I have intentionally not been commenting in the discussion threads, mainly because I did so much posting in our recent Policy Reviews, I just wanted to take a break and let the new leadership structure sink in a bit. But I want to give everyone a "policy reminder" about some key changes we made and how those changes should be observed by posters AND the Topic Leadership Team in this thread and others.
From a general policy perspective, there are a few things going on in this discussion thread (and all subsequent competitive discussions too).
- The Typing Leader (Deck Knight) is leading the discussion.
Other people are helping drive discussion too. This includes the Topic Leader (jas), forum mods, other members of the TLT, and even veteran CAP participants. But the section leader (DK) is the person with the primary job of leading the discussion. He is provoking discussion, presenting his own ideas, and commenting on ideas presented by others.
- People are lobbying for and/or against different submissions.
People are presenting ideas and commenting on ideas presented by others. Your arguments should be presented to convince others why an option would be best for this CAP or why an option would be a poor choice for this CAP. Basically, you are trying to gain votes or reduce votes for the various submissions presented. You ARE NOT voting in this thread, and saying "I like <whatever>." is NOT considered an intelligent argument.
- The Typing Leader is trying to determine which options MIGHT be supported by intelligent voters in the poll.
Read that again, because I worded it carefully. I intentionally did not say any of the following:
The Section Leader should review the entire thread and determine which options presented are reasonable to include in poll BASED ON INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY INPUT.
- NOT: "The Section Leader is making the slate."
- NOT: "The Section Leader is choosing the options he/she likes the most".
- NOT: "The Section Leader is picking the best options submitted in the thread."
The third item is the one I want to focus on, because this is different than past CAPs and I want to make sure we don't slip into old habits here.
We do not particularly care what the Section Leader individually thinks, and this is a significant departure from the past several CAP projects. The only criteria for an option to be slated is for the option to have a reasonable amount of support from intelligent members of the community. The definition of "intelligent" is intentionally subjective, and will be determined at the discretion of the Section Leader. So yes, in that sense, we do care what the Section Leader thinks. But the Section Leader is not making as significant a qualitative assessment that Topic Leaders were asked to make in the past. All viable options that have intelligent support should be slated in the poll
This does NOT mean every typing mentioned in this thread should make the poll. It doesn't mean that every supposedly "popular" option in this thread should make the poll. It means that every option that has been intelligently submitted and supported by other intelligent arguments, should make the slate. There should be MUCH LESS controversy over what is included in the slate than past CAP projects. The only reason a submitted option should NOT be included in the poll is if:
It did not receive much support
The support it received was not based on good intelligent competitive reasoning
The latter statement is intentionally subjective. However the slating bias should be INCLUSIVE, not exclusive. That means if there is a borderline call, the option should be slated and leave it to the community to decide in the voting process.
I am posting this out in the open so that everyone is aware of the new expectations for "Leading Topics". The purpose is to encourage Leaders to focus on leading discussion throughout the thread, not swooping in at the end and "choosing a slate". The Section Leader is not really choosing a slate at all any more. They simply identify the slate chosen by the intelligent members of the community through the course of the discussion. Everyone should be participating in this discussion (and subsequent competitive discussions) with these new expectations in mind.