Admins & Moderators on CRTs: The Most Controversial Staff Thread

[Apex_Predator_GX]

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

My proposal is meant to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Some small verses can still involve higher tiers or controversial topics, while others are straightforward and unlikely to cause disputes. In those non-controversial cases, one thread mod should be enough.

 

[Naito-desu]

I think a comprehensive discussion with a single mod might be one case where I can foresee one mod vote being enough but this would require a genuine back-and-forth with all bases covered and even then, I still feel you'd need a second set of eyes anyway to give the go-ahead.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

I think a comprehensive discussion with a single mod might be one case where I can foresee one mod vote being enough but this would require a genuine back-and-forth with all bases covered and even then, I still feel you'd need a second set of eyes anyway to give the go-ahead.

I understand the concern, but my point is that some cases are so straightforward that requiring multiple approvals may not add meaningful value. A case-by-case approach would preserve supervision while keeping the process proportional to the situation.

In those instances, a single qualified staff member can be sufficient, as the risk of error is minimal.

I must clarify that my proposals don't dispute the value of collective judgement in general. It questions whether collective judgement is always necessary, even for simple, uncontroversial, and self-evident cases. I understand that a certain level of scrutiny is important, and at the same time, I hope my point can also be considered.

What I had in mind was the possibility of creating a list of verses that are not controversial, do not reach Tier 2, and don’t involve controversial powers or abilities. In those cases, it seemed reasonable that one mod could be enough for straightforward matters, while still requiring multiple staff mods for Tier 1 or more complex topics.

I’m just trying to offer ideas that could help make the process smoother in some situations.

 

[Naito-desu]

I feel like for more comprehensive stuff you'd need a genuine back and forth and then another to approve the changes listed out to the first mod.

And since self-evident and simple crts need only one mod vote anyway so I'm not sure if we genuinely need to make an exception

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

I feel like for more comprehensive stuff you'd need a genuine back and forth and then another to approve the changes listed out to the first mod.

And since self-evident and simple crts need only one mod vote anyway so I'm not sure if we genuinely need to make an exception

I received permission from Dalesean027 to post this reply for the sake of transparency.

I think there’s a small misunderstanding. I’m not proposing an exception, but a way to better distinguish between controversial and non-controversial verses, where straightforward cases could reasonably have a lighter process without affecting quality control.

Btw, since I’m not a staff member, it’s difficult for me to keep up with the discussion by constantly asking for permission to reply to every point. I’ve shared my proposals in case anyone is willing to take them into account. I hope that the conversation continues to develop in a good way.

Thank you for your attention.

 

[Shadowslash125]

controversial and non-controversial verses

Should be here, though funnily enough, it hasn't officially passed yet for some reason. I also have to use my staff perms I got in a bit, so...

Popular/Controversial Verses and the Determination Thereof

I mentioned this idea here when (at least one) user(s) complained that guidelines on what constitutes a popular verse wasn't clear, in regards to requiring a greater staff presence to pass CRTs. I am not aiming to create specific guidelines, that they are vague leaves it to our judgement rather...

vsbattles.com

 

[Thermor]

Bump?

 

[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?

So about this...

And should I add any suggestion or suggestions to my list?

 

[Flashlight237]

I'm of the opinion that certain types of CRTs should involve Calc Groupers, and by that, I mean specifically ones dedicated to calcs. My reasoning for this pretty much sums up to "Well, we're math men."

That said, I do find it dumb that Content Mods aren't allowed to vote on CRTs considering, you know, their whole job is to make sure content on the Wiki is legit.

 

[Naito-desu]

Yeah to be honest I thought it'd be the other way around cause Thread Mods handle threads while Content Mods handle Wiki Content so you'd think the Content Mods would be the ones concerned about changes

 

[Epyriel]

Permission granted by @Mr. Bambu

I'm of the opinion that certain types of CRTs should involve Calc Groupers, and by that, I mean specifically ones dedicated to calcs. My reasoning for this pretty much sums up to "Well, we're math men."

I think this speaks of a broader issue that threads that deal with competing calculations by our existing rules are supposed to be handled as a Calc Group Discussion Thread and evaluated by CGMs, but are far too often instead simply posted as generic CRTs like this and evaluated by Thread Mods instead of CGMs.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That said, I do find it dumb that Content Mods aren't allowed to vote on CRTs considering, you know, their whole job is to make sure content on the Wiki is legit.

Yeah to be honest I thought it'd be the other way around cause Thread Mods handle threads while Content Mods handle Wiki Content so you'd think the Content Mods would be the ones concerned about changes

That is misinterpreting what the job and qualifications of a content and thread moderator are.
A look at the respective pages clears things up:
A content moderator is responsible for dealing with the wiki content in terms of spelling, grammar and formatting. They are selected for that job and are not required to have any expertise in determining if the information on pages are correct. Appointment doesn't require showing good evaluation skills. In principle, you could become a content moderator while barely contributing in the forum. Their job is not to make sure "content on the Wiki is legit".
A Thread Moderator, on the other hand, must be "levelheaded, rational, responsible, objective, and reliable, with good logical reasoning and decision-making ability, and a healthy amount of experience." Their duties include to monitor threads, including CRTs, and help resolve them. Evaluating threads is part of their job.

Giving Content Mods voting rights would make little sense. It is not required for them to perform their duties and, if we gave them, we would obviously need to raise the barrier of entrance to only allow content moderators who have the necessary skills to evaluate CRTs well. Meaning, such a change would require us to review our current content moderators, demote any who don't have the needed qualification, and in the future be more critical for content moderator appointments. The result is fewer staff.
On the contrary, if you believe that a content moderator has the skills to reliably evaluate threads well, then they can simply be promoted to be content moderators and thread moderators simultaneously. There is no rule that you can't be both and they are often on the list of promotion candidates.

Overall, if you know content moderators who you think do a really good job evaluating CRTs tell your local Bureaucrat and they might soon become candidates for Thread Moderator promotion.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk is correct, although content moderators' main responsibility is to help with edit-patrolling in our wiki to prevent vandalism, and they also to help with unlocking and locking pages, fixing formatting errors, and similar issues.

 

[First_Witch]

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

Chiming in a last time to argue that this barely going to do anything to elevate the issue and that you may as well can the whole idea if a discussion mod or above still has to evaluate such threads.

2 Situations will arise assuming the sub-forum is used as quoted above; The Staff member in question either takes their time looking through the thread or they don't. If they do, then you are back to square 1: Time wasted on things that frankly dont need the time. And you still rely on a mod that has the time in the first place, so its not even a effective way to destress the system. All you are doing is make the current problem just slightly better. Not worth the effort to define rules for minor CRT's and a whole new sub-fourm.

In case that the mod in question dosn't take their time reading the thread then virtually nothing changes between approval and no approval. You now simply have a poor sod to point at when he approves things he shoudnt have.

My proposal was to destress the system by making mods not implicated in the whole process, but rather only when it becomes necessary (For example when the nature of the CRT being minor becomes debateable). We have thousands of blue names walking this wiki, thats free labour in such a system. Blue names involving themselve in minor CRT's they find disagreeable can always involve mods to prevent questionable CRT from being concluded. Thats why grace periods both for the conclusion AND the inclusion into profiles exist.

Honestly, either do it the way I proposed and tweak details you don't like or don't, because you would be undertaking a project with little payoff. If the Staff body decides to still do it the way Ant has outlined and I have quoted above then do continue, you're not making the wiki worse. I just believe the payoff is going to be not worth it at the end.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Chiming in a last time to argue that this barely going to do anything to elevate the issue and that you may as well can the whole idea if a discussion mod or above still has to evaluate such threads.

2 Situations will arise assuming the sub-forum is used as quoted above; The Staff member in question either takes their time looking through the thread or they don't. If they do, then you are back to square 1: Time wasted on things that frankly dont need the time. And you still rely on a mod that has the time in the first place, so its not even a effective way to destress the system. All you are doing is make the current problem just slightly better. Not worth the effort to define rules for minor CRT's and a whole new sub-fourm.

In case that the mod in question dosn't take their time reading the thread then virtually nothing changes between approval and no approval. You now simply have a poor sod to point at when he approves things he shoudnt have.

My proposal was to destress the system by making mods not implicated in the whole process, but rather only when it becomes necessary (For example when the nature of the CRT being minor becomes debateable). We have thousands of blue names walking this wiki, thats free labour in such a system. Blue names involving themselve in minor CRT's they find disagreeable can always involve mods to prevent questionable CRT from being concluded. Thats why grace periods both for the conclusion AND the inclusion into profiles exist.

Honestly, either do it the way I proposed and tweak details you don't like or don't, because you would be undertaking a project with little payoff. If the Staff body decides to still do it the way Ant has outlined and I have quoted above then do continue, you're not making the wiki worse. I just believe the payoff is going to be not worth it at the end.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I think creating a space that is specifically for very quick tasks will make evaluation go faster for these tasks. It requires less of an investment on the behalf of the staff member. It doesn't create more time, sure, but it ensures that invested time frees up more "space", since these threads only require the one staff member anyways.

I don't agree with your proposal. I want staff members to have less work, sure, but the work is necessary to assure accuracy, in our tenuous relationship with that word. Relenting will inevitably lead to reduced accuracy, and in this case I don't think the trade is a good one.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Bambu here.

 

[Shadowslash125]

One week and a day bump

 

[Dalesean027]

What's left?

 

[Shadowslash125]

I think we got some suggestions up and agreed on (although there are some hiccups). What we kinda need now left is to get them actually implemented.

 

[Random-Helper323]

So about this...

And should I add any suggestion or suggestions to my list?

1, 3, 4, and 5 all sound useful.

 

[Dalesean027]

those same options seem reasonable to me as well

especially 5, those who missed out before should be given a fair shake since they basically didn't get it due to most of us simply not knowing them or what they have done

 

[ZackMoon1234]

I agree with Antvasima's 1, 3, 4, 5, 6

 

[Antvasima]

I think that 2 and particularly 6 would likely also greatly simplify our work.

We greatly need lots of reliable new discussion moderators, and I am likely out of suggestions in that regard other than returning to previous candidates who were rejected merely due to being too unknown to our current staff.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think that 2 and particularly 6 would likely also greatly simplify our work.

We greatly need lots of reliable new discussion moderators, and I am likely out of suggestions in that regard other than returning to previous candidates who were rejected merely due to being too unknown to our current staff.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I think that we greatly need to improve on our discussion moderator recruitment process, and likely our staff recruitment process in general, so it is not so dependent on myself, especially as I am not as active in our forum as I used to be, so I do not notice good new candidates as well as I used to, and I am naturally also not going to be here forever, and in case I at some point become unable to contribute much anymore, the rest of you need to become able to manage without me, so, among other things, a new sub-forum where regular members can leave their staff promotion applications for our staff members to overview, seems like a good idea.

 

[Vietthai96]

How about we limit the CRT scale itself?. Like, half of the CRT evaluation requests on my wall were for CRT with over 20 abilities addition, some even have many controversial abilities in them. Each of these CRTs took me hours just to read all. I think we need to have a stopping point before we're going to have CRTs with over hundreds of abilities, and then with controversial stats revision mixed in, not only will it scaring away staff from evaluating, but it will also tiring out staff who evaluating those CRT, potentially creating oversight in evaluation, allows inaccurate content to slipping through and make its way into official pages

Ngl here, personally speaking, i doubt anyone want to evaluate CRTs with so much content that it could eat away all their free time that they could use to enjoy something else after a long day of working or studying

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

How about we limiting the CRT scale itself?. Like, half of CRT evaluation requests on my wall was CRT with over 20 abilities addition, some even have many controversial abilities in them, each of these CRTs tooks me hours just to read all. I think we need to have a stopping point before we're going to have CRTs with over hundreds of abilities, and then with controversial stats revision mixed in, not only it scaring away staff from evaluating, but also tiring out staff who evaluating those CRT, potentially creating oversight in evaluation, allows inaccurate contents slipping through and make their ways into official pages

Ngl here, personally speaking, i doubt anyone want to evaluate CRTs so many contents that it could eat away all their free time that they could use to enjoy something else after a long day of working or studying

Yeah, we should definitely try to avoid making content revisions that are ZaStando levels of bloated and disorganized.

I think that 2 and particularly 6 would likely also greatly simplify our work.

We greatly need lots of reliable new discussion moderators, and I am likely out of suggestions in that regard other than returning to previous candidates who were rejected merely due to being too unknown to our current staff.

Also to clarify any misunderstandings. I meant numbers 2 and 6 both look good proposals for me here.

 

[Random-Helper323]

I can concur with this one. When I take a look at a CRT about AP and then find a list of twenty abilities they want to add as well, it makes the CRT a lot harder and more time consuming to evaluate.

 

[FinePoint]

How about we limit the CRT scale itself?. Like, half of the CRT evaluation requests on my wall were for CRT with over 20 abilities addition

I wouldn't be entirely opposed to that.

I've seen people do really large CRTs before in parts, and really appreciated that.

Coming up with an exact standard might be difficult, though.

 

[Antvasima]

I still think that this is such an extremely important discussion that our staff members should evaluate it ourselves at this point, without comments from other members here, unless a regular member has something incredibly important and insightful to add.

 

[Antvasima]

How about we limit the CRT scale itself?. Like, half of the CRT evaluation requests on my wall were for CRT with over 20 abilities addition, some even have many controversial abilities in them. Each of these CRTs took me hours just to read all. I think we need to have a stopping point before we're going to have CRTs with over hundreds of abilities, and then with controversial stats revision mixed in, not only will it scaring away staff from evaluating, but it will also tiring out staff who evaluating those CRT, potentially creating oversight in evaluation, allows inaccurate content to slipping through and make its way into official pages

Ngl here, personally speaking, i doubt anyone want to evaluate CRTs with so much content that it could eat away all their free time that they could use to enjoy something else after a long day of working or studying

I do not mind, but we need more staff input first.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

What do you think about the suggestions that Vietthai and I mentioned above?

 

[Shadowslash125]

Are you actually kidding me right now? I put my 2 cents from the perspective of the average vsbw user and as a supporter of a niche verses, and all I get is my post getting deleted because apparently I need to have some tag signifying that I'm a staff just so that my words are considered "useful" now? I honestly feel like this is dodging the problem of taking into account every verse rather than just the ones that are prevalent at the moment. I'd rather have my post be dismantled harshly than for it to just be swept under the rug in favour of just one side of the coin.
Let me guess, this post is also gonna get done the same way too, right?

 

[Antvasima]

Look, we have some extremely important issues concerning our community as a whole for our staff members to first focus on making decisions about right now, and cannot constantly be derailed by yourself or others, or we won't ever be able to get anything done here. I think that I have repeatedly previously given you official staff instructions to not interfere any further. After our staff are completely finished here (which unfortunately could take months at our current pace), you can bring up whatever your concerns are again.

Or you can continue to interfere, in which case we will likely have no other options than to prevent you from responding to this particular thread at all.

 

[Naito-desu]

I really don't trust that limiting CRT scale is going to improve response times because it's still the circus of getting people to respond. It's still gonna be people slavishly throwing themselves at staff walls because they have multiple CRTs to pass through instead of one, and now in stereo because they're bypassing the suggestion to shorten everything by doing what would normally be done en masse in multiple bite-sized posts.

 

[Naito-desu]

Alright so reflecting on this, this are the two things we need to balance:

• Maintaining content quality and accuracy through directly verifying proposed changes from users by moderators
• Ensuring the application process remains convenient and efficient enough for regular users who want to apply proposed changes

That's kind of the balance because if you prioritize one, you neglect the other. I think some of the current proposals help compromise on these but I believe that there are other aspects to the process that can be addressed with specific interventions that help mitigate the issues presented by the current process:

• CRT proposals are a poor indicator of the changes being proposed because what's being proposed is often not the final proposal because of contentions or arguments against it. This means that the moderator is being forced to navigate subsequent arguments, often without an accompanying summary that explains the position of the people involved. This scatters the information and deters moderators from attempting to resolve the debate or approve changes.
• If users want a more convenient and less grating system of approval, I believe that changes should put the onus on them to put in more effort to make this easier for moderators, and I know a lot of users already put in the time and effort into their content revision proposals, but the current format needs to be improved upon to make its main points easier to understand. This can be in the form of some summary document or a tl;dr of the discussion that the moderator can look at. Other suggestions would be appreciated.
• Reminder that moderators do this work unpaid and on their own time so there isn't an expectation that they will do this quickly, but the format of proposals can be improved in a way that makes the workload easier to get through at least, because I do believe the current format does not really give them a good picture of what they're supposed to evaluate or approve.
• I am not necessarily opposed to limiting the number of changes being made on a post, but doing this broadly might just prompt multiple bite-sized threads instead. I believe to make it more efficient and digestible, we might perhaps consider a more standardized format of a revision proposal akin to a checklist that moderators can use to sign off on smaller changes.
• Organizing changes between 'uncontroversial', meaning changes with no real contentions from regular supporters, and 'controversial' meaning changes with real discussion and debate among regular supporters can also help divide the workload between what might require just a glance and what might require a deeper analysis of the positions stated

I understand that some of this might require a major overhaul and effort though, so these aren't serious suggestions but I am contributing my two cents to hopefully make more fruitful discussion of how to improve the flow of a content revision proposal.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Premssion granted by @Reiner04
I would like to comment that limiting the CRT size is unlikely to make any progress toward getting more CRTs evaluated, and even less for uncommon verses, but it wil however, solve the issue of people sneaking stuff into longer CRTs that other vise would not be accepted. (So in short, it will make it easier to verify everything, and decrease the chance of missing something, but not help out with evaluating more CRTs)

 

[FinePoint]

Premssion granted by @Reiner04
I would like to comment that limiting the CRT size is unlikely to make any progress toward getting more CRTs evaluated, and even less for uncommon verses, but it wil however, solve the issue of people sneaking stuff into longer CRTs that other vise would not be accepted. (So in short, it will make it easier to verify everything, and decrease the chance of missing something, but not help out with evaluating more CRTs)

Yeah, I don't think it solves the problem of this thread really, but would be a nice quality of life change for the staff.

Again though, we'd need to be very careful about how we word a rule like that. We'd probably end up more with just a suggestion along the lines of breaking up large CRTs into parts where sensible.

 

[Shadowslash125]

Weekly Bump

 

[Dalesean027]

Where are we sitting right now with stuff that's already been agreed upon, bit confused as to what exactly is happening here now after we've already had several staff agree to specifc suggestions or options that were lined out?

Is there something specifc that we're waiting on?