• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Admins & Moderators on CRTs: The Most Controversial Staff Thread

Random-Helper323 said:
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.
Click to expand...
To be fair, these are revisions we'd have to consider regardless.

This is essentially just changing the way they're organized.
 
Hello, I received permission from FinePoint to post this suggestion here for the sake of transparency.

I think that, to avoid ambiguity about what counts as a minor change, we should create a list of powers and abilities that could be accepted by a single staff member, as well as a list of those that don’t meet that condition and therefore require evaluation by two or more staff members.

I also wanted to ask whether calculation-based changes can be considered minor. For example, if an accepted calculation already in use had an error that changes the values but doesn’t result in any significant tier changes, could that be treated as a minor revision?

Additionally, I think we should include a note stating that controversial verses should not have threads in that forum. Considering that they necessarily require the approval of three staff members.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This specific one is actually making the load convenient. The load already existed, it's just most staff aren't aware (usually) of most self evident threads. I've accepted threads that didn't get any attention for months, which I believed were pretty simple.

With a dedicated board there's no excuse it's easier to track these threads.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
This specific one is actually making the load convenient. The load already existed, it's just most staff aren't aware (usually) of most self evident threads. I've accepted threads that didn't get any attention for months, which I believed were pretty simple.

With a dedicated board there's no excuse it's easier to track these threads.
Click to expand...
I can see the merit. I just have concerns. It has to be kept up to code, if you will. We can't have upgrades from Tier 7 to Tier 1 passing with one approval as minor revisions, for an extreme example.
 
Last edited:
Apex_Predator_GX said:
Hello, I received permission from FinePoint to post this suggestion here for the sake of transparency.

I think that, to avoid ambiguity about what counts as a minor change, we should create a list of powers and abilities that could be accepted by a single staff member, as well as a list of those that don’t meet that condition and therefore require evaluation by two or more staff members.

I also wanted to ask whether calculation-based changes can be considered minor. For example, if an accepted calculation already in use had an error that changes the values but doesn’t result in any significant tier changes, could that be treated as a minor revision?

Additionally, I think we should include a note stating that controversial verses should not have threads in that forum. Considering that they necessarily require the approval of three staff members.
Click to expand...
Hello, I received permission from FinePoint to post this minor follow-up to my proposals here for the sake of transparency.

Establishing a structured list that distinguishes between P&As suitable for evaluation by a single staff member, those requiring additional scrutiny, and those involving controversial verses helps reduce ambiguity in how these threads are handled.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. We definitely need an easily understood and clearly defined compact rule text placed at the top of that sub-forum. Help with writing a draft for it would be greatly appreciated. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Yes. We definitely need an easily understood and clearly defined compact rule text placed at the top of that sub-forum. Help with writing a draft for it would be greatly appreciated. 🙏
Click to expand...
I'll think on that. Someone else suggested a list of abilities that could be a minor thing, or alternatively a list of things that couldn't. This thing is subjective by nature though.

Maybe something like: "This forum is only for minor and self-evident revisions", with some more detail added, and maybe a link to some information about what qualifies as such?
 
No problem, and other staff members here are also very welcome to help out with this. 🙏
 
Taking some inspiration from the existing text for Content Revision:

"Often, minor details need to be added or removed from pages, with a self-evident explanation for why. Any discussion pertaining to such revisions are best done in this board.

Before posting, make sure that your proposed revisions qualify as self-evident and minor. This includes adding abilities that are blatantly obvious, such as Bodily Weaponry for an entity with prominent claws.

Typically, revisions proposed in this board should be so obvious as to not even require significant arguments or interpretation, and therefore require far less oversight by staff.

Note that posting revisions here that don't fit this description will lead to those revisions being moved to the Content Revision board, and repeated and blatant attempts to abuse the leniency of this board will be treated as rule violations."

Something like this, perhaps? I deliberately lengthened it with the idea that parts of it can be picked and chosen between; it obviously isn't a package deal.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Thank you greatly. That seems good to me at least. 🙏🙂❤️
Click to expand...
It's an attempt. I think others can and should put in their thoughts. The whole idea was that it could be fiddled around with by the staff, parts could be taken, used, discarded, edited, used to inspire an upgraded version... A rough draft, basically. A starting point so we have something to work with.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
Taking some inspiration from the existing text for Content Revision:

"Often, minor details need to be added or removed from pages, with a self-evident explanation for why. Any discussion pertaining to such revisions are best done in this board.

Before posting, make sure that your proposed revisions qualify as self-evident and minor. This includes adding abilities that are blatantly obvious, such as Bodily Weaponry for an entity with prominent claws.

Typically, revisions proposed in this board should be so obvious as to not even require significant arguments or interpretation, and therefore require far less oversight by staff.

Note that posting revisions here that don't fit this description will lead to those revisions being moved to the Content Revision board, and repeated and blatant attempts to abuse the leniency of this board will be treated as rule violations."

Something like this, perhaps? I deliberately lengthened it with the idea that parts of it can be picked and chosen between; it obviously isn't a package deal.
Click to expand...
This seems good to me
 
Should we also add a simple note about how many approvals are needed for both the new board and Content Revision? Obviously for Content Revision we'd note where an admin is needed and note the controversial verses. I've noticed a lot of people are unsure on the matter.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
Should we also add a simple note about how many approvals are needed for both the new board and Content Revision? Obviously for Content Revision we'd note where an admin is needed and note the controversial verses. I've noticed a lot of people are unsure on the matter.
Click to expand...

I'd say so yeah, better to have it there just to be safe rather than not
 
We've all agreed there is an issue. The issue of "not enough staff to handle the huge amount of work available" has been known since the dawn of the wiki. But Ant is out, and we can't exactly handle technical elements (e.g., adding a new subforum) without him. The hold up on this, currently, is disagreement about which solutions are fruitful. I believe most staff here have given their thoughts on the subject, if your interest was in trying to get a more concrete consensus on that, perhaps try summoning more that are not here yet.
 
Thank you greatly for all of your patiences here, and I apologise for mostly being away for so long. I will try to begin returning to my usual workload from now and onwards.

So is it fine if we gradually start to initiate getting the following issues done?
Antvasima said:
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? 🙏
Click to expand...
And is it fine if we add the following text at the top of our new "Self-Evident Content Revisions" sub-forum, or should it be modified first? 🙏

"Often, minor details need to be added or removed from pages, with a self-evident explanation for why. Any discussion pertaining to such revisions are best done in this board.

Before posting, make sure that your proposed revisions qualify as self-evident and minor. This includes adding abilities that are blatantly obvious, such as Bodily Weaponry for an entity with prominent claws.

Typically, revisions proposed in this board should be so obvious that they do not even require significant arguments or interpretation, and therefore require far less oversight by our staff.

Note that posting revisions here that don't fit this description will lead to those revisions being moved to the Content Revision board, and repeated and blatant attempts to abuse the leniency of this board will be treated as rule violations."
 
 
I am notified, though that doesn't mean there could be surprise plans happening to me today.
 
FinePoint said:
As far as I remember, there wasn't any complaints about my latest draft of the applications info, and it received a lot of approvals.

We could probably start moving forward with that.
Click to expand...
Can you remind us about the specifics please? 🙏
 
Thank you very much for helping out. That draft seems very good to me.

So should I start by asking our forum system manager to add a new regular "Self-Evident Content Revisions" sub-forum with the draft text I mentioned above at the top of it, as well as another "Staff Applications" sub-forum wherein applications can only be seen by each applicant as well as our current staff members, and which can have something like the following text at the top?

"A forum wherein you can apply to become a member of our staff, but only do so if you are genuinely qualified and willing to extensively help out our community. For information how to do so, please click on the following link:"

With a link to your regularly published new wiki page at the end. 🙏
 
FinePoint said:
It's all in this sandbox.
Click to expand...
This is definitely a finepoint

Though should we set a bar for this?. Or else we could have a mass staff application come from people who just have newly created account with a few messeges?

Naito-desu said:
This seems alright so far. Self-evident changes probably will need some policing because a lot of people will deliberately misinterpret advantageous revisions as changes obvious to them. The rest looks fine.
Click to expand...
Definitely, though should we need some rules to punish people who keep doing this deliberately?
 
Vietthai96 said:
This is definitely a finepoint

Though should we set a bar for this?. Or else we could have a mass staff application come from people who just have newly created account with a few messeges?
Click to expand...
They should need to at least have had an account for six months or maybe one year, 1000 Wiki edits for a Content Mod, 1000 forum posts for a Thread Mod and two accepted calculations for a Calc Group member. This draws inspiration from the existing requirements, although it's a pretty low bar for the Thread Mod in particular. It just prevents spam applications from new accounts.
Vietthai96 said:
Definitely, though should we need some rules to punish people who keep doing this deliberately?
Click to expand...
This is alluded to in the proposed description of the sub-forum. It says that repeated attempts to abuse the leniency of the board with be punished.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
They should need to at least have had an account for six months or maybe one year, 1000 Wiki edits for a Content Mod, 1000 forum posts for a Thread Mod and two accepted calculations for a Calc Group member. This draws inspiration from the existing requirements, although it's a pretty low bar for the Thread Mod in particular. It just prevents spam applications from new accounts.

This is alluded to in the proposed description of the sub-forum. It says that repeated attempts to abuse the leniency of the board with be punished.
Click to expand...
Yes, although we probably need to set something like a minimum of 1 year of membership for any applicant, 2000 wiki edits as a minimum for content moderators, 1000 posts minimum for discussion moderators, and at least 5 or maybe 8 accepted calculations for calc group members. But I am open for better suggestions. 🙏
 
Speaking of, you think it'd also be good to check for whether the would-be future staff are free of alt accounts or not? We don't wanna have another Vzearr or Wankbreaker situation on our hands.
(Feel free to delete if it doesn't align or something)
 
Antvasima said:
Yes, although we probably need to set something like a minimum of 1 year of membership
Click to expand...
Six months is currently listed as the requirement, otherwise I'd have just said one year. This is for applying for oneself though, so the standards should be higher than the standards for if a current staff member recommends the person.
Antvasima said:
for any applicant, 2000 wiki edits as a minimum for content moderators, 1000 posts minimum for discussion moderators
Click to expand...
I'd honestly suggest the opposite, 1000 edits for Content Mod and 2000 posts for Thread Mod. Although again, this is for applying rather than being recommended, so we can afford to be harsher overall.
Antvasima said:
, and at least 5 or maybe 8 accepted calculations for calc group members. But I am open for better suggestions. 🙏
Click to expand...
It isn't my area, but I'd say 5 is reasonable. Current standard is 2, but raising it to 5 is probably sufficient. I can see why you'd go higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Big Verses and Minor CRTs: Let's do some Magic
Replies
25
Views
3K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
Vzearr
  • Locked
The Tokyo Revengers Verse (STAFF ONLY)
Replies
20
Views
2K
Reiner04
Reiner04
FinePoint
  • Locked
Thread Moderators and Staff Threads
Replies
39
Views
5K
FinePoint
FinePoint
Thanganimator
  • Locked
False R>F
2 3
Replies
98
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Staff From Other Wikis In Staff Discussions
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top