Done On PRC Proposals, Consensus, and Closings

Status
Not open for further replies.
snake

snake

is a Community Leaderis a Top CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Metagame Resource Contributor Alumnus
CAP Co-Leader
Hello all,

It should be no surprise that CAP PRC has areas for improvement, and one of the biggest problems is that we have no standard way to open, discuss, and close a thread in a timely manner. Thus, I'd like to propose one such process.

Step 1: A thread is posted by a CAP Moderator or a PRC member with approval from a CAP Moderator. The thread must stay up for a full week (168 hours) before moving on to Step 2.

Step 2: The thread must reach a consensus before proceeding to Step 3.

A thread has reached a consensus if:
  • 48 hours have passed since the last "discussion post" in the thread
    • A "discussion post" intends to approve, meaningfully amend, or dissent of the given proposal.
    • Posts that simply state approval or dissent of a proposal are not considered "discussion posts."
    • Authors of threads that require longer than 48 hours between posts (such as those that deal with Stat Limits and BSR) can request a longer period than 48 hours.
  • All "meaningful objections" to the proposal have been resolved.
    • If there are any glaring faults in the proposal, then it's up to the proposal author to resolve these before the thread can be closed.
    • Posts from a user or group of users that are clearly objecting for the sake of objecting are not considered "meaningful." Examples of include short one-liners simply stating dissatisfaction without good reasons why or posting an argument that's already been resolved.
Step 3: If the thread has reached a consensus, a CAP Moderator will post a 24 hour warning. If any post within that 24 hour period indicates that a consensus has not been reached, the thread reverts back to Step 2. If the 24 hour passes, a CAP Moderators will close the thread and give the proposal a final review and vote.

See Post #4 for an updated process.

To me, this is a fair process. Step 1 ensures that the thread is up for long enough for all PRC members to post. Step 2 ensures that the discussion is fully complete and that thread author resolves any fair objections with the proposal. Step 3 ensures that PRC members know that the thread is closing to voice any concerns before it is closed for moderator approval. I'm very willing to amend this proposal, so please let me know how this can be improved!
 
Last edited:
Don't necessarily object to the general idea here, but I think the biggest concern here would be that this system is one really designed to only allow policy changes with unanimous consent. Obviously if an objection is not meaningful than it can be ignored, but if someone has an actual meaningful objection, and we are unable to resolve it, then a thread just goes nowhere. Even if the vast majority of people approve of something, so long as someone has a meaningful objection that cannot be resolved, a thread just cannot end.

While I think a lot of the time we can resolve things, I think history has shown that, especially on major and meaningful policy changes, there will always be strong opinions, and I don't think there is ever going to be a good way to work out all objections. We have always ended up going with what seemed like a general consensus, but we have never required a unanimous one, because frankly, I just don't think that is feasible most of the time.

I also am not the biggest fan of requiring the OP to be the one who has to resolve all issues. While it would be great if they did, so long as people are discussing and come to some kind of consensus on how to resolve the issue, I don't think we need the original author to come in and approve it specifically.

Overall, I think that overhauling exactly how PR works is a good idea, especially with regard to laying out a definitive timeline and whatnot. But I think this exact proposal could use a bit of tweaking for when the outcome of a thread is not so clear.
 
I think jas61292 has hit the nail on the head here. While I agree on principal with making the PRC more transparent and resolving matters quickly, I still don't know if this is the best way to ensure changes go through and threads don't just end up languishing in cycles. I think that as jas has said, whenever a change is important it will probably be controversial, and as such we need to get some sort of a sense of how to resolve conflicting opinions that isn't purely quantitative, especially when considering many threads haven't received much traction in terms of a large amounts of posts in recent history.
 
I talked with jas61292 and have amended the process below.

Step 1: A thread is posted by a CAP Moderator or a PRC member with approval from a CAP Moderator. The thread must stay up for a full week (168 hours) before moving on to Step 2.

Step 2: The thread must reach at least one exit condition before proceeding to Step 3.
  • Exit Condition A: 48 hours have passed since the last "discussion post" in the thread.
    • This exit condition ensures threads are open for a fair amount of time but also ensures PRC threads are resolved with speed.
    • A "discussion post" intends to approve, meaningfully amend, or disapprove the given proposal.
    • Posts that simply state approval or dissent of a proposal are not considered "discussion posts."
  • Exit Condition B: 20 days have passed since the thread was initially posted.
    • This exit condition ensures threads, even without a clear consensus, will be resolved eventually.
***Exit Condition A's 48 hours and Exit Condition B's 20 days can be extended within reason with permission from CAP Moderators. These extensions should be used for developing resources, such as those regarding Stat Limits and BSR. They should not be used simply to drag out discussion for longer - that would defeat the purpose of having time limits.

Step 3: If the thread reaches one of the exit conditions, a CAP Moderator will post a 24 hour warning.
  • Under Exit Condition A, if any post within that 24 hour period indicates that discussion must continue, the thread reverts back to Step 2.
  • Under Exit Condition B, the thread cannot return to Step 2.
Once the 24 hours pass, if a thread consensus is clear, the CAP Moderators will use the thread's consensus for the vote. A post that clearly summarizes the thread's consensus by proposal author(s) and/or other invested supporter(s) will help CAP Moderators identify the thread's consensus. If the thread does not have a clear consensus, CAP Moderators will use their best judgement to determine the thread's consensus. The CAP Moderators will close the thread, give the proposal a final review, and vote to approve or reject the proposal.

----

The amended proposal hopefully addresses jas61292 and MrDollSteak's concerns. Now, a thread will be generally resolved between 1 week and 3 weeks. It places heavier emphasis on CAP Moderators to decide on contentious topics, but this isn't really a change from the status quo. The old and new processes treat topics that are generally accepted by the community without too many objections basically the same. Again, I'm willing to amend this proposal to suit the PRC's needs effectively - whether there's still some fundamental flaw I've overlooked, the time limits given in the proposal, etc. Let me know what you think about this change!
 
I really appreciate what you're doing here Snake, honestly I think a proposal like this is very long overdue. My one immediate worry, however, is what will happen as a result of us closing so many old PRC threads in a short period of time. If we approve and implement too many PRC threads at once we run the risk of changing the project more drastically and perhaps in ways vastly different than we originally intended. I believe that so long as we are deliberate and methodical with our approach to implementing these changes we should be able to avoid such problems, however under the current model there is no limit to the number of threads that can get resolved at once. Perhaps enacting a system which limits the amount of threads to be implemented over a certain period of time might aid in avoiding that outcome.
 
Last edited:
Tadasuke said:
I really appreciate what you're doing here Snake, honestly I think a proposal like this is very long overdue. My one immediate worry, however, is what will happen as a result of us closing so many old PRC threads in a short period of time. If we approve and implement too many PRC threads at once we run the risk of changing the project more drastically and perhaps in ways vastly different than we originally intended. I believe that so long as we are deliberate and methodical with our approach to implementing these changes we should be able to avoid such problems, however under the current model there is no limit to the number of threads that can get resolved at once. Perhaps enacting a system which limits the amount of threads to be implemented over a certain period of time might aid in avoiding that outcome.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay on this answer, but I think the best way to resolve old threads is for CAP Moderators to methodically start give 24/48 hr warnings on each of the threads. If they get some more activity, we'll just act as if they have just 7 days of prior activity and are currently in Step 2. Hopefully this will be a good enough solution.

From this post, I'd like to introduce the idea of having Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, and Done tags rather than the ones we currently have to complement the proposal above. I don't find the old tags particularly useful anymore.


So, if we're following my proposal in Post #4, we're in Step 2 right now. After 48 hours since the latest post asking for a meaningful change or giving meaningful criticism to the new process, the proposal will go to Step 3. So, if no one posts after me, it'll be 48 hours from this post! At Step 3, a CAP Moderator will post the 24 hour warning. If no one objects during those 24 hours, the thread will close, the mods will vote, and ideally this motion will pass. If someone objects during Step 3, though, we'll revert back to Step 2 again. Hopefully this process isn't too confusing - I tried to lay it out as clearly as possible in Post #4, but the intention is to make sure that PRC threads are resolved swiftly but not while people still want to comment on them. I'm also still open to amending the proposal if you think I've missed something critical. The best way to reach out with any questions is Discord!
 
Under the current proposal, this thread would be in Step 3 (I'm a day late, whoops). This is your 24 hour warning before this motion gets pushed to mods for voting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top