Policy Review Policy Review Committee Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
The undertone is "I'm in the PRC, I am a better capper than you." That's a pretty bad undertone. And since that's pretty much the only thing the PRC is used for (other than electing tl), I believe it should be abolished or have it's purpose changed.

Abolishing it, in my opinion, is the best course of action. However if you want to keep it for the implied message of user recognition ("I'm a better capper, get on my level), the purpose - or name - must be changed. "Policy Review Committee" implies that we actively participate in the creation and discussion of Policy Reviews. The prc hardly ever makes policy reviews; and if you're not some random fucktard, you can post in the policy reviews - it's not limited to those on the PRC. The current purpose of the PRC is electing the TL - change it's name to "Topic Leader Committee" so as not to be misleading. Or you can change it's purpose, force the PRC to make policy reviews. Seeing as that should never be done, you're better off with just changing the name.

Otherwise, I am still in favor of a completely public vote.
 
A few members have already said what I wanted to say in detail.

A few words however. Regarding favoritism, I think there is and never was such a thing when it came to the PRC. As said before, you got in by making sure you participated prior to applying.

Those who gained a "high standing" or good reputation within the project itself in general got it because they earned it. And this has nothing to do with the PRC. The PRC does do a good protion of forming CAP, but when it comes to any sort of support from other members, it all happens during the "public" parts--voting and such. But again, people who continuously get support on their submissions, contributions, and opinons get it because they earned the trust of everyone else.

With the fewer Policy Review threads, there can't be a strong sense of elitism either.
 
tennisace said:
THIS. We already do this, and have forever. So lets go over the play-by-play shall we? The PRC doesn't vote on stuff really. It just elects the TL via a slate of candidates handpicked by the mods. It itself is handpicked by the mods. So in reality: the mods already have a huge amount of influence, and rightfully so. Why do the mods need to pick a committee of users to pick a TL that the mods picked?
I'm going to answer this as a user, not as someone who actually understands all of the intricacies of the situation. As a user, if I see that the mods handpick everything, I feel as though I have less of a chance of ever getting picked without sucking up to the mods endlessly. However, seeing the TL get chosen by a group of ever-changing members of some committee, I feel like maybe I do stand a chance eventually by becoming one of said committee members. I would like to emphasize that this is exactly how I felt when I joined. I seriously doubt that I would've ever pursued CAP as a serious venture without the chance to earn my place that the PRC provided. Knowing that, I feel that getting rid of the PRC is actually hurting a new user's chances of sticking around and feeling like they have somewhere to go.
Tennisace said:
This is exactly what I am talking about here. So fucking what really? We're making fake Pokemon on a competitive Pokemon website. We're not disarming nuclear bombs. We're not curing cancer. We're just trying to have fun, unless somehow people think we're going to reinvent the wheel and save humanity by doing this. I donate my time because I think this is a fun place where we can discuss some of the "what-ifs" we have. Others do the same. There is no mission, there is no critical-to-mission-success. If someone fucks up really badly as TL, then whatever, nobody died. Sure it kind of sucks if they can't lead a project right, but again, we the mods would at least take the bad candidates out of the slate first. In addition, we are moderators, not janitors. I, and the other mods, should be more than willing to aid in leading discussion at various points.
I don't understand why you're making such a case for fun; obviously this is a lot about fun, and we do have fun. We don't have less fun because the PRC exists, and so the argument about fun is entirely moot. Furthermore, this same argument that you're employing now was used to try to get rid of C&C's GP and QC teams. Quite frankly, it's not the end of the world on Smogon if no one gives a shit about anything and no one grammar checks or QCs or anything, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. No, we do GP and QC because it improves the quality of what we make and what our users see when they peruse the website. It's the exact same reason why "There is no mission, there is no critical-to-mission-success." is absolutely not the way to run CAP. We want CAP to be legitimate and to hold what we make to a certain quality threshold. If we do not, then why the fuck do we exist in the first place? We are not going to just spew out random shit from CAP and pretend that it is helping anyone. No, we are going to do what CAP was created to do, and that is learn from the opportunity to create fake Pokemon in a given metagame. I find that being selective with our TL is crucial to that mission, a mission that Doug devised himself, and that to forgo it would be naive and foolish of us.
 

Zystral

めんどくさい、な~
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
My feelings are mixed here.

I've been a long(ish)-time CAPper, albeit I missed Tomohawk. When I first started I looked at the PRC as a position of importance. They chosse the TL. They made revisions (even if that only happened once and the results were terrible). They knew what they were doing. I didn't strive to be TL, I strived to be on the PRC, knowing that eventually I would make it and have slightly more of an impact on The CAP. And I made it. I felt better about it, and made many submissions, some of which even made the slate. One of which came second, if I recall correctly.
I always thought that the PRC set an example of "if you're smart, you can be respected like these people." you know what was interesting though? Often the PRC members made the best contributions to a CAP. That, is leading by example, something advised a lot here but is rarely put into action.

I do agree that nowadays, however, the PRC has little functional use. And maybe I was a one-off and others view the PRC with more disdain. That said, I always thought the idea of the forum mods choosing the TL was a good idea, and I stand by that. By removing the PRC, there's no need to formally apply and say "hey I'm a good user", because that will be inherent to the mods, who I hope will call upon the right people should the time for a proper PRC comes.
I see no real downside to removing the PRC. But I do not want to see a more public participation. I speak from experience, as when I was a fledgling, I made crap tons of stupid errors; things I look back on and think "what". Removing the PRC should make outsiders and new contributors more welcome into the community, but that should be done by bringing the upper class down, for that is what kills elitism, not promoting the lower class. So while I agree with all the advantages for removing the PRC entirely, important decisions should still be made by a small group of the right people, even if that group is smaller.
 
(*An edit/extend from my above post. Was editing to add more, but got caught up with something and signed back in, so I'll just add a new reply*)



There's more actually. First, shouldn't this be a question to the mods themselves? Do they themselves feel that the PRC is just a group of "Mod's pets?" They are the ones who discuss and accept/reject members after all. If they say it's not (which it really isn't), then there you go. It's open to anyone who wants to join. Just participate in the forum and have fun with the community.

CAP is nowhere near the seriousness and strictness of the other sections of the site (tournaments, the "real" Policy Review, C&C). Of course there are rules and guidelines to keep the flow of quality content as high as possible, but the veterans especially, have always pushed the idea that CAP's a place for everyone to work on. Even if you simply just vote on the polls or make small posts in discussions. It brings as many opinions in as possible.

I think that many of you will agree with me on this: The only thing stopping you from participating in the CAP forum is yourself. If you want to get your ideas out there, you have to just do it. When you make thoughtful posts, people are going to notice.

If there is any sort of "red tape," then the PRC is not the problem. If it has any connection to it, then it's a very weak link. Maybe the policies themselves could be intimidating to some people, but then it's not about the commitee itself. If you are jealous of other people being on the commitee, then that's just a poor attitude to be carrying around during the project.

This is why I brought up the idea of an open review of PR/PRC earlier. This could have been discussed then, but no one brought it up. I honestly don't think a removal of it would streamline anything. I like the idea of experienced members making sure that the project is productful as possible. If you want to become a part of that process, then it's up to you.
 

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I'm going to answer this as a user, not as someone who actually understands all of the intricacies of the situation. As a user, if I see that the mods handpick everything, I feel as though I have less of a chance of ever getting picked without sucking up to the mods endlessly. However, seeing the TL get chosen by a group of ever-changing members of some committee, I feel like maybe I do stand a chance eventually by becoming one of said committee members. I would like to emphasize that this is exactly how I felt when I joined. I seriously doubt that I would've ever pursued CAP as a serious venture without the chance to earn my place that the PRC provided. Knowing that, I feel that getting rid of the PRC is actually hurting a new user's chances of sticking around and feeling like they have somewhere to go.
I would agree with all of this except anyone's opinion that then mods handpick those who "suck up to them endlessly". As Deck Knight posted, the last PRC accepted 19 out of 21, which is an over 90% acceptance rate. Furthermore, the two users who were not accepted had never/hardly participated in a CAP project. That seems pretty fair to me! I know that you and I are basically on the same page, Rising_Dusk, but I wanted to point out that as a "newer user", I certainly don't feel like the mods are cherry picking. I would agree with Aerodactyl Legend that perhaps the policies are intimidating (lots of stickies and lots to read in this subforum), but I don't think the PRC should ever be a causation for intimidation. They are simply a recognized group who has a history with the CAP process.
 
You seem to misunderstand what I was getting at. I totally agree with you; there's a huge acceptance rate for PRC, and almost everyone that applies gets in. What I was saying was that if we removed the PRC and instead had mods cherry pick TLs, it would make a newer user feel less able to become a TL without sucking up to the mods. Does what I said make sense now?
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
This is why I brought up the idea of an open review of PR/PRC earlier. This could have been discussed then, but no one brought it up. I honestly don't think a removal of it would streamline anything. I like the idea of experienced members making sure that the project is productful as possible. If you want to become a part of that process, then it's up to you.
I remember that thread...

In any case, the threshold for PRC is low, and we've used it for multiple purposes in the past. It's present role is as a sounding board for topic leader nominations primarily, and that's still a useful and unique function. If it's superfluous after that, the argument to abolish it is still pretty weak, because its effectively a self-selecting committee of people who participated in the past and want to continue participating by acknowledging/supporting their previous contributions.

Mods already have enough institutional power and responsibilities. My view of the CAP Forum has always been that the moderators are facilitators, not superiors, and that we defer largely to the people who support the project and contribute for making one of our most important decisions. Its not like you get a badge or a checkmark for being a PRC member, so unless someone looks at the PRC thread, it's not really something you can gloat over anyway.
 

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
because its effectively a self-selecting committee of people who participated in the past and want to continue participating by acknowledging/supporting their previous contributions.
Ok then, lets go a little deeper. What is a contribution to CAP? Is it writing/grammar checking articles that go on-site? Is it creating a submission for a single part of a CAP, such as a movepool list? Is it just posting, thereby advancing discussion of the project? There is currently no line drawn on what counts as a contribution.

So, a self-selecting committee of people self-evaluating "previous contributions" leaves us where? Literally anyone could apply to PRC provided they were active in the previous couple of CAPs, as in just posted in them. There are a ton of people who fit this description.

So, why do we only get ~18-20 applicants, when really anyone can make an argument for themselves to be on it? I believe it is because inherently, the PRC is elitist. It is a committee that has more power than the normal user, and has a title. It doesn't matter what the power is or how nominal it is, it is just something one user might have that another user doesn't.

If we do keep the PRC, I'm going to make it extremely clear that anyone can apply provided they "contributed" in the past couple of CAPs (read: CAP1, because of the long layoff).

Mods already have enough institutional power and responsibilities. My view of the CAP Forum has always been that the moderators are facilitators, not superiors, and that we defer largely to the people who support the project and contribute for making one of our most important decisions.
Mods having "enough" power is a ridiculous point. We are moderators. We were chosen to lead this forum.

Also, if we "defer largely to the people who support the project and contribute for making one of our most important decisions", why do we have to select a committee to do that? Why don't we just let the public as a whole decide? Mods already pick the slate for TL, so why exactly do the mods have to pick a committee to pick the TL that the mods picked? It really doesn't make sense.

Also, to answer the general point of "it gives users something to shoot for":

Sure it does. However, its a pretty useless thing to shoot for since again, it holds no real power except a title. This is why I want to replace this aspect of the PRC; the aspect of giving users something to shoot for. I know Rising_Dusk poo-pooed the idea of a "Poster of the X" thread because it supposedly didn't slim down the process (hint: I'm willing to do it on my own time during a CAP project, I'm pretty sure I can multitask while moderating).

I just honestly feel like the PRC has outlived its purpose as a way for users to have input on policy. It was from a time when CAP was very cliquish and it was the same people every time applying to it. Now that CAP has become much more open in terms of allowing people to suggest and comment on policy, there has been no need for a PRC vote. In addition, and I can't stress this enough, mods choose the slate for TL and weed out bad candidates (the linton incident Vader referenced was hilarious and from a time when CAP was still forming). The PRC isn't giving us the candidates to vote on, it's the other way around. We handpick the PRC (though yes, almost everyone makes it). But for what? Who are we trying to protect here?

TL;DR: We either need to give the PRC more or less power. Since the PRC is self-electing and self-promoting, anyone can name themselves on it. We either need to get rid of the PRC as it is and replace its components with some sort of poster recognition system and a public TL vote, OR give them some other function (please don't).
 

Stratos

Banned deucer.
Doug's argument is the only leg the PRC has to stand on for reasons Tennisace has already outlined: namely, that the only reason the PRC exists is to make sure we get a good TL and the mods do that already, so it's better left to public vote.

When you look at what Doug said, he said the PRC was created for three things:

1) To give recognition to the good posters in CAP
2) To make CAP look like less of a joke
3) Basically 2

Since CAP is clearly no longer regarded as a joke, the only reason I can see to keep the PRC around is as a reward system, unless someone can provide one I have not considered. This begs the question: Is the PRC the best merit recognition system we can design? Do we really need a recognition system in the first place?

It's very simple from here. If it is the best merit system, we keep it. If it is not, we scrap it and implement our newly invented better system. If we answer no to the second question, we just scrap it and do not make a replacement.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Ok then, lets go a little deeper. What is a contribution to CAP? Is it writing/grammar checking articles that go on-site? Is it creating a submission for a single part of a CAP, such as a movepool list? Is it just posting, thereby advancing discussion of the project? There is currently no line drawn on what counts as a contribution.

So, a self-selecting committee of people self-evaluating "previous contributions" leaves us where? Literally anyone could apply to PRC provided they were active in the previous couple of CAPs, as in just posted in them. There are a ton of people who fit this description.

So, why do we only get ~18-20 applicants, when really anyone can make an argument for themselves to be on it? I believe it is because inherently, the PRC is elitist. It is a committee that has more power than the normal user, and has a title. It doesn't matter what the power is or how nominal it is, it is just something one user might have that another user doesn't.
Your two arguments are completely contradictory. On the one hand, the PRC is a collection of moderator pets who meet once every couple of months to select a TL and, to use your verbiage in the last PRC vote "suck each other's dicks." On the other hand, PRC is too open and anyone could make an argument to be on it.

So which is it? Do you want to eliminate it because it's really just a facade for we, the insidious elite CAP moderators, or do you want to eliminate it because it's really just all the Joe Blows on the forum crowing about themselves to make other users feel bad?

If we don't eliminate the PRC and did 10 CAP Projects, the entire time "lost" in this "streamline" is: A single month. Out of 2+ Years on average.

If we do keep the PRC, I'm going to make it extremely clear that anyone can apply provided they "contributed" in the past couple of CAPs (read: CAP1, because of the long layoff).

Mods having "enough" power is a ridiculous point. We are moderators. We were chosen to lead this forum.

Also, if we "defer largely to the people who support the project and contribute for making one of our most important decisions", why do we have to select a committee to do that? Why don't we just let the public as a whole decide? Mods already pick the slate for TL, so why exactly do the mods have to pick a committee to pick the TL that the mods picked? It really doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense. Moderators on the CAP Forum are not supposed to lord themselves over the people who contribute to the project. We are facilitators of the project who effectively make sure discussions keep on track, but otherwise we are just regular community members in what largely functions as a directive democracy. The PRC also lets moderators run for the TL position and have only the same chance of being selected as everyone else. Any mod would make a great TL, but I'd rather win the vote of all of our regular contributors then only appeal to 5 other people, all of whom share my title and position. The PRC is elitist? What is mod selection, then?

Also, to answer the general point of "it gives users something to shoot for":

Sure it does. However, its a pretty useless thing to shoot for since again, it holds no real power except a title. This is why I want to replace this aspect of the PRC; the aspect of giving users something to shoot for. I know Rising_Dusk poo-pooed the idea of a "Poster of the X" thread because it supposedly didn't slim down the process (hint: I'm willing to do it on my own time during a CAP project, I'm pretty sure I can multitask while moderating).
Yeah, we haven't heard "I can multitask" before on Smogon. I'm not levying this as a criticism of you specifically, but this is the clarion call of every single solitary idea that is now dead or unserviced on any of the Smogon forums. The PRC works because all it takes is a single mod to look over the contributions each person mentions and include them in the committee. If life happens to the moderator tasked with a specific project, that project usually dies.

I just honestly feel like the PRC has outlived its purpose as a way for users to have input on policy. It was from a time when CAP was very cliquish and it was the same people every time applying to it. Now that CAP has become much more open in terms of allowing people to suggest and comment on policy, there has been no need for a PRC vote. In addition, and I can't stress this enough, mods choose the slate for TL and weed out bad candidates (the linton incident Vader referenced was hilarious and from a time when CAP was still forming). The PRC isn't giving us the candidates to vote on, it's the other way around. We handpick the PRC (though yes, almost everyone makes it). But for what? Who are we trying to protect here?
Again, you make the mistake of believing the PRC is some kind of political clusterfuck. It isn't. There is no one to protect. You sound like a paranoid. Most of our policies have indeed been fleshed out, but we've had fits and starts ever since the beginning of 5th Gen, so if we haven't been using the PRC to its full potential its because we've had a ton of fits, starts, and stoppages. After CAP 2 ends, we'll now have a method of continuance (either through Tmon's hack or Showdown!) and we'll be able to use the PRC to evaluate our major changes on the Threats/Counters policy change.

TL;DR: We either need to give the PRC more or less power. Since the PRC is self-electing and self-promoting, anyone can name themselves on it. We either need to get rid of the PRC as it is and replace its components with some sort of poster recognition system and a public TL vote, OR give them some other function (please don't).
"Some sort of system" you say? Well, I'm all ears, but isn't that going to be just another process that will be open to elitism charges down the road? You seem to be convinced that the longtime CAP members are using a PRC slot to lord over other CAPers. People will do that with ANY recognition system you devise, and in the case of the specific one proposed, if that person is selected by the mods, it's going to look like favoritism. If they are selected by popular vote, it means we're spending moderator time and no less than 48 hours every single month on a system that by all insinuations in this thread needs to be streamlined.

Note to any new users reading this: If someone uses their position on PRC to be a dick to you, harass you, mock your ideas, etc. then come to a moderator, and we will deal with that person and remind them not only were they a newbie once, but their attitude is directly contrary to the culture we try to instill in this forum. My VM wall is always open, anyway.
 
For a bit of background, I'm someone who has been around and posted for the last couple of CaPs, as well as making a couple of minor contributions such as helping with the Q&A thread, getting involved in policy discussions, and helping out once or twice when someone asked for chunks of text to be proofread or edited.

However I've never felt like joining the PRC, and it's not at all for the reasons that tennisace put forward at the beginning of this thread. I never felt that the PRC was elitist, or the mod's pets. Most of their discussions are open and thoughtful.

The issue for me was that their decisions were so often sidelined. Many (most?) decisions over the last year or two have been taken by the mods or by the IRC group, typically without giving any notice in the forums that they're approaching a decision.

To me this undermines the PRC. It gives the impression that some moderators view it as an irrelevant sop to make good posters 'feel appreciated' while mods get on with the real business of running the forum. Certainly not all the mods feel this way, but that's how decisions play out in practice.

So the solutions end up being "back 'em or sack 'em." Give the PRC back their role in policy decisions (i.e. actual influence over the CaP process), and give users an ordered and accessible way to take ownership of CaP; or if you're just going to ignore them, close the PRC because there's no point to it.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Ok, so I just want to start off by saying that in comparison to most of you all, I am a relative noob when it comes to CAP and smogon in general. I just started being active here at the start of CAP1, and so I don't have much experience in this stuff overall.

That being said, no matter whose arguments I read, I cannot see a reason to keep the PRC. There are two stances floating around here, and almost everyone holds one or the other as their persona opinion. First, that the PRC is elitist and thus discourages the average user from trying to participate. Second, that it is a group that nearly anyone can join. Now obviously, these two points of view are complete opposites, and while I agree with most of what Tennisace has said, I really do not see how both could be true. And yet I don't think it really matters which is true. As I said earlier, the actuality of the situation is not nearly as important as the perception. If it is seen as a bad system, then it is bad, regardless of how it actually functions.

To that point I believe that the PRC should be eliminated. If it is true that the PRC is an elitist group, then obviously, that is not what we want to be representative of our community, and it should be gotten rid of. On the other hand, if it anyone can join, then it is pointless and just wastes time, and thus should still be eliminated. How things should be done in a CAP without a PRC is still up for debate, but the fact is that all arguments point to the PRC being bad or unnecessary.

However, there is one more point out there, specifically reffering to situation 2. This argument is about how eliminating such a system is unnecessary, even if it serves little purpose. To quote Deck_Knight:
If we don't eliminate the PRC and did 10 CAP Projects, the entire time "lost" in this "streamline" is: A single month. Out of 2+ Years on average.
Yes, a single month out of 2 years really isn't that much. But why waste it? Now, they say time is money, so then, think of it this way: Say you own a company and you are making a 959 thousand dollars a year. Now simple change to your plans that does not take any time and has no downsides could increase that money up to one million dollars. Are you going to say no to that? Sure, in comparison, the amount you gain is not incredibly significant, but it is extra money for no extra effort. While a month might not seem like a lot, there is absolutely no reason to waste it. The ratio of money I use is exactly the same as the ratio of time given. It might not be a lot, but if there is no reason to keep the PRC, then there is no reason to waste that month. Keeping it just because the gains from changing are small is a completely illegitimate argument.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I'll give you the quick version jas:

1. Perceptions based on erroneous logic should be discarded, not embraced.

If every system that gets criticized incoherently and/or unfairly needs to be taken down, no system would ever survive at all. If an argument collapses completely on itself because its two strongest premises are contradictory, taking that argument seriously is little more than foolishness masquerading as open-mindedness.

2. Removing the PRC is not a cost-free change

We'd like to think if we eliminate the PRC we can just reinstate in later and gain the benefit of all the time we would have spent on it, but the history of the CAP Project shows once we head down a path, fixing it is nearly impossible without a complete overhaul. And I guarantee if people get a bad perception of either the mod handpicked TL or the popular vote TL, we'll have another thread just like this one where there's loads of self-contradictory references to weaknesses in the system that don't exist couched in crude, idiotic vulgarisms that already make me want to spit at the argument. If the best argument you can bring to the table involves making references to acts involving genitalia, kindly get a logical argument or get the fuck out. I could do without the mental image.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
First:
If the best argument you can bring to the table involves making references to acts involving genitalia, kindly get a logical argument or get the fuck out. I could do without the mental image.
Umm... WTF? I wish I knew what you were talking about. Well, actually I don't. But if you wan't to claim this, could you at least explain what the hell you mean.

Anyways:
I'll give you the quick version jas:

1. Perceptions based on erroneous logic should be discarded, not embraced.

If every system that gets criticized incoherently and/or unfairly needs to be taken down, no system would ever survive at all. If an argument collapses completely on itself because its two strongest premises are contradictory, taking that argument seriously is little more than foolishness masquerading as open-mindedness.
You have a good point. If arguments are flawed, then we should not be basing something off of it. Usually, at least. But not necessarily. The simple fact is, CAP thrives on community participation, then we need to make sure to embrace the community. If they perceive the PRC as bad, even if it is not, then it needs to go for the sake of the project as a whole. But to be honest, that is irrelevant. I never argued that the premises were wrong. I simply stated that there were two different ones and that they were opposites. My argument was that no matter which one was correct, the correct one calls for an elimination of the PRC. Both sides point towards the same thing, just for different reasons, and to be honest, everyone here but you seems to think one or the other is true.

You want some logic? Here you go. Say A represents the argument that the PRC is elitist, B represents the argument that the PRC lets everyone in, and C represents the idea that the PRC should be eliminated. Obviously, as we have agreed, these are opposites, so we can assume that the statement "If A then not B" would be true, as well as "If B then not A". Now if it is elitist, then it is bad, so it should go, thus we can assume "If A, then C." Additionally, if it B is true, then it serves no purpose and should go, or "If B, then C." And based on the arguments provided by everyone, I will aslo assume that "A or B" is true. With those assumptions made, some basic prepositional calculus can prove that C is true, thus the PRC should go. The logic is perfectly correct, if you want to attack something is would need to be the assumptions, not the logic. Now I doubt anyone would defend elitism, so I feel confident that the statements with A are in fact true. So, if that leaves us with the argument that either B is not a reason to eliminate the PRC, and takes us to this:

2. Removing the PRC is not a cost-free change

We'd like to think if we eliminate the PRC we can just reinstate in later and gain the benefit of all the time we would have spent on it, but the history of the CAP Project shows once we head down a path, fixing it is nearly impossible without a complete overhaul. And I guarantee if people get a bad perception of either the mod handpicked TL or the popular vote TL, we'll have another thread just like this one where there's loads of self-contradictory references to weaknesses in the system that don't exist couched in crude, idiotic vulgarisms that already make me want to spit at the argument.
Which all I get out of it is that no changes should be made because the unknown is scary. I won't argue that reinstating it would be easy, but I also don't think that we should shy away because of a possible future if it does not go as planned. We should do what we think is best, and if it turns out wrong, well shit, that sucks. Oh well. Lets try something else. Is it easy? No, but it is better than doing nothing out of the fear of something happening.

Now of course you coul also prove that we should not change by saying the assumption above "A or B" is false, but pretty much everyone here is arguing for one or the other, so I don't that is an argument anyone could win.

EDIT: I just realized that the first two logical assumptions I made are unnecessary. Even if we do assume that A and B are mutually exclusive, C will never require that fact as part of the proof
 
I haven't posted because I didn't have a very solid opinion on a lot of the concerns in this thread, but I believe that I should at least state some form of opinion. I'm rather perplexed at the borderline hostility of some of the posts and discussion...

First of all, I believe that there should be a rank of some sort between the general participant and the top tier, a "middle class" if you will. I don't think that we should lump all of the "higher" responsibilities into one rank, but rather, if we perceive that the "middle class" does not have enough real power, we should simply give them more power. Perhaps if we are to trust this "middle class" enough, they should be able to post policy review threads without moderator approval. This is just an example and I'm not saying that this should happen, but I'm just saying, maybe if the "middle class" rank is currently seen as meaningless, it should be given more meaning. In fact, any sense of elitism could possibly be reduced by empowering what we currently call the PRC, bringing the sense that it does more than just sit around and pick the TL sometimes.

I did consider the idea of representing "status" in CAP solely through the #cap IRC channel. However, there are some people who participate mostly through the forum and not much on IRC. Aerodactyl Legend strikes me as the best example of this. This is why I think that status representation in the forum is important.

I'm not sure of where the sense of elitism came from, but I don't see it as all that damning. A hierarchy is unavoidable, and it would be silly to cater to an unrealistic belief that everyone will be seen equally regardless of effort. If we really must remove the middle rank, then I think that CAP should get more mods to handle the responsibilities.

As for the immediate issue of the thread - picking the TL - I don't have a strong opinion on it. I do think that it is beneficial to have one leader to guide the process. However, as much as I'd like to say that restricting the leadership vote to a "PRC" or the mods, the fact the mods pick the TLs anyway, and the fact that usually all of the successfully nominated TLs are qualified in their own way, leads me to go with what Doug alluded to on the IRC channel. Whether the vote goes to the masses or the upper-middle will probably just change the voting results based on demographic, rather than the superiority of one candidate over the others.

I don't believe that battling ability is the most desirable trait for a TL or even a necessary one. Metagame knowledge, or at least the ability to learn it, is definitely important, but it could easily be argued that other traits, such as artistic prowess and general leadership traits, are just as important, including a willingness to take risks if it could benefit the building process. Quite frankly, our collective theorymon is not so sophisticated as to predict the future of a metagame with a lot of confidence, and perhaps metagame knowledge even blinds some people from this fact. We've taken the perceived safer "metagame knowledge" route last CAP with reachzero; we don't have to keep doing that.
 

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
I am not quite sure what to make of this thread. I am no longer really involved with CAP or competitive Pokemon in general, but the PRC is something I am quite familiar with and I feel that I am obligated to share my two cents on the issues being discussed in this thread.

Since I see a lot of unfamiliar faces in here, I guess I should introduce myself, in case you don't know who I am. I was formerly a CAP Forum and Server Moderator as well as the director of mini tournaments. I was primarily active in the community between CAP 3 - 8, and as a mod, picking PRC members was one of my responsibilities.

Since the primary purpose of today's PRC is to select the Topic Leader (as their other two responsibilities seem to have been downplayed in my absence for reasons unknown to me), let me start off by giving a brief history of the TL selection process before we had the Policy Review Committee. Originally, TL selection was done solely by the previous TL. However by CAP 3, a newer and more organized method for TL selection proposed by Doug was used. Basically, TL selection was voted on in private by a handpicked selection panel consisting primarily of former TLs, forum mods, and other prominent community members. A more detailed explanation is provided in the original [thread=38366]Process Workshop[/thread] thread:

DougJustDoug said:
I would like to have a more democratic process than "The current topic leader chooses their successor". That was fine when Cooper picked Hyra, but I think the project has moved beyond that now. With that said, I don't think we should make it a free-for-all.

In the interests of an expedited process, there should be some level of subjectivity involved. I don't think we should go through a full-blown open cattle-call nomination and voting process. I don't think that yields the best leader for this sort of thing anyway.

I suggest a "selection panel" or a "selection committee" that is comprised of several senior members of the community. I think past Topic Leaders should be automatically placed on the panel. Then add several more from people that have been involved in CAP for a long time and appear to have the proper perspective and judgment to weigh in on a decision like this.

Make a stipulation that members of the selection committee cannot be chosen as a Topic Leader. That eliminates conflict-of-interest on the panel.

Have all Topic Leader candidates self-nominate in a nomination thread. They should make their "pitch" in a self-nomination post. Individual community members can express support for a given candidate by posting in that thread. Posts disparaging candidates should be discouraged. The selection panel can take all the input from that thread and hold a vote via PM in order to select the Topic Leader.

I could serve as the non-voting "chairman" of the selection panel. I would organize the nomination and voting threads and PM's, and possibly vote in the case of a tie. My interest is not really to participate as a functional member of the panel, but rather to ensure the panel proceeds to do it's job in a timely and efficient manner. I also could ensure there are no improprieties during the private voting.

A selection process like the one I am describing, would allow the community to have a voice, and yet could be an efficient process as well.
From there, the TL would self nominate with a "pitch" post, and other members of the community were free to comment, with the vote left up to the selection panel. For an example of this process at work, see the TL Nomination thread for CAP 3. For all the talks about how "elitist" the PRC supposedly is, the TL selection process was considerably more so back then (and considerably less than the one before it!). Needless to say, you can see that we have come a long way since CAP 3.

Fast forward to right after CAP 5. As Wyverii mentioned, tennisace, ironically enough, created a [thread=48165]PR thread[/thread] outlining how a "round table" of experienced members of the CAP community who should have the final say on policy, and for convenience, the TL as well. This led up to the PRC that is in place today. While this was still far from an outright public vote, the PRC was far more inclusive than the TL selection panel before it.

Honestly, I don't know what has happened in my time away from the CAP community to lead to the allegations of today's PRC being "elitist", "chosen by mod favoritism", or perhaps even "superfluous", but in my experience, none of these things were true. For example, let us consider the PRC for CAP 8. When nominations were closed, Doug would ask us to share our opinions on the nominees, and pick out those who we thought were not qualified. Our standards were not that high, so a vast majority of the nominees made it on to the PRC. However, I was actually the most strict of the mods in this regard, and in each round of PRC nominations, including this one, I thoroughly analyzed the posting history of each of the nominees in order to make the best decision possible. Below is the PM I sent to Doug for the PRC in CAP 8:

Bass said:
Alright, to start off, I would just like to say that it was actually quite difficult to come to a decision on who to exclude from the Policy Committee. I tried to keep in mind that the committee was intended to be an open . I actually went through the CAP Forum posting history of many of the nominees AND the battling record to estimate how much they have contributed, but even then, I was a little torn on some of these decisions.

Before I list the exact list of candidates that I chose to reject, I will list my opinion on some of the ones that I thought were borderline.

The very first person that I want to mention is Hybrid99. He was one of the three people who got rejected from the last batch of PRC nominees because of the lackluster quality of his posts since then. However, since CAP 7, I think Hybrid has put a decent effort to be a better contributor through his forum posts. I won't say that all of his posts were the greatest, but he did actively contribute to most of the discussion threads in CAP 7. And, there is no question that he is active on the server. I am going to say that he deserves a spot on the committee this time around.

The next person I would like to talk about is Katherine. Like Hybrid, this user was rejected last time. However, this was because she (he?) did not really contribute anything to the CAP Project at that point. When I check, has that changed? Well, Katherine has certainly voted in most of the CAP 7 polls, but did not participate in that many of the discussion threads (the only one being secondary typing). However, Katherine has definitely been active on the server. I will say that she is active on the server, but I don't have much else to comment on. I won't say that I think she should be outright rejected like last time (I'll accept if you or darkie, I'll be fine with it), but I am pretty neutral about Katherine.

Finally, I would like to talk about is Leviathan. I have known him for quite a while, and I think he certainly has the maturity that Hybrid and Beef did not, he has no record of contributions to the CAP forum whatsoever. He did participate in the playtest, but I am not sure of the extent of his participation. I know he has been active on the server in the past but he hasn't been as active lately, unless it's just me. I would personally like to see a little more from him before putting him on the committee.

Now, these were the following people that I will reject to being on the PRC:

Leviathan
(explained above)
TehPiplupMan
Myriad
Genesis of Oblivion

First, I would like to say TehPiplupMan, while somewhat active, has been a real headache for me, as a moderator. During the Concept Submissions stage, I deleted one of his concepts and he got really anal about it, calling me out on the forums and then when I finally asked everyone who complained to bring it to PM, he did so and then continued to come off to me as a dick. The rest of his posting history is also less than spectacular.

Myriad has some posts, but hardly any related to CAP 7. He is somewhat active on the server, but I don't think he has done enough to merit a spot on the comittee.

Finally, Genesis Oblivion, while he is somewhat active, is mostly a "noob poster". One of the requirements to make the committee is a history of intelligent posts, and I feel he is lacking in that regard. Check his posting history if you want to know what I mean.

Again, if you have questions about these objections or would like me to elaborate further, please let me know. I went through a lot of trouble to judge each user individually, and I might have been a bit strict.
So what are the important points to make from this PM? Well for one, I did not accept or reject any nominees based solely on how much I liked or disliked them. My goal was to be as objective as possible. As you may have read, some of the users mentioned were long time acquaintances (Hybrid, Beef 2.0) or perhaps even friends of mine (Leviathan), yet I still rejected their nominations at some point because I didn't feel they were qualified at the time. Some of these users would later attempt to improve, and eventually make it onto the PRC in the future. Not only was the PRC not elitist, everyone who would be on it had rightfully earned their spots.

Overall, if the criticisms about today's PRC are true, then the problem lies in the community, not the PRC's functions itself. I believe that its existence provides the best balance of providing enough members of the community a say in the process without being too inclusive. I don't want to get into this too much, as it has been discussed in the past far too many times to count, but I think some effort should be made to ensure that the PRC is functioning as it originally intended.
 
A lot of this thread is based on speculation about, for example, whether other people feel the PRC is elitist. Perhaps we would benefit from setting up a poll?

It would certainly be instructive to know the answers to some of the following:

  • Do you feel the PRC is elected fairly?
  • Do you feel they produce high-quality discussions?
  • Do you trust their decisions over policies?
  • Do you trust their decisions over topic leaders?
  • Do you feel their reasoning is transparent?
  • Would you trust a decision by the PRC more than one by the mods?
  • Would you like to see more decisions taken by the PRC?
  • Can you see yourself joining the PRC in the future?
Several speakers here are working on the assumption that people will say No, No, No, No, No, No, No and No. The fear being that people see the PRC as a clique.

As I mentioned above, I never had this impression at all. Because the PRC lay their discussions out for all to see, and because they generally take their roles seriously, it is easy to see that they put thought into their posts and respect everyone's opinions, even those outside the PRC - on those occassions where their arguments merit it.

My answers, then, would be Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and "If the PRC takes on a significant role again."

That's a pretty significant gulf in attitudes, and if we don't understand what everyone else thinks, we can't really address their concerns.
 
I think Bass brings to light a very important point. Perhaps the issue is not the PRC, as tennis is so eager to convince us, but rather the mods themselves. Perhaps tennis's outlook where he chooses favoritism in his decisions is the manner that we need to abolish through this thread. I can honestly say when I read the first post and he said things like "I'm not going to bullshit you all and say that there was no favoritism involved in selecting the PRC, because there was.", I was surprised. I know that I don't do that. I try my personal hardest to make the most objective decision based upon my knowledge of the individual, as Bass suggested the mods did in his day and age.

I'm in the same boat as SV in answer to all of the questions in his post. I think the PRC does a good job, is elected fairly, and doesn't have the hint of elitism that tennis is so convinced it does. There is nothing wrong with the PRC, the problem is, rather, with the people. I believe that you should just rethink the way you approach this, tennis.
 

Stratos

Banned deucer.
I also agree with Smallvizier; however, unless the PRC magically regains its power, I don't see a point in keeping it around. The question here is: "are the mods willing to hand over their decision making power to the PRC?"
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
That's a pretty significant gulf in attitudes, and if we don't understand what everyone else thinks, we can't really address their concerns.
This is a really good point. All the arguments made so far are based on assumptions of how people really feel. While people are free to talk from themselves, it is hard to make a convincing argument one way or the other when you can't quantify the attitude of the group.

Personally, for me, to answer the questions that were brought up, I would have to answer "I don't know" to most of them, as I have not really seen much them in action. I would say that to the question "Would you trust a decision by the PRC more than one by the mods?" I would have to say no, not because I don't trust them, but because I trust the two groups equally. And to the final question, the answer really depends. If the group really is just an empty shell with no significance, then I wouldn't see any reason to try and join. But then, if it is given too much power, I would disdain it and not want to be a member. If a PRC can be given significance without being too powerful though, then I would love to join.

However, from what I have heard, that is not the situation the PRC is currently at.
 
First, thank you, Bass. Your post should help clear things up a bit.

I think Bass brings to light a very important point. Perhaps the issue is not the PRC, as tennis is so eager to convince us, but rather the mods themselves. Perhaps tennis's outlook where he chooses favoritism in his decisions is the manner that we need to abolish through this thread. I can honestly say when I read the first post and he said things like "I'm not going to bullshit you all and say that there was no favoritism involved in selecting the PRC, because there was.", I was surprised. I know that I don't do that. I try my personal hardest to make the most objective decision based upon my knowledge of the individual, as Bass suggested the mods did in his day and age.

I'm in the same boat as SV in answer to all of the questions in his post. I think the PRC does a good job, is elected fairly, and doesn't have the hint of elitism that tennis is so convinced it does. There is nothing wrong with the PRC, the problem is, rather, with the people. I believe that you should just rethink the way you approach this, tennis.
That is exactly what the "problem" is. It's not the PRC, but the general mass of participants.

The thing is, some people probably feel that the project is taken too seriously, with it's policies being pretty "complex," which makes them think it would be harder for them to get a good leg within CAP.

For those who haven't looked over the threads regarding CAP Policy, you really should, instead of expecting others to tell you what they are about.

The original Policy Review thread.

Policy Review Thread Rules.

Policy Review Index.

A Policy Review thread created by Plus which should also shed some light about the Committee.
 

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Man Rising_Dusk it's really cool of you to just call me out like that instead of refuting my contention that the PRC has served its purpose and should be abolished/replaced with a more coherent system, or at least revamped and the TL vote being made public.

I don't have time for a full reply to everything, but I will say this: the TL vote should be public. Nobody has given any good reason why it shouldn't. At this point in time, I'm fine with compromising and finding a better role for the PRC than the TL vote. If you have a suggestion, I'm all ears.
 
I will say this: the TL vote should be public. Nobody has given any good reason why it shouldn't.
The topic leader vote already is public. Since 2009, at least. It's a very open process with clear criteria, and the PRC gives excellent feedback on exactly how they have made their decisions.

The fact that the feedback is published openly encourages the voters to be as thoughtful and impartial as possible, and allows visitors to the forums to see that the TL has been chosen fairly. To me, it's one of the best examples of the PRC at work.

As for a 'better role' - how about running policy threads in the same way? Encourage PRC members to draft threads and, pending moderator approval, put them up for discussion. Then after that, rather than the mods cutting the discussion short and making the decision for them (as has happened recently), let the PRC vote in just the same way they do for the TL, so the reasoning is right there for all to see.

If this all sounds awfully familiar, that's because it's how things are meant to work around here.

PS - I do have a couple of ideas for that "red tape" thing, too. They're nothing to do with the PRC, though. I'll see if I get time to write something sensible up during the week. No promises - I want to make sure they're not rubbish before I go posting anything.
 

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
The topic leader vote already is public. Since 2009, at least. It's a very open process with clear criteria, and the PRC gives excellent feedback on exactly how they have made their decisions.
You misunderstood me. By public I mean absolutely anyone can vote.


As for a 'better role' - how about running policy threads in the same way? Encourage PRC members to draft threads and, pending moderator approval, put them up for discussion. Then after that, rather than the mods cutting the discussion short and making the decision for them (as has happened recently), let the PRC vote in just the same way they do for the TL, so the reasoning is right there for all to see.
I'm well aware that this is how it is supposed to work, and if we are going to keep the PRC, this will happen. However I was looking for other suggestions that aren't already supposed to be followed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top