1. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  2. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!

PR Nomination Process Discussion

Discussion in 'Private' started by eric the espeon, Oct 30, 2010.

  1. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon maybe I just misunderstood
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,694
    Code:
    [01:52]	<Philip7086>	can we re-think our current PR access nom process?
    [01:53]	<ete>	please please yes
    [01:54]	<supermarth64>	what do you have in mind
    [01:54]	<Philip7086>	well, i'd like to open the floor for suggestions
    [01:55]	<Philip7086>	but basically
    [01:55]	<Philip7086>	the current system is not too good
    [01:55]	<Philip7086>	one nom and less than six rejections and you're in?
    [01:55]	<Philip7086>	most people don't care enough about PR access to research a user being nominated and object
    [01:55]	<ete>	And lets have a good policy on PR removal
    [01:55]	<Philip7086>	yeah that too
    [01:55]	<ete>	how about
    [01:56]	<ete>	a minimum support number
    [01:56]	<Philip7086>	hmm okay
    [01:56]	<ete>	like, get 5 people who think a person should be in
    [01:56]	<ete>	or maybe less
    [01:56]	<Philip7086>	i'd say a ratio of support to objections could be good
    [01:56]	<ete>	and, yea
    [01:56]	<Philip7086>	3 supporters for every 1 objection maybe
    [01:56]	<ete>	each objection raises the number of supports required?
    [01:56]	<Philip7086>	and a certain expiration point
    [01:56]	<Philip7086>	yeah
    [01:56]	<ete>	yea
    [01:57]	<ete>	but have a min level for support
    [01:57]	<Kevin_Garrett>	yes, i like that
    [01:57]	<Philip7086>	5 might be much
    [01:57]	<Kevin_Garrett>	similar to the old badge system
    [01:57]	<ete>	to avoid the people who have one person supporting
    [01:57]	<ete>	5 may be too much
    [01:57]	<ete>	maybe three?
    [01:57]	<Philip7086>	for a user people don't know, people probably won't bother posting
    [01:57]	<Philip7086>	yeah 3 imo is good
    [01:58]	<ete>	If less than three PR people know someone, and can vouch for them
    [01:58]	<ete>	it should be kinda
    [01:58]	<Philip7086>	yeah
    [01:58]	<ete>	"if you support someone, you are partially responsible if they mess up badly"
    [01:58]	<Philip7086>	lol yeah
    [01:58]	<ete>	to avoid people just supporting their friends, even though they are not qualified.
    [01:59]	<ete>	with admin veto around for problematic cases?
    [01:59]	<Philip7086>	sure
    [02:00]	<Philip7086>	who wants to copy this log and paste it in the pr private forum?
    [02:00]	<ete>	I can
    [02:00]	<Philip7086>	okay sounds good
    [02:00]	<Philip7086>	thanks ete
    Lets have some discussion about how we should handle PR access.
  2. Philip7086

    Philip7086 Myuu
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis Smogon Frontier's Factory Headis a Past WCoP Winneris a SPL Winnerdefeated the Smogon Frontier

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,084
    I'm supporting what we discussed on IRC. To summarize:

    1. A nomination needs at least three supporters to pass
    2. If someone objects, the nominee needs at least three supporters per objection to pass
    3. Nomination threads end in 7 days. The user's ratio at the end of 7 days is what gets counted to grant/deny access
    4. Admins can veto nominations
    Yep, that's about it. I wouldn't have a problem with an admin having the power to bypass this process if they feel it's important for someone to have immediate PR access.
  3. Hipmonlee

    Hipmonlee Have a rice day
    is a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,323
    The current system wasnt supposed to be 1 nom and less than 6 objections. It is nomination, people can post whatever objections they have, then some admin uses common sense to determine whether a person should be added.

    Are the arbitrary numbers of supporters really that useful? Especially when there is admin veto anyway..

    Have a nice day.
  4. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon maybe I just misunderstood
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,694
    If one person with PR access likes you, and you're not able to summon a massive amount of opposition (how many people were rejected? lol.), you got PR access. If PR is meant to be used for productive debate, it makes sense to include just those who have proven themselves capable of such. Having one supporter is not appropriate justification, especially when you can have five people saying "god no" and still get in. The main problem however comes with the unknown user getting in when there may be dozens of more qualified candidates, simply because no one knows who they are are therefore no one objects. Lack of objection and a single vote of confidence on it's own is not enough to base access to PR in my opinion, especially when most of the nominators don't know exactly what is being looked for. As for admin veto, that's a last resort really. You can't expect the admins to personally follow up every objection carefully, or know all the facts of every case. Better to give the community some control over who gets in, make support and objection meaningful.
  5. Hipmonlee

    Hipmonlee Have a rice day
    is a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,323
    The five god knows was my point.

    All this really does is limit the situations a person could be added.

    This kinda seems like needless tinkering. Wouldnt it just be easier to say "This is the rough guidelines we will use for determining who will be added, but ultimately we will use our common sense".

    Have a nice day.
  6. hanke

    hanke
    won the 6th Official Smogon Tournament

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    664
  7. Firestorm

    Firestorm I did my best, I have no regrets!
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    7,304
    Wait what's the problem with this? Who cares if there are other qualified candidates? There's currently no limits on PR spots. I may know people who are very qualified who others here don't. That's no reason to deny them a spot. Especially when it may spark them to start chiming in more around the site.
  8. Veedrock

    Veedrock

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,780
    What he's saying is that under a system of objections, if somebody nominates a well known user (ex. drcossack), people have more grounds to object to them, and will speak up. But if I nominate ambea (random example), nobody knows anything about him to object and he's more or less got guaranteed access to PR because of it. That's the flaw with that system (this was demonstrated during the recent PR additions), which is why a system of approvals is being presented.

    I have to disagree with you that they should be allowed if they meet your standards even if they have no contributions to the site (ex. you know them irl). PR isn't for anybody that has an opinion, and your own individual opinion of their qualifications only carries so much merit. Many would consider drcossack more qualified than an unknown user being nominated in the above example (even if they have objection to drcossack); this is what would upset people about the current system, not taking up a "slot". Arguing that giving them PR access may spark their activity in other forums is backwards logic; PR access is an incentive to contribute to discussion on other forums, it should not be used as an incentive. That's like giving out badges under the premise that they might do things in C&C.

    While I do agree with Hip that common sense is the best way of handling allowance, it isn't practical (this is what slowed PR growth in the later DPP era, granted there were no open nominations). (EDIT: To clarify, I mean it isn't practical without a nomination process alongside it. Maybe I misunderstood Hip's intentions). However, it does incorporate well with the system proposed because of the veto power, which I'll address alongside this quote.

    If there's significant objections then it is very very unlikely that an admin disregards that and grants them access. Admins may not follow up on objections but they'll be able to follow up on approvals, considering that they have to give the user forum privileges, and I believe that is where the key function of the veto lies. It shouldn't be meant to turn over misguided rejections, it should be used to turn over misguided nominations.

    All in all I support what eric and Phillip are supporting. If I could make one amendmant, it'd be only 1 or 2 extra approvals needed per objection rather than 3. If 3 people object, there's no way 9 approvals are going to flock in, and I believe favor should be on the approval side, especially considering that an admin can review it and veto the nomination.
  9. Firestorm

    Firestorm I did my best, I have no regrets!
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    7,304
    I disagree. Users who we know are intelligent, have a good understanding of competitive gaming, are articulate, and are calm should be allowed regardless of what site they do it on. It shouldn't have to be on Smogon unless PR is now yet another carrot on a string. Then again, we can always let these users keep their contributions elsewhere instead of Smogon.
  10. Veedrock

    Veedrock

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,780
    Examples just aren't going to cut it anymore.

    I went ahead and doctored in what is implied. There is no "we" in knowing how intelligent these other members are, there is only you. You can post all the links and evidence you want but we do, not, know. Their history with competitive gaming is completely irrelevant to the subject. Once again, "we" don't know anything about their history or how well they can string sentences together. Secondly, it's been said before and I'll repeat it once more: Pokemon is not a fighting game, it is not a shooting game, it is not a racing game. Policies for other games simply do not apply to pokemon. The conglomerates of the competitive gaming world do not gather around and tinker with each others' genres.

    If you have beliefs that you think are fundamental and apply to every game genre, that's fine, you've earned your place in the community and can preach that. But you cannot seriously think it's ok to bring in people from other communities and immediately allow them to start deciding policy for a game they don't even play, all under the premise that they speak proper English and share your opinions. (And yes, this is exactly what your post insinuates; we all know what your view points are, and it's funny that the criteria the very user you're describing fits the exact same mold. But maybe that was an intentional example?). And what they can share is precisely that: opinion. We're not short opinions here at Smogon, we're not looking to recruit "experienced" opinions either. What's the worth of an opinion? Why is this "experienced" gamer's opinion more valuable than this user's? Or this user's? Because you know them?

    Frankly, I really do not care if they keep their "contributions" (opinions) elsewhere, because as I've said they have an opinion and their opinion is no more valuable than anybody else's. In fact I consider it less valuable. If you hold it in higher regards to the average user, that does not mean the rest of us should. If they want to play pokemon and earn PR privileges the same as any other member, so be it. But I'll be damned if they sleep their way into policy making because they have friends in high places.

    Sorry that this has been slightly off topic but the line has to be drawn.
  11. twash

    twash
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,329
    Why does this have to be so overly one-dimensional? Whoever makes the decision should be able to use common sense to make a decision, otherwise they shouldn't be the person making it in the first place. I really do not see a need to have some kind of ratio in place.

    And how is this partial responsibility going to be implemented? By limiting their future nominations? It seems a bit awkward and limiting to me.

    Come on, common sense should usually be giving off alarm bells in such a situation... even if you are exaggerating, it should still be pretty obvious to consider the arguments for and against in the nomination thread, provided that it is not totally one-sided.

    So what if an unknown user gets in over a "more qualified" candidate? If you happen to know that there is a more qualified candidate, then you should nominate them, otherwise they obviously aren't qualified. Unknown users can often bring new things to the table, and as for the decision to let them in or not, common sense would be extremely handy in such a decision. If it's only one vote of confidence then the person deciding should use their judgement to decide whether they should have access or not, as opposed to a plain yes or no "because the system says so".

    I don't think that is why it was slow at all, quite frankly. I think it's the fact that there was no real nomination process, so nobody really knew who was being added and nobody really would go out of their way to get somebody involved. While a nomination process is now being made, I don't really like this whole objection count thing. Also, why isn't it practical? Because whoever is in charge actually have to look through and consider the reasoning of the objection as opposed to just seeing "I object"?

    To be honest, I'd rather have one person keeping tabs on nominations (probably Philip) and deciding the user's fate and then passing the message on to the admins. The person deciding should have enough common sense to make an accurate judgement. I would just prefer that the reasons in the objection(s), and the depth of reasoning, actually get taken into account. Of course, you can say it's "subjective" because it is up to one person to decide, but then if you have some kind of ratio thing, you run the risk of people just saying "I object", without any real reasoning besides "I just don't like the user". Of course, I am exaggerating as no such objection would be counted (or at least I hope not), but even still, a lot of objections are bound to hold more weight than others.
  12. undisputed

    undisputed
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis Smogon Frontier's Frontier Lackeyis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,116
    I'm bored, and I like to come up with new ways of doing things lol. So, I just want to throw out a new system that might be faster, less debatable, and potentially smoother. You can take what you wish from it. So here it is:

    -PR User nominates non-PR-user, and puts evidence as to why they would be good. This can be posts, IRC Logs, Battling Logs (maybe not logs without other proof they are good and helpful)
    -Have a panel of 5 people similar to the QC whose job it is to review nominations.
    -The panel members can bring up any issues they have with the nominated user, and then the Nominator can rebut the issues.
    -The panel members will vote after a few days, then an admin can add them or not depending on results of the vote.

    Idk it seems simple and effective to me since it's similar to QC and that's a smooth process.
  13. jrrrrrrr

    jrrrrrrr wubwubwub
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Server Moderatoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,172
    I don't see why we even need to change things from the old nomination->proof->discussion way that we used to. I liked it being intentionally vague, because different people bring different things to the table. Having a strict system takes away from the variety that makes PR work, in my opinion. This seems like much to do about nothing.

    edit- Having a strict system also outlines the minimum requirements needed to get in, which makes it easier to get in, which makes our overall pool weaker. We shouldn't be trying to race to the bottom. Having a strict system in place takes away all of the common sense and personal judgments that go into the decisions. I think this is another thing we should stay away from on principle alone.

    edit #2- I'm more concerned about the people dictating pokemon policy in PR who don't play the game. We should be more focused on trimming down PR right now if anything.
  14. TAY

    TAY You and I Know
    is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,542
    Yeah I'm with jrrrr and others, I don't see any problem with the current system. It is basically what we use for badge nominations, so I don't see why there is any problem with using it here.

    Does anyone really think the thorhammer nomination thread was inappropriate?
  15. cim

    cim happiness is such hard work
    is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,412
    I think PR should be like Ladybug in "easy to get, easy to lose". There's no harm in having any number of intelligent people here, so we should be as welcoming as possible, but in the same breath we should be able to get rid of users who post absolutely nonsensical, terrible arguments pretty easily as well. PR isn't a reward or incentive, though it does help "good users" get more involved and engaged so it is beneficial for Smogon and that user to be inclusive.

    I remember way back, Obi and I were talking and he envisioned that eventually we wouldn't "need" PR, and that we could just have a forum with much tighter moderation than normal. Basically, the "delete" button would be used without much thought, so that all the random starkers wouldn't be repeating the same arguments and personal attacks with each other, but new users with good points could be heard too. I don't think everyone's on board with that right now, but I see a generally "include people but quickly remove them" policy to maintain the same spirit.

    Basically, unlike a badge where you get IS and SCMS access, the worst thing that could happen if we're too liberal is that they make a few terrible posts that get deleted...
  16. Firestorm

    Firestorm I did my best, I have no regrets!
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    7,304
    Except for the fact that I was talking about Pokemon players who also play other games competitively which is what I'd say this board needs. I don't see how they're "skipping" the queue when there is no queue. I wasn't talking about the "ability to speak English", I was talking about the ability to present their position. I actually didn't ask any of the people who I nominated last time what their stance on any of these issues were before I nominated them.

    Oh and I wasn't talking about opinions. I was talking about research, opinions, and the traditional definition of "contributions" we use on this site.

    If you feel another user is worth nominating more, do it. If we set a hard cap on PR users, then I'll say your argument has weight. Otherwise, I'm not sure why we're rejecting users based on the same reason everyone flamed Rising_Dusk for. After all, Smogon grew out of other Pokemon communities. We have admins we took mostly for their contributions on other sites. This is not unprecedented.
  17. Synre

    Synre
    is a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis a Past SPL Winner

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,588
    I'm all for what Phil outlined earlier on in regards to admittance, and would support that amended version of what it takes to nominate someone here, as mentioned in the first and second posts in this thread. We have a rather unruly amount of users in this forum already, however, so I disagree with the sentiment in some of the previous posts that we have a need to be going out of our way to look for new members. I think the admittance part of the process is fairly straightforward anyway, we have a pretty good idea of what traits make someone good for this forum.

    However, I think there's two other steps in the process we need to overhaul much more desperately: objection and removal.



    Objections

    I think we should have some clarification on what exactly constitutes a reasonable objection. There's not really any formal criteria for why people should be objecting right now, and I think it is important that the differences in why people choose to reject nominees or not are because of differences in the experience they have with the user in question, not because of varying standards in what a PR user should be. We have some pretty significant issues with opposing people for relatively unsubstantial personal issues right now on the site as a whole so I think we really need to figure something more concrete to determine blocked access to this forum.

    There are a variety of relevant factors: How much does battling ability matter? How much does more theoretical Pokemon knowledge matter? How much does tournament or suspect testing experience matter? How much does being able to debate reasonably matter? How much does not being a tool matter? I think we need clearer guidelines to help guide people along a bit. I think a lot of potential objections(most of which ended up getting revoked) were unacceptable, but that doesn't necessarily mean I was right and they were wrong, it means there's a difference in standard that we should really be going over.

    To give my own thoughts on the above, I think for the most part the only factors that should matter are those competitive Pokemon-related assets: battling ability, tournament/suspect success, metagame knowledge, etc. I don't think any one trait needs to be the line, but I think the combination of those factors should end up at a point where an elite player would at least respect the nominees ability. Could be because of success in official tournaments, could be extraordinary knowledge of the metagame, could be general battling ability, could be any combination of the three, just something that makes them "belong". I think that personality should only come into play where there is a reasonable expectation that it will prevent people from being able to contribute here. Not "I don't like x, I don't want to have to debate them," only "there is no fucking way x is capable of discussing the issues here without turning topics into an undesirable shitstorm." I think we need to figure out if this is where the bar should be, or if people think it should be lower or higher. Most of the personality complaints are better handled by allowing and then revoking access anyway; I think it'd be a lot more fair to let people be innocent until proven guilty outside of extreme cases.



    Removal of Access

    Related to this, with clearer lines on what a PR member should be needs to come a clearer bar for when people with access to this forum do not meet the level we're setting out to achieve.

    I think like the above, there's two main reasons people should/could be removed from this forum:


    1. The person in question is behaving unacceptably in this forum and as such needs to be removed in order to maintain a mature environment on the forum.
    2. The person in question no longer exhibits a respectable level of knowledge and ability relating to competitive Pokemon.


    I think both are fairly straightforward; the first case the user is too disruptive, the second case the user is no longer useful to the forum and is simply unhelpful. There is no use in debates for someone who doesn't have the frame of reference necessary to be on the same level as fellow posters, and having inexperienced players around has a detrimental effect on polls since it defeats the point in having them in this forum to begin with. As such, I propose that badgeholders no longer automatically have access to Policy Review. Current badgeholders would keep their PR access but be subject to removal like anyone else, and future badgeholders would need a separate nomination to this forum. I think the logic here is fairly simple: the variety of things we give badges for are intended to reward contributions to the site, not to acknowledge Pokemon ability. There's no direct Pokemon ability evident in getting badges for things like drawing, grammar checking, CAP contributions, moderating the forums, or writing articles in The Smog, so why grant PR access for them? People who are in this forum because they have those badges, but do have the experience necessary to be value to the forum would stay, and people who do not could be removed for now in order to make the PR access list more representative of competitive Pokemon ability/knowledge, as intended. Hopefully in the future, these people would play the game a little more in order to be readmitted. If not, I think it's a sign they shouldn't have been here to begin with.

    Nominations, Objections, and Removals could all easily be done in a single thread in this subforum.
  18. ENZ0

    ENZ0
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,347
    I agree with the amended version explained by Synre. Even as a new PR member it seems logical for there to be standard prerequesites to refer to when looking at potential PR members. I don't mean a strict amount, just the one or combination the potential PR member excels with.

    The only problem I have with Philip's new approach is the use of one objection to the three supports. We all know there will be a hater that can ruin a potential PR member's chances. And, looking at the amount of activity in Mien's nom thread, not a lot of people get involved in supporting or objecting the nominated user. Based on this thread and the minor amount of activity seen in the later DPP time (mentioned by Veedrock, I wasn't here back then xD), I can see getting six supporters for merely two objections difficult. I mean in reality not all PR members are this eager about nominations. The ratio is what seems off-putting, and I would like hear of new ratios or ideas.

    Undisputed's system looks decent on paper, but it's really subjective to have a few PR members decide on whether a nominated user should be accepted. It also takes away the point of having a huge group of qualified PR members. It could work, but we would have to have those standard prerequisites of a potential PR member clarified to the few selected PR member.

    In conclusion, one way or another we would need some standard guidelines (they don't have to be strict) to refer to, and props to Synre because his standard seem to be at least the minimum of a potential PR member. When I said they don't have to be strict I meant to bring into play Hipmonlee's common sense which also should have strong value. Now all we need is to perfect an unbiased system, which I admit is the difficult part. Nonetheless, I think Philip's outline system hands us something to work with.

    IN MY OPINION!
  19. reachzero

    reachzero the pastor of disaster
    is a CAP Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,524
    One of my greatest concerns regarding this system is its vulnerability to being abused; PR isn't just about setting policy through discussion anymore, it's being used for votes, and very important ones at that. I am concerned that a system where a PR candidate can be nominated simply by three users bringing up his/her name could easily be used to stack votes: a small group of users with a strong interest in the outcome of a particular vote or philosophy combs Uncharted Territory (or IRC) for users that agree with their view on the issue, nominates them en masse, and forces their opposition to do massive quantities of research to provide the burden of evidence against the nomination. The solution to this, of course, would be to place the burden of evidence on the user making the nomination--demand that they include an annotated post history, explain why they believe the user will be a good poster in PR, etc. Such nominations would be much easier to evaluate and critique, and therefore much more difficult to abuse.
  20. jrrrrrrr

    jrrrrrrr wubwubwub
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Server Moderatoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,172
    I completely agree with this. We shouldn't be making it easier to get in - that defeats the purpose of this forum. If anything, we need to start thinking of ways to remove bad users from this forum because it's obvious that our current system is letting people slip through the cracks.
  21. Firestorm

    Firestorm I did my best, I have no regrets!
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    7,304
    Since the issue here is going to be removing people which people hate to do, why not remove the entire access list and start from scratch?
  22. cim

    cim happiness is such hard work
    is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,412
    Wouldn't that be effectively the same thing, but just pissing more people off? If I was removed, I wouldn't be "more okay with it" if everyone else was and then half of them got it back, and we'd risk losing dozens of quiet yet very insightful posters that lurk here.
  23. Jumpman16

    Jumpman16 np: Michael Jackson - "Mon in the Mirror" (DW mix)
    is a Smogon IRC SOPis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,754
    id rather lose the "quiet yet very insightful posters" who do not do the very and only thing we ask of them in granting them access to post in this forum that they and everyone else can already lurk than have the opposite ("loud yet very unilluminating posters") continue to make it harder for us to get anything done here
  24. Firestorm

    Firestorm I did my best, I have no regrets!
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    7,304
    People don't like singling out who should be removed. People also don't like being singled out. This also seems the easiest way to do things. As Jump said, if people aren't excercising their right to use the forum, then why do they need to be able to participate? The forum is publicly viewable if they merely want to read.

    I know you're worried you may not have access. I may not have access either. There are others in the same situation. But if we do a culling (which I agree, we do probably need because 300 policy makers seems ridiculous), it seems least painful to start from scratch than to look through and remove one by one.

    The only issue I see is the most recent wave of users who haven't had a huge chance to contribute yet.
  25. Cyrrona

    Cyrrona starlet
    is a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    186
    On the topic of possible downsizing, I think this is an important point we shouldn't overlook. I'm one of the recent additions myself, and while I'm very grateful for this opportunity to contribute, I admittedly haven't been a major posting force since I've been given access. This is because I haven't seen any great benefit to doing so right now, as the bulk of the current hot-button topics are polls. I vote in those polls, but I don't see the point in rehashing other previously stated opinions when literally everyone is already locked into a position on these polarizing issues. Simply voting in the polls seems to be the most direct, constructive way to contribute at the moment, so that's what I've personally been doing. I (and I imagine a number of other recently inducted, like-minded users) will weigh in on future debates as they surface, but throwing ourselves into the majority of these current arguments seems like a needlessly confrontational, fruitless effort when the discussion threads have run their course and we've advanced to the voting stage. Plenty of the new PR additions--even some of those that appear to be "lurking" at the moment--are intelligent, qualified users that simply haven't had a great deal of time to make an impression yet. If this PR pruning happens, I humbly request that the administrators in charge of patrolling the forum take this into consideration before cutting large groups out of the picture.

    On the issue of PR nominations and whatnot, I agree with Veedrock and ENZ0 on the unreasonableness of the OP's "1 objection needs 3 additional supporters to be overruled" proposal. This is setting the bar far too high, and anyone that's made 1+ enemy during their Smogon stay is nearly guaranteed to get shut out under this system. I'd much rather see a "1 additional support to counterbalance each objection" rule enacted. I think the current process is mostly fine and we could probably scrape by with it in place, but if the higher-ups decide otherwise, I think the OP, Synre and reachzero have posted some good starting points. I definitely agree we should judge objections strictly so people can't simply toss them out for every user they've butted heads with, and we should also require detailed nomination posts to help ensure the system won't be taken advantage of in the way reachzero outlined. I think the OP's "3 supporters per nomination" rule is pretty sensible too if we'd like to assign fixed numbers to this. Should PR nomination reform take place, this is the direction I'd like to see it take.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)