other things.

This is even more apparent when staff members are apart of the latter & oppose the one user trying to present their case, shortening the already small required staff evaluations.

As for other concerns, another problem I can muster up that may contribute to the lack of staff evaluations may also be because of the length of the very thread itself. Particularly the more controversial ones for the more popular, well-known verses. As others have said here already, staff members do this as a hobby. Volunteer work among their busy IRL schedules & responsibilities. With the tendency of popular threads reaching multiple pages of discussion and (needless) back & forth, some going beyond a number of double digits, it should go without saying that many staff possibly get discouraged from evaluating these threads when many pages of points have been made prior to their participation. And assessing all of them, within the free time they have to contribute to the wiki, is difficult to say the least.

Obviously, like @Mr.Bambu and im sure others have said, there are no right answers to completely fix this problem, and not every scenario similar to my case are cases in bad faith. But this is something I took concern with in the past that, seeing this thread being made, I wanted to bring forward for everyone to acknowledge.

One solution I did want to briefly suggest to be discussed is that, to possibly cut down on staff members workload, and to make threads effectively compile important discussion points without growing to be too large at length, should we try somehow enforcing CRT arguments to be contained within 1-2 pages of a thread? And then leave voting to be done after both sides cases have been presented as much as possible? I could go into more detail of how this suggestion could work, but alas, who am I to speak more on this?

This will most likely be my only comment to be made here. Just wanted to make my thoughts known. If this is something that was later covered, then you can dismiss or delete this. I’ll leave this up to the discretion of staff. Thank you.

I'm not saying these aren't issues, but I think the example thread is a bad example? Staff being significantly outnumbered by regular users is by design, and five staff is more than enough to address most threads unless they really tread the line of acceptability (resulting in a heavy voting split, requiring progressively more staff members to show up). Five is entirely acceptable, and I don't expect any passing staff member to dedicate time to assisting a thread if it's already handled. That's time wasted, better spent elsewhere, especially since a major concern of this thread is how limited the time of evaluating staff actually is. Not every janitor needs to mop the same spot, yeah?

I also have the same concerns as Fine, limiting arguments doesn't seem like the way to go. Novel ideas may be brought up, the first two or five or ten or whatever pages may just be clogged for the sake of silencing arguments... the solution doesn't work, I reckon, in concept. I think the current meta of letting the sides argue until a lull, letting them summarize, and then getting the staff is acceptable in of itself, the problem is actually getting the staff there-- this, I feel, is what we ought to seek to fix.

Your addendum, on the other hand, makes it seem like this just wouldn't do anything. If arguments are still occurring in later pages, then staff still need to read or be directed to said arguments. I guess it would condense the first two pages a bit but I think it's a fairly minor improvement that would require enforcing, since the culture of the site is for the first 10 comments or so to be "great, i agree" or "what does blud think he's doing hell nah disagree FRB" or something to that effect. It doesn't seem worth it to police that sort of behavior in the name of maybe helping the information have less petty messages between them.

 

[Shadowslash125]

Gonna bump this.

 

[Reiner04]

Gonna bump this.

Staff threads take time, especially one like this that involves a wiki-wide change. It hasn't even been 24 hours since the last comment in the thread, so I would suggest to keep patience.

 

[BreezeHM]

Got permission from @Reiner04 to comment.

@FinePoint and @Mr. Bambu we're talking about Trial Moderators earlier, and I thought I'd give my opinion on it as a former Staff Manager (for minecraft)

Trial Moderators were individuals who submitted an application on the online forum, and after a brief interview evaluating their communication skills, reasoning ability and effort in general, were accepted onto the staff team. They had the same authority as normal moderators, but they were not sworn in the position, you could think of it as a test to see if they would be a good fit. During this trial period, staff members usually did not go out of their way to observe them, rather leaving that to the regular users for two weeks to see if we get any complaints or concerns about the user. At the end of the two week period, I view some of their actions in the logs, take input from staff and regular users, and use that information to decide if they are a good fit for the role. From my own experience, this was very effective as you could tell whether someone only had one goal of "banning cheaters" or enforcing their authority, rather than contributing to the moderation of the server as a hole. In VSB terms, this would be the equivalent of evaluating your own threads or verses you support, and moderating the threads centered around it.

If you were to ask me about if this position is necessary, I would say no. Majority of the candidates who passed the interview were already active, long-term players, or players that were vouched by staff members. Their behaviour was already widely known, and since they have observed staff members doing their duties, they already had an idea of how to perform. This led to the position becoming more of a formality, and not a position that was needed. If you were to apply this to VSB, I'm sure the interview process will be scrapped, and skipped to the trial moderator phrase. This just leads you back to where you started about selecting Thread Moderators in the first place. Overall, I don't think it would actually solve the problem.

Problem and Solution

---

There appears to be a problem with the selection process. Ant said above that during the last survey, many candidates were rejected for the Thread Moderator position because many of the staff members were unfamiliar with the candidates. Although you wouldn't want someone who is "unknown" in a position of authority, as long as a couple staff members can vouch for their character, I believe this shouldn't be a disqualifier. The wiki is broad, and people have different interests. For example, Xianxia verses are usually evaluated by the same staff members (@ActuallySpaceMan42, @Reiner04, @Vietthai96, and @Planck69) because it doesn't align with other staff members interests (not that other staff don't evaluate Xianxia, there are a couple like @Elizhaa and @FinePoint among some more). My point is that, you'd find yourself interacting with the same staff members, as such many other staff members wouldn't know of you. Even though the individual meets the standards for the appointment of the Thread Moderator position, they are held back because of their niche verse interests.

Someone above mentioned an Application Process and I believe this would be the best solution and there are a couple ways this can be done.

Google Forums Method
A google forum is released under News and Announcements noting that Staff Applications are now open for (length of time). Members answer the pre-screening questions which should be quite brief. Some examples would be questions asking for their VSB username, The individual presents how they meet the criteria of appointment, and staff members who would be willing to vouch for them. In the forum announcement, there should be a minimum requirement like message count and punishments from the warning tracker to avoid being flooded by applications. After the application has closed, staff members with sufficient authority review, and candidates who have met the criteria are put into the staff survey. There you will see if any staff members have any possible issues with the promotion of the candidate. This is a lengthy process, and involves more of a workload, so this may not be ideal based on the posts said above.

Sub-Forum Method
A sub-forum is created where members can submit their applications. Like before, The individual presents how they meet the criteria of appointment, and staff members who would be willing to vouch for them. This time, regular users can give their opinion on the candidates promotion allowing evaluating staff to see how respected they are by the community. If the individual writes a good application, and appears to have positive feedback from users, they can be added to the survey. If staff are unfamiliar with the individual, they can click on their application, and see their work and behaviour in one post. Now this method is prone to derailment from other users, who may not want the applicant to become staff simply because they don't like them, or because they "wank" verses. It may also turn toxic, which would make staff members have to come to moderate even these threads, increasing the workload. This could also just be private thread like the PRVT, although you will not be able to see the feedback from regular users.

Recommendation Method
From my understanding, when a staff member finds someone they deem suitable for the role, they tell a Bureaucrat in PM or the staff team in staff chat, and they're added to the staff survey. If the problem is staff not knowing the candidate, then all you have to do is provide an opportunity for them to be aware of the candidate. The staff member who is recommending the user, can present how they meet the criteria of appointment, or they can get the user themselves to write it and be the link that delivers it. Then in the staff survey, their application is added so the staff that are not familiar with the user have the opportunity to see for themselves. This can also be applied to people who recommend themselves using the same principle.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally prefer the solution of our staff members recommending somebody for a discussion moderator position, after which the member who was recommended writes an application in a semi-private new sub-forum, in which only they and our administrators, super moderators, and bureaucrats can see each respective staff application for evaluations, and that application should follow a predetermined rather concise format of honestly explaining their merits without exaggerations and linking to content revision evaluation and conflict mediation work that they have been engaged in here.

We should preferably provide an explanation page for this in our wiki, or probably just add a new section to our Thread Moderators page.

However, given that our staff members have generally given suggestions for new discussion moderators quite seldom, we might have to let members apply on their own instead in lack of better options.

I also have a list of members who were either not accepted due to too limited input in the past or we are currently considering, so I should probably contact them and ask them to write applications after we have finished all of our preparations.

Although we might have to make the new applications forum accessible for all staff members to read, not just the highest ranking ones, in order to simplify our later staff recruitment surveys. Maybe we can make it "read-only" except for bureaucrats and super moderators, who are supposed to evaluate which candidates that are included in the surveys?

 

[Shadowslash125]

24 hr Bump

 

[Shadowslash125]

Another 24 hr Bump (over in this case)

 

[Antvasima]

I do not think that you need to bump more than once a week or so, to avoid spam, but I would appreciate further staff input. This is a very important subject.

 

[Dalesean027]

I do not think that you need to bump more than once a week or so, to avoid spam, but I would appreciate further staff input. This is a very important subject.

I've been busy but I was gonna read through after work today, its a weekend so I'll have time now when im back home

 

[Shadowslash125]

I'd probably get side-eyes from Ant after being told off about irrelevant postings, but it should be said regardless.
Take your time. This change is big, and I understand that some time has to be given despite most people's hectic schedule. Important as it is, it shouldn't pause anything that should be done, irl or in vsbw. In the meantime, I'll be keeping close watch here and bumping it in a weekly basis, should there be no further comments.

 

[Antvasima]

I've been busy but I was gonna read through after work today, its a weekend so I'll have time now when im back home

Thank you for helping out. I would appreciate if you read through my suggestions here.

 

[Reiner04]

However, given that our staff members have generally given suggestions for new discussion moderators quite seldom, we might have to let members apply on their own instead in lack of better options.

How about we keep the first part optional (given if it still can work) and the second part as general rule?

Or Perhaps staff could select suitable candidates from the pool of applicants to undergo a trial/testing period. These candidates would be 'tested' in general content revision threads, where their activity and evaluation skills can be directly observed and evaluated by our current staffs. This would allow the members to become better known, ensure they receive more feedback on their performance, and solve the issue of low recommendations or the risk of appointing unskilled members. I am, however, uncertain about the overall efficiency of such a process.

Although we might have to make the new applications forum accessible for all staff members to read, not just the highest ranking ones, in order to simplify our later staff recruitment surveys. Maybe we can make it "read-only" except for bureaucrats and super moderators, who are supposed to evaluate which candidates that are included in the surveys?

This seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[Dalesean027]

Sub-Forum Method
A sub-forum is created where members can submit their applications. Like before, The individual presents how they meet the criteria of appointment, and staff members who would be willing to vouch for them. This time, regular users can give their opinion on the candidates promotion allowing evaluating staff to see how respected they are by the community. If the individual writes a good application, and appears to have positive feedback from users, they can be added to the survey. If staff are unfamiliar with the individual, they can click on their application, and see their work and behaviour in one post. Now this method is prone to derailment from other users, who may not want the applicant to become staff simply because they don't like them, or because they "wank" verses. It may also turn toxic, which would make staff members have to come to moderate even these threads, increasing the workload. This could also just be private thread like the PRVT, although you will not be able to see the feedback from regular users.

Recommendation Method
From my understanding, when a staff member finds someone they deem suitable for the role, they tell a Bureaucrat in PM or the staff team in staff chat, and they're added to the staff survey. If the problem is staff not knowing the candidate, then all you have to do is provide an opportunity for them to be aware of the candidate. The staff member who is recommending the user, can present how they meet the criteria of appointment, or they can get the user themselves to write it and be the link that delivers it. Then in the staff survey, their application is added so the staff that are not familiar with the user have the opportunity to see for themselves. This can also be applied to people who recommend themselves using the same principle.

I'm fine with these two methods, speaking for myself I am pretty frequently someone who ends up unfamiliar with a lot of users when recruitment drives come up and we're not really provided any material to know much about them other than just they HAD to have done something notable to even be recommended, so seeing some kind of applications or forms beforehand for those who do want that to further contribute as staff and have actual context on them would greatly help in decision making.

I do think there is merit to the kind of temp mod trial run position as well.

I also have a list of members who were either not accepted due to too limited input in the past or we are currently considering, so I should probably contact them and ask them to write applications after we have finished all of our preparations

This would be very good I think, gives them an actual fair shake at things for those who missed out before.

 

[Antvasima]

So are the following ideas worthwhile to apply?

1) A new wiki page with instructions how to write staff applications.

2) A new sub-forum with similar qualities to our private rule-violation reports forum, where regular members write applications (based on the new wiki page mentioned above) that are only visible to all of our staff members, and from which our bureaucrats and possibly our super moderators together try to select the best picks from for staff surveys.

3) Continue to encourage our current staff members to attempt to find good staff candidates to suggest to our bureaucrats. The current staff members can then write applications for the regular members in our new semi-private sub-forum, ask them to do so themselves, or they can collaborate to do so.

4) Some kind of coaching program in which our current staff members instruct regular members they think seem promising, and if the regular members seem able to properly handle the staff work, they can write an application and mention official recommendations in it.

5) I contact our past staff candidates that were only rejected due to our current staff members bekng unfamiliar with them.

6) A new sub-forum for self-evident content revisions that only require one staff member to evaluate and approve them quickly.

Or did I forget anything?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think coaching should be a formally required thing, but it may be part of that application page to request guidance from staff, or have that guidance advised if we feel an applicant is close but would benefit from it.

On Point 6, I feel I should also add that I think it should work similarly to wiki management threads. That is to say, consistent misuse of the sub-forum (e.g., inserting non-straightforward CRTs) can be considered a rule violation, since it ***** up the purpose of the board. If it is burdened with things that are not plainly obvious just by quickly looking at things, the board will lose its efficacy and these minor CRTs will suffer for it.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. That makes sense.

 

[Shadowslash125]

Quick chime in, but would there be some feedback for applicants that get rejected? So that if they take the criticism to heart and improve, we'd get more staff?

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

Hello, I received permission from DarkDragonMedeus to post this suggestion here for the sake of transparency.

I would like to suggest that CRTs for smaller or underrated verses with very few active supporters be handled by a single staff member. These threads often remain unresolved for long periods due to low participation rather than a lack of evidence. Allowing one staff member to conclude them would simplify the process and allow other staff to focus on larger, more complex revisions for more popular verses, without lowering standards.

Edit: I’m referring specifically to underrated verses that don’t involve Tier 2 or higher ratings, or particularly powerful abilities.

 

[Vietthai96]

Hello, I received permission from DarkDragonMedeus to post this suggestion here for the sake of transparency.

I would like to suggest that CRTs for smaller or underrated verses with very few active supporters be handled by a single staff member. These threads often remain unresolved for long periods due to low participation rather than a lack of evidence. Allowing one staff member to conclude them would simplify the process and allow other staff to focus on larger, more complex revisions for more popular verses, without lowering standards.

I don't think i will agree with this, just because they are smaller, underrated, obscure, and unpopular verses, doesn't mean we have to be more lenient in case of controversial topic regarding said verse such as tier 1 or powerful abilities. That bring up imbalance and unfairness

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

I don't think i will agree with this, just because they are smaller, underrated, obscure, and unpopular verses, doesn't mean we have to be more lenient in case of controversial topic regarding said verse such as tier 1 or powerful abilities. That bring up imbalance and unfairness

I didn’t mention anything about Tier 1. Also, not all smaller or underrated verses even reach that tier, and by definition, any Tier 1 verse would fall into the controversial category. I’m referring to more grounded verses where characters don’t reach the higher tiers or controversial abilities.

 

[Shadowslash125]

Hello, I received permission from DarkDragonMedeus to post this suggestion here for the sake of transparency.

I would like to suggest that CRTs for smaller or underrated verses with very few active supporters be handled by a single staff member. These threads often remain unresolved for long periods due to low participation rather than a lack of evidence. Allowing one staff member to conclude them would simplify the process and allow other staff to focus on larger, more complex revisions for more popular verses, without lowering standards.

Not a staff, but it all depends on the scope. If the crts are controversial or meaty in the sense that there's quite a lot to change, obviously just one staff isn't enough. If it's just, say, a man can summon a bike, then I don't see why not. Maintaining the same two staff vote agreement on crts of that scale just wastes more time that it should. There are suggestions of changes for self-evident crts littered around here, which meet with your suggestion.

Also, another suggestion, why not just remove the 24/48 hr grace period for self-evident crts from unpopular verses?

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

Not a staff, but it all depends on the scope. If the crts are controversial or meaty in the sense that there's quite a lot to change, obviously just one staff isn't enough. If it's just, say, a man can summon a bike, then I don't see why not. Maintaining the same two staff vote agreement on crts of that scale just wastes more time that it should. There are suggestions of changes for self-evident crts littered around here, which meet with your suggestion.

Also, another suggestion, why not just remove the 24/48 hr grace period for self-evident crts from unpopular verses?

I realize I should have clarified that I was referring specifically to underrated verses that don’t involve Tier 2 or higher ratings, or particularly powerful abilities. For example, semi-realistic verses where most characters are around Tier 9. In cases like these, it seems reasonable to require only a single staff member to handle the thread.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do not mind obscure verses below Tier 2 having relatively simple or straight forward evaluations. Though there may be cases where calc group member input may be required if there is contention on that policy.

 

[Vietthai96]

I didn’t mention anything about Tier 1. Also, not all smaller or underrated verses even reach that tier, and by definition, any Tier 1 verse would fall into the controversial category. I’m referring to more grounded verses where characters don’t reach the higher tiers or controversial abilities.

I get you mean, but personally speaking, i'm not agreeing, you could see me as strict and rigid and dislike me for this, but i believe rules should applies to everything uniformly and no exception, i can't be lenient to some verses cause they are smaller and underrated, no popular while slamming hard on popular verses, that is a bias in and of itself. I know you guys are frustrating that your CRTs get dragged on, but we staff also have our own pressure when moderating and evaluating CRTs, we are trying to be accurate when evaluating, not trying to get CRTs accepted as fast as possible. It is pointless if we just fast accepting CRT and then issues get found out later and we need to revisit them

Also, another suggestion, why not just remove the 24/48 hr grace period for self-evident crts from unpopular verses?

If i'm not wrong, according to the rule, self-evident and minor CRTs only have 24 hours grace and need only 1 thread mod vote, applies every CRTs except controversial verses CRT, so i think this is unneeded as almost all verse benefit from this, not just unpopular verse

I realize I should have clarified that I was referring specifically to underrated verses that don’t involve Tier 2 or higher ratings, or particularly powerful abilities. For example, semi-realistic verses where most characters are around Tier 9. In cases like these, it seems reasonable to require only a single staff member to handle the thread.

Not only tier, but also ability, we have a list of powerful and controversial abilities that require more than one staff vote

Also, talking about CRT, i think people focusing too much on staff problem while forgetting that CRT itself sometime also a problem, i myself experienced many CRTs that is..........ngl........extremely large with too many content need to be evaluated, either having many controversial abilities or the amount of stuff is just too large. It is actually also scares away staff from evaluating, as either they need to skim through it thus reduce the accuracy, or take time to evaluate but no one have too much time on their hand to just stick internet, and no one can force them to evaluate either, this is mostly volunteer works. So yeah i feel like the CRT aspect need to be looked at

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

I get you mean, but personally speaking, i'm not agreeing, you could see me as strict and rigid and dislike me for this, but i believe rules should applies to everything uniformly and no exception, i can't be lenient to some verses cause they are smaller and underrated, no popular while slamming hard on popular verses, that is a bias in and of itself. I know you guys are frustrating that your CRTs get dragged on, but we staff also have our own pressure when moderating and evaluating CRTs, we are trying to be accurate when evaluating, not trying to get CRTs accepted as fast as possible. It is pointless if we just fast accepting CRT and then issues get found out later and we need to revisit them

Not only tier, but also ability, we have a list of powerful and controversial abilities that require more than one staff vote

I received permission from SomebodyData to post this reply here for the sake of transparency.

I understand the concern about applying rules equally, but my suggestion is about adjusting the evaluation process to the complexity of the verse being reviewed.

Smaller, grounded verses usually don’t involve the same scaling issues or controversial mechanics as larger ones, and their CRTs often remain open due to low participation rather than difficulty. For example, requiring two staff members just to evaluate something like adding Acrobatics or another minor ability seems disproportionate. Allowing a single staff member to handle these cases would be a more practical option.

 

[Naito-desu]

I wonder if there can be a system of self-documentation for self-evident and minor changes, so the changes can pass, but then can be easily undone.

I get you mean, but personally speaking, i'm not agreeing, you could see me as strict and rigid and dislike me for this, but i believe rules should applies to everything uniformly and no exception, i can't be lenient to some verses cause they are smaller and underrated, no popular while slamming hard on popular verses, that is a bias in and of itself. I know you guys are frustrating that your CRTs get dragged on, but we staff also have our own pressure when moderating and evaluating CRTs, we are trying to be accurate when evaluating, not trying to get CRTs accepted as fast as possible. It is pointless if we just fast accepting CRT and then issues get found out later and we need to revisit them

I feel like the added time really benefits no one because I have seen CRTs get the thumbs up despite intense opposition or active debate surrounding it. We're just adding time under the guise of careful scrutiny, and this added time doesn't really deter the occurrence of post-change scrutiny, given the good amount of counter CRTs and movements to undo this. The tough reality is that mods won't know everything around every verse, and will overlook things regardless.

This isn't necessarily a call for leniency, but it is a reality of evaluating changes.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

I can agree to an extent there in that some topics will inevitably require less or more attention and thorough check-ups than others (although 2 staff members seems perfectly fair for a relatively minor addition).

 

[Vietthai96]

I received permission from SomebodyData to post this reply here for the sake of transparency.

I understand the concern about applying rules equally, but my suggestion is about adjusting the evaluation process to the complexity of the verse being reviewed.

Smaller, grounded verses usually don’t involve the same scaling issues or controversial mechanics as larger ones, and their CRTs often remain open due to low participation rather than difficulty. For example, requiring two staff members just to evaluate something like adding Acrobatics or another minor ability seems disproportionate. Allowing a single staff member to handle these cases would be a more practical option.

I think we already have rule that self-evident and minor CRT need only 1 thread mod and 24 hours grace, normal CRT need 2 thread mods, this already applying for any verses that not controversial, so unpopular, small verses already benefit from this; so i honestly don't understand the opinion, unless you want every small, underrated verse CRT that not controversial only need 1 thread mod and 24 hours grace

I wonder if there can be a system of self-documentation for self-evident and minor changes, so the changes can pass, but then can be easily undone.

I feel like the added time really benefits no one because I have seen CRTs get the thumbs up despite intense opposition or active debate surrounding it. We're just adding time under the guise of careful scrutiny, and this added time doesn't really deter the occurrence of post-change scrutiny, given the good amount of counter CRTs and movements to undo this. The tough reality is that mods won't know everything around every verse, and will overlook things regardless.

This isn't necessarily a call for leniency, but it is a reality of evaluating changes.

Ehh, i don't understand the add time part. Grace count right from the time the thread is posted, so even if the thread is 1 year old, without a single staff input, you can't apply it, but if there is staff input, technically speaking you can apply instantly after grace. So idk why it is add time, this is totally depend on staff

I can agree to an extent there in that some topics will inevitably require less or more attention and thorough check-ups than others (although 2 staff members seems perfectly fair for a relatively minor addition).

Minor CRT actually already requires only 1 thread mod and 24 hours grace except controversial verses if i'm not wrong

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We should not allow a single voice to pass threads for small verses. I foresee this causing more problems than it solves.

 

[Random-Helper323]

We should not allow a single voice to pass threads for small verses. I foresee this causing more problems than it solves.

Agreed. It defeats the whole purpose of the voting process, which is oversight and peer review.

I could possibly see a path to allowing some minor flexibility for such threads, perhaps allowing a Thread Mod or Admin to pass it if a Content Mod or maybe CGM supports it as well? This still runs into the same problem of treating verses differently and raises its own issues, of course.