Glad I could humor you...???
thanks !! I'm kidding. I wasn't laughing at you, I was laughing at the ignored analyses. I apologize if you thought I was being snarky with you lol (I wasn't).
^
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I didn't say you said c&c people; I just said c&c. You directly stated here
andrea said:
I understand that there are areas of the site where C&C works well but there is no reason to say that everything gets quickly uploaded to the site.
That is pretty much implying there is a problem
somewhere in c&c. The purpose of my post was to explain, at least with the alaka / cosmic situation, that it had nothing to do with c&c or any systems involving c&c.
I'm rather intrigued by the fact that all it took was one post to get everyone to get fired up about some VGC analyses.
Many have pointed it out that this should have been addressed 2.5 years ago, yet it never was, and now the blame is being shifted to Alaka and cosmic because they didn't want the analyses uploaded.
We're telling why, at one point, the analyses weren't uploaded. If they weren't uploaded previously to alaka / cosmic decisions, then that is another issue that deserves revealing. You're more than welcome to
explicitly state why and how they weren't uploaded. Note I say explicit; I don't want standard talking points about c&c red tape or badgeless users not having voice or whatever. Who and what specific issue prevented those analyses from being uploaded? Answering that can help us prevent this in the future.
I love both these guys but is it really necessary to base adding the entire Smogon VGC section to the site on the preference of two users?
If these two users are the ones representing vgc in c&c...then yes it is necessary. Why would we do something the leaders of a section don't want us to do?
How many people have posted in this thread already suggesting that something be done with this? Its this kind of elitist theory that makes pages of completed analyses go unnoticed.
People have posted SUGGESTIONS. No solutions (solutions defined in your words, as "something that can be done"). Why? Because we have no idea whether or not open editing will work. I've already stated I'm down for a controlled beta test of it, but until its viability is shown, it is simply a suggestion.
Asking only two people about their opinion really won't help assist plenty of people who search the web for vgc help and obviously don't find it here. They have no voice because they don't sign up and because we don't easily provide the information they need. (We just lost hundreds of potential Smogon members, guys.)
I concur. But note, we weren't limiting it to these two. They simply said something and we adhered to that, because we're not responsible for those sections. The ones who are would be whoever plays it and writes for it (you guys). If someone else said otherwise, we'd look at it then. The crux of this problem, and there is a problem, is that for some reason vgc people did not simply upload the analyses. Like I said before...there are plenty of vgc people with badges who aren't alaka / cosmic. Why didn't they just upload these analyses using uu / ubers tags?
I guess badgeless people don't have a voice either, because we base this entire section of the site on two mods.
Even if for some reason you feel you don't have a voice (which is silly to me, because we have plenty of policy decisions in #pokemon that are suggested by badgeless users), I know you specifically are friends with a lot of ducks, a lot of whom have badges. If these analyses weren't up, and you didn't agree with alaka / cosmic in waiting for tabs...why didn't you just tell those people to tell us?
I'm not exactly sure how badgeless people like me are supposed to be in charge of this. Even if we nagged about adding tags (and they were implemented) how am I supposed help add to that section of the site? We don't have access. With all the heat I'm getting about making the first post, I really don't feel the desire to ever bring up something major like this again if this is the reaction I get.
I'm sorry if you feel like you're getting heat lol. When I said your post was amusing me, I meant the content your post was directing to (the "ignored" vgc 2011 analyses). It was extremely humorous to me that finished stuff wouldn't be on site, because when I used to write, I used to force people to put stuff up. I just did it. I have never felt otherwise. I worked within C&C guidelines sure, but I made sure my stuff was up.
Btw, badgeless people like you can easily post a set in the vgc section on c&c, and then just nag someone to throw it up. Sure, it isn't as direct as open editing, but until that is shown to be viable, it is still a way to do it.
Honestly its kind of ridiculous that I keep getting crap in pms/irc for making this post in the suggestion thread. It's something that seriously needs fixed and the op kind of posed an alternate method that may solve the rotting vgc analysis problem. That was really the only reason I brought this up in the first place. =/
Wanna out whoever is giving you crap? Doesn't make sense to me. Your post may have been slightly off topic but it was still a legitimate point. I just wanted to clarify that there were non c&c related reasons for why those analyses weren't uploaded, and I wanted to clarify, using myself as an example, that should they have been desired to be uploaded, they easily could have been.
Note, the op wants open editing . You posted in support of that. That is fine (and obviously shouldn't take heat). The issue is that all of your stated grievances with the non uploaded vgc 2011 analyses weren't due to anything c&c personal / system related...it was purely technical THEN a statement from vgc guys themselves.
I know you're saying you want the technical issue to be resolved via open editing, but you have to realize that that's simply a suggestion (note suggestion box thread). We can (and have) acknowledged the point, and I wouldn't be surprised if we decide on a controlled beta for it sometime in the future. My concern was regarding what spurred you to consider changing the technical side.
There is no reason anything that truly needs to be on site cannot be on site relatively quickly. In fact, were you to tell me to do, I'd have 5 people on the job getting them on site within 2 days. If you were to convince sds / greatsage / whoever to do it...they would do it. It may not look pretty and may be non optimal, but I promise you that all it takes is a simple pm and some reasoned logic and people will be more than willing to help you get stuff up on site.