Admins & Moderators on CRTs: The Most Controversial Staff Thread

[Antvasima]

Well, I would prefer if we can all agree regarding applying all of the potential solutions that I listed here earlier, as I think that some drastic measures are likely necessary to help partially resolve this problematic situation.

Although even after that, it will likely take us quite a while to get them applied, given how busy I am in general, both with wiki edit-patrolling and IRL tasks, combined with my adhd making it hard for me to organise my tasks that are not a part of my standard routines.

1) A new wiki page with instructions how to write staff applications. Help with this task would be very appreciated.

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 (instead of just our administrators and bureaucrats), and from which our bureaucrats and likely 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 being unfamiliar with them, and ask them to write applications in our new sub-forum.

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

Should I add any more numbered points?

 

[Shadowslash125]

1 week bump

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I would prefer if we can all agree regarding applying all of the potential solutions that I listed here earlier, as I think that some drastic measures are likely necessary to help partially resolve this problematic situation.

Although even after that, it will likely take us quite a while to get them applied, given how busy I am in general, both with wiki edit-patrolling and IRL tasks, combined with my adhd making it hard for me to organise my tasks that are not a part of my standard routines.

1) A new wiki page with instructions how to write staff applications. Help with this task would be very appreciated.

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 (instead of just our administrators and bureaucrats), and from which our bureaucrats and likely 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 being unfamiliar with them, and ask them to write applications in our new sub-forum.

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

Should I add any more numbered points?

Bureaucrats:

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu

Super Moderators:

@DarkDragonMedeus @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Qawsedf234

Administrators:

@SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

 

[Antvasima]

This is probably the most important discussion thread in our forum right now, and we likely need to finish it to enable future staff recruitment surveys, so I would greatly appreciate help here.

 

[Random-Helper323]

1) A new wiki page with instructions how to write staff applications. Help with this task would be very appreciated.

Seems good. The process is lacking transparency at the moment. What needs to be done with that page?

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 (instead of just our administrators and bureaucrats), and from which our bureaucrats and likely our super moderators together try to select the best picks from for staff surveys.

This might be a good idea. Although privacy could be a concern.

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.

Seems like a good idea.

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.

A better developed coaching program does seem beneficial.

5) I contact our past staff candidates that were only rejected due to our current staff members being unfamiliar with them, and ask them to write applications in our new sub-forum.

This sounds like a good idea.

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

The criteria for self-evident revisions is somewhat subjective and many people don't know whether their thread needs one or two approvals. The separate sub-forum could help resolve that. Many threads will be posted there incorrectly though, but at least we can move threads to the appropriate sub-forum.

 

[Just a Random Butler]

1) A new wiki page with instructions how to write staff applications. Help with this task would be very appreciated.

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 (instead of just our administrators and bureaucrats), and from which our bureaucrats and likely 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 being unfamiliar with them, and ask them to write applications in our new sub-forum.

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

Should I add any more numbered points?

For #1 and #2, I am fine with these, but I am a little concerned about #2. We currently have around 80 staff members (or maybe more), and I am not sure if it is ideal for that many people to be able to see a person's application. I do not think this would exactly be comfortable for the applicants. I am not against the idea of having a sub-forum where members can write applications though.

As for #3, I thought we have already been doing this to some extent, aside from the new aspect involving the proposed private sub-forum. But yes, sure.

#4 and #5, I have no problems with these.

#6, I am not opposed to this, but I expect many threads may end up being misplaced and require transferring, but maybe it's a good price to pay.

Unfortunately, I do not have any ideas that comes to mind to suggest to add to the numbered points, so I'm sorry.

 

[Antvasima]

For #1 and #2, I am fine with these, but I am a little concerned about #2. We currently have around 80 staff members (or maybe more), and I am not sure if it is ideal for that many people to be able to see a person's application. I do not think this would exactly be comfortable for the applicants. I am not against the idea of having a sub-forum where members can write applications though.

Well, I thought that it might simplify our staff recruitment surveys, but maybe we can only make that forum visible to our bureaucrats and super moderators, and let AKM copy-paste the selected applications during staff recruitment surveys instead?

As for #3, I thought we have already been doing this to some extent, aside from the new aspect involving the proposed private sub-forum. But yes, sure.

Yes, but we collectively need to make a greater effort in that regard, especially to find new discussion moderators.

#4 and #5, I have no problems with these.

#6, I am not opposed to this, but I expect many threads may end up being misplaced and require transferring, but maybe it's a good price to pay.

Well, it would probably help us out reasonably well at least.

Unfortunately, I do not have any ideas that comes to mind to suggest to add to the numbered points, so I'm sorry.

No problem at all. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Antvasima]

Seems good. The process is lacking transparency at the moment. What needs to be done with that page?

Well, somebody needs to write a draft instruction text. Then we need to refine it. And fjnally we need to post it in our wiki and link to it at the top of our new applications sub-forum.

This might be a good idea. Although privacy could be a concern.

Yes. I answered Butler about this above.

Seems like a good idea.

Thank you.

A better developed coaching program does seem beneficial.

Yes, but we need our current staff members to step up to help with it.

This sounds like a good idea.

Thank you.

The criteria for self-evident revisions is somewhat subjective and many people don't know whether their thread needs one or two approvals. The separate sub-forum could help resolve that. Many threads will be posted there incorrectly though, but at least we can move threads to the appropriate sub-forum.

Yes. Agreed.

Thank you to you as well.

 

[Naito-desu]

So do we need more mod input for implementation?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we should wait a while longer for more input at least.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

I have a similar view as Butler.

Well, I thought that it might simplify our staff recruitment surveys, but maybe we can only make that forum visible to our bureaucrats and super moderators, and let AKM copy-paste the selected applications during staff recruitment surveys instead?

Yeah, this works too.

 

[Vietthai96]

#6, I am not opposed to this, but I expect many threads may end up being misplaced and require transferring, but maybe it's a good price to pay.

This is also my concern, we also need a concrete rule and standard of what and when a CRT is considered as self-evident/minor/straight-forward

 

[SomebodyData]

For #2, I think Antvasima's solution works here

#1, #3, #4, and #5 are alright

#6 I agree with, but I think will be abused quite a bit, both by malicious actors and by the fact that most people have very subjective standards on what is a minor revision. I think Vietthai96 is right that we need to make the standard very concrete and straightforward.

 

[Antvasima]

#6 I agree with, but I think will be abused quite a bit, both by malicious actors and by the fact that most people have very subjective standards on what is a minor revision. I think Vietthai96 is right that we need to make the standard very concrete and straightforward.

Yes. Agreed. I think that we should include a brief explanation text at the top of that sub-forum, and possibly include a link to a more extensive wiki explanation page text as well, if the text we eventually reach an agreement about here turns quite long.

 

[DemonicDude]

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

Should I add any more numbered points?

Agreed, I have so many small character that needs One Off abilities.
Like Stinkfly having Adhesive Manipulation
or Slapback having statistics manipulation.

Ben 10 Reboot XLR8 and Slapback get some new abilities

Omni Enhanced version of XLR8 can use Shock Rock's DNA to Supercharge his tail and duplicate his tail or rather "energy tenticles" boosting and amplifying their energy maybe we can give it Bolidy Weapon or Body Control as his tail is part of his body. (As seen below) Weapon Creation (As seen...

vsbattles.com

 

[Shadowslash125]

One week bump

 

[Antvasima]

We really need to conclude this thread, so I would greatly appreciate more staff help here.

 

[Antvasima]

We really need to conclude this thread, so I would greatly appreciate more staff help here.

Bureaucrats:

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu

Super Moderators:

@DarkDragonMedeus @Just a Random Butler @Agnaa @Qawsedf234

Administrators:

@SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

 

[Just a Random Butler]

ping

I believe I've already stated my stance above (and the specifics of my thought process).

My sentiment also aligns with Random-Helper's and SomebodyData's.

Unless I'm needed for anything else, I don't think I can contribute much further here.

I'm sorry.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem, and thank you for responding.

 

[Dalesean027]

Do we not have enough votes already though?

 

[Antvasima]

Do we not have enough votes already though?

Maybe. I am not certain.

Can I initiate trying to apply points 1 to 6 now?

However, I will need some volunteer help with writing a draft texts for the instruction page in point 1 and forum header instruction texts for points 2 and 6.

1) A new wiki page with instructions how to write staff applications. Help with this task would be very appreciated.

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 (instead of just our administrators and bureaucrats), and from which our bureaucrats and likely 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 being unfamiliar with them, and ask them to write applications in our new sub-forum.

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

Should I add any more numbered points?

 

[FinePoint]

Can I initiate trying to apply points 1 to 6 now?

Points 1-5 seem uncontroversial and can probably be applied.

Point 6 I believe had more pushback, so it may be worth making sure on that one.

I can write a draft for point 1 if you trust me to do so, but I'd understand if you'd prefer someone higher-ranking handle that.

 

[Antvasima]

I am perfectly fine with if you are willing to write a draft page.

 

[Shadowslash125]

I guess if you need more hands, I can succinctly write for point 6.

 

[FinePoint]

I am perfectly fine with if you are willing to write a draft page.

Alright. I'll have something by the end of the day.

 

[FinePoint]

I am perfectly fine with if you are willing to write a draft page.

Alright, I've written up a sandbox with a draft for a page describing the application process and what would be expected.

Obviously we didn't really discuss all the details here, so I simply used my best judgement/guesses. If there's any changes, removals, or additions you would prefer I am more than happy to edit it accordingly until everyone's happy with it.

And it goes without saying there's probably a typo or two in there, so someone should double-check the spelling/grammar.

 

[FinePoint]

Alright, I've written up a sandbox with a draft for a page describing the application process and what would be expected.

Obviously we didn't really discuss all the details here, so I simply used my best judgement/guesses. If there's any changes, removals, or additions you would prefer I am more than happy to edit it accordingly until everyone's happy with it.

And it goes without saying there's probably a typo or two in there, so someone should double-check the spelling/grammar.

@Mr. Bambu @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Just a Random Butler @Agnaa @Qawsedf234
And I'm sure y'all will want to personally review it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Alright, I've written up a sandbox with a draft for a page describing the application process and what would be expected.

Obviously we didn't really discuss all the details here, so I simply used my best judgement/guesses. If there's any changes, removals, or additions you would prefer I am more than happy to edit it accordingly until everyone's happy with it.

And it goes without saying there's probably a typo or two in there, so someone should double-check the spelling/grammar.

Looks good to me. I would also perhaps add Human Resource on the list of things not eligible for application right between Admins and Super Moderators. As those are also decided among higher up staff as well.

 

[Random-Helper323]

There should be a note to read the respective pages for more information. Also, thread mods typically require good judgement and ability to handle conflicts between members, not just good ability to debate.

 

[Just a Random Butler]

Alright, I've written up a sandbox with a draft for a page describing the application process and what would be expected.

Obviously we didn't really discuss all the details here, so I simply used my best judgement/guesses. If there's any changes, removals, or additions you would prefer I am more than happy to edit it accordingly until everyone's happy with it.

And it goes without saying there's probably a typo or two in there, so someone should double-check the spelling/grammar.

Overall, this looks good to me.

Aside from what DDM and Random-Helper have already noted...

I think the Content Moderator part should be worded like this:

For a Content Moderator application, this may include high-quality pages you've created, as well as contributions to maintaining and improving the wiki, such as cleaning up pages and preventing or correcting vandalism.

The original wording, "incidents where you've cleaned up or prevented vandalism" makes it sound like that we are only looking for the reactive aspects of a Content Moderator's role. I would like this to be more specific to make the other relevant aspects of the responsibilities clearer.

Also, in general (for all the staff position bullet points), I think the "this may be things like" would be better if phrased more formally as "this may include…"

I think the Personal Information section should be worded like this:

• Personal Information - We do not require and do not encourage personal information in an application, such as your real name, birthday, or other biographical information. The only relevant information is your username, and your activity in the VS Battles community or other relevant experience.

I know most people wouldn't misread it, but the possibility that people could misread it as "We do not discourage" is still there because English is just a funny language like that. I also think the text "including a real name" should be turned it into "such as your real name" since the last part of the text refers to the reader with "your" anyways.

 

[Antvasima]

Big thanks to FinePoint for helping out.

I have made some clarifying modifications to your draft text. For example, being able to create wiki pages is not a relevant qualification for a content moderator position, and we should more strongly discourage personal information being shared.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:FinePoint/Sandbox3?diff=9459043&oldid=9458381

Also, we need to continue discussing point #6.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@Mr. Bambu @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Just a Random Butler @Agnaa @Qawsedf234
And I'm sure y'all will want to personally review it.

Getting to this before my other duties...

I think both Content Moderator and Discussion Moderator should note contributions to relevant Wiki Management threads, since that symbolizes a pretty hefty possible field of work for the given roles. CGMs, image helpers, and translation helpers could also mention it, but that is more or less the entirety of their work, rather than a facet of it (since it all falls under the umbrella of "doing calcs/image render requests/translation requests"), whereas having a history of being helpful in the, say, misc requests thread, could be a good point on the resume for a content mod application. Rational input on the RVRT would also be very helpful in determining a good Discussion Mod.

I recognize this is sort of an expansion on what Random said, but I feel it is worth laying out why I think what I think. I don't mind the changes the others want to make, either. I think it mostly looks very well done. Good job and shit.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, and embedded links to the relevant wiki management threads would also be good.

 

[FinePoint]

I updated the Thread Moderator section to this:

For a Thread Moderator application, this may be things like controversial revisions where you played a pivotal role in providing accurate information or nuanced debate, and times where you demonstrated good judgement and an ability to handle conflict such as meaningful contributions to the Rule Violation Reports thread.

I updated the Content Moderator section to this:

For a Content Moderator application, this may be long-term continuous competent and accurate wiki cleanup work and edit-patrolling to prevent vandalism in our pages, or contributions to relevant Wiki Management threads such as the Wiki Vandalism Reports thread.

For the pages, there's already a line like this, and the bullet points link to the specific pages, but let me know how you'd change it and where you'd put it:

Please only submit an application if you're familiar with the requirements for a particular position as outlined in the relevant staff pages.

The other suggestions seem to have already been added by Ant.

 

[Shadowslash125]

I've written this forum header for the self-evident 1 vote only content revision

Self-Evident Content Revision​

Sometimes, changes and revisions of profile pages can be straightforward and minimal. As such, discussions for these kinds of revisions must be done here, instead of the standard content revision board, due to a difference in scope.

Due to being a content revision board in nature, any and all rules and regulations concerning the regular board are also subject to this one. In addition, it is imperative to make sure that your revisions are truly self-evident or minimal in nature. Failure to adhere to this particular criterion will result in your revisions being moved to the normal content revision board, and warnings and bans upon further and/or frequent breaching.

 

[Random-Helper323]

People will definitely put threads there simply so it's easier to pass them when they clearly shouldn't be there. Such a forum needs clear rules about what qualifies as minimal or self-evident. Something like bodily weaponry for the carnivorous dinosaurs in Jurassic Park qualifies, or something like fire manipulation for a character who's shown in a video breathing fire, but something that requires more complex interpretation is likely to be added there because the poster either thinks it's self-evident or just wants to slip it through under the radar.

That forum will need strict enforcement.

 

[Shadowslash125]

People will definitely put threads there simply so it's easier to pass them when they clearly shouldn't be there. Such a forum needs clear rules about what qualifies as minimal or self-evident. Something like bodily weaponry for the carnivorous dinosaurs in Jurassic Park qualifies, or something like fire manipulation for a character who's shown in a video breathing fire, but something that requires more complex interpretation is likely to be added there because the poster either thinks it's self-evident or just wants to slip it through under the radar.

That forum will need strict enforcement.

If it's about the header, I tried to capture the way the original crt forum header is written. I do appreciate feedback tho.
Otherwise, I agree

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

People will definitely put threads there simply so it's easier to pass them when they clearly shouldn't be there. Such a forum needs clear rules about what qualifies as minimal or self-evident. Something like bodily weaponry for the carnivorous dinosaurs in Jurassic Park qualifies, or something like fire manipulation for a character who's shown in a video breathing fire, but something that requires more complex interpretation is likely to be added there because the poster either thinks it's self-evident or just wants to slip it through under the radar.

That forum will need strict enforcement.

I am completely willing to check out this board and close threads/let people know if such a revision would be considered self evident (I already do this from time to time, so lol)

So count me in for enforcement

 

[Random-Helper323]

I am completely willing to check out this board and close threads/let people know if such a revision would be considered self evident (I already do this from time to time, so lol)

So count me in for enforcement

Yeah, me too. I just wonder if this change that's designed to reduce staff workload will ironically end up increasing it. I guess the responsibility also must fall on staff not to accept such threads too hastily, given the lack of peer review in such a forum.