Policy Review Review TLT System

Status
Not open for further replies.

DetroitLolcat

Maize and Blue Badge Set 2014-2017
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
After completing two CAPs under the TL+TLT leadership model, it’s time to evaluate that model and decide how to move forward with CAP leadership. Right now, each of the four major competitive areas of a CAP (typing, abilities, stats, and movepool) is led by an individual Section Leader and the process as a whole is guided by a Topic Leader. These changes were implemented between CAPs 4 and 5 during the Topic Leadership Policy Review thread. Before that, a single Topic Leader managed each topic from Concept Submissions to the Final Product.

However, some users believe that the Strong TL model of leadership is more effective than the current one. These users have a point; CAP has created successful Pokemon under both the Strong TL and TL+TLT leadership models. Other users believe in adjusting the current model’s intricacies while leaving the five-person leadership team intact. The TL+TLT model has already been adjusted during the Topic Leader Powers Policy Review between CAPs 5 and 6; this thread filled in a few holes in the current model. Specifically, it clarified what powers the Topic Leader has when concluding the Attacking and Non-Attacking Moves discussions, the Stat Limits discussion, and the Movepool Limits discussion.

Often, CAP leadership structure changes once the current structure fails in some manner. For example, CAP 8 (Cyclohm) was “hijacked” (legally) by prominent CAP users, so the Strong TL model was implemented so an elected leader had the project’s single most directing voice. BW CAP 4 (Aurumoth) was “strongarmed” when the TL stretched the position’s powers to their absolute limits, giving rise to the TL+TLT system. The TL+TLT model hasn’t yet had its “failure”, though it is still in its infancy. It is important to search for areas where the leadership model could lead to a CAP falling apart in some way. This thread is for more than playing devil's advocate; if there are few reasons to change the current leadership model then we should not invent reasons to do so.

This thread is intended to be open-ended; please voice your opinion, favorable or unfavorable, of the current leadership model and whether or not you support changing it, tweaking it, or maintaining the status quo.

Expected Topics of Discussion:

-How the TL+TLT system has fared over the past two projects. Note that we are not evaluating the CAPs themselves, but rather the process behind creating the Pokemon and how the leadership model has enhanced or worsened the process.

-How the TL+TLT system can be improved, if at all. Listing the pros and cons of the TL+TLT model is a good place to begin evaluating this criterion.

-Whether or not we should move forward with the TL+TLT system for Gen VI CAP 1 and beyond.

-Any other concerns that PRC members have with the current leadership model.

A proposal and vote, if necessary, will appear after we have discussed the above topics.
 

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 not convinced that the TL + TLT system is the most efficient system we can utilize within the CAP Project to structure our leadership. That being said, CAPs 5 and 6 went very well from a moderating standpoint. Leadership was mostly clear, the community was focused, and there was fresh energy at the commencement of each thread. Overall, I believe that the sample size is too small at the moment to make any final judgment calls on permanently keeping the TL + TLT or ditching it entirely. However, I believe the past two CAPs have proven the viability of the model, so I'd like to see how it fares under the high activity that CAP 1 is bound to have. After a Generation 6 CAP (or two), I'd like to dive into this topic in greater depth.

But that's just me. By all means, if the PRC would like to discuss improving / removing the TL + TLT system, let's talk about it.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
While I'm not the best person to go in depth about pros and cons, since I've never been TL or part of the TLT, I can say from my perspective as a community member that the TLT system has largely appeared successful. However, as the OP points out, success in a vaccuum is irrelevant, since the Strong TL system, or some other system, may in fact be superior.

That said, all else being equal, I prefer the TLT system. CAP is at the end of the day a communal project. While I certainly don't advocate a pure democracy, I do think that the TLT system takes a step towards democratizing the Strong TL system, which is inherently more centralized. And in my opinion, a system that more accurately reflects the ideals of the community is better, so long as it doesn't sacrifice practicality or results. For the results aspect, regrettably, we really have no way of knowing what the future holds. We have small sample sizes and have also had previously successful systems go awry before. So instead, I think it would be better to focus in on the practicality issue. And that's where I can only guess and will have to defer to those who have participated in this TLT system.

To those who have been TLs/TLTs for the past two projects and to the CAP mods too, I suppose, have you noticed issues with the practicality of the system? The biggest one to me seems to be the big delays we had between threads, but I think that has more to do with refining the current system (partly done by our Poll Options thread) rather than scrapping it. Beyond that, maybe some refining of precise TL and TLT capabilities would be good. Have you all come across any leadership gaps where it wasn't clear whose responsibility something was?
 

Bull of Heaven

Guest
I more or less agree with Birkal. This system seems to be fine so far, and I have no problem at all with continuing to use it for now. The last two CAPs have turned out extremely well, and I think the leadership system as it exists now is ready to be tested in a new generation.

The only thing I don't like about the TLT model is the delays that result between threads from the involvement of so many people. These will not always happen (since it depends to some extent on the activity of those same people), I haven't thought of any way of reducing them without changing other aspects of the system, and reducing these delays is not worth sacrificing the benefits of our current distribution of powers. In other words, delays are annoying, but we can live with them.

Not a very long or interesting post, I know, but there isn't much to say when the current system seems to be fine. Maybe I'll think of more things later; right now I should go to bed a few hours ago.
 

paintseagull

pink wingull
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I think a major problem with the model right now is that we need explicit failsafes to activate when TLT members fail to do their duties in a timely or adequate way. We should definitely anticipate that this will happen - of course, we all have things to do outside of the internet and sometimes you can't help but have to decrease your activity despite your best intentions. We always said that mods would step in should something come up, but this hasn't actually happened. I think we need more structured and standardized ways for the moderation team or TL to fill in any gaps should they arise. And the TLT needs to know that if they don't post/make slates/communicate with the rest of the team that someone else will do it for them, and that there are no hard feelings or awkwardness about it should it happen.

Basically: I really like the TLT system as it is, I just think it needs structured moderation support.
 

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
With less responsibility also comes less pressure, which has fixed a few problems but opened up a few others.

Moderator duties have always been contentious because even though by definition we're respected community members, we're also the only people who are not elected in any capacity. The other problem is there's five of us, so who steps in? I think the best answer, instead of moderators doing it, is to have the TL default to their previous capacities if inactivity or slating is an issue. While we shouldn't rush through CAPs, it is reasonable to expect about a 30 hour turnaround time for an update on a given section's progress, or how the discussion is going.

It's been proven basically since the inception of the project that "the moderators will step in" is not a workable expectation. Our job is to oust spammers/thread-hoggers/flame warriors. We exist as facilitators to the order of the process, not as part of the process itself unless we are opt for an election to do so in the formation of the TL / TLT positions for a CAP.

Intra-TLT Communication is more important than Mod-TLT Communication. We should also have an expectation, either written or otherwise, of the timescale we expect from each member of the leadership. I think we should keep the TL + TLT Model into the first Gen 6 CAP, and reassess the balance of the TL afterwards. In splitting the TL's power we have to strike the right balance to obtain project objectives. Having the TL also act as a timekeeper on the project would be well within the purview of what we want them to do.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
While I cannot say that I am one hundred percent convinced that the TLT system is necessarily the best we could possibly have, after the completion of two projects, I personally believe that adopting this system was a good decision. I'll be honest in that I do not think this past project was necessarily one of the strongest ones we have ever had, but I do believe that both projects were successful, and I think it has proved the worth of the system itself.

With that said, I also acknowledge that my views on both CAP 5 and 6 are hard to compare to my views on previous projects. For both of them I was in a position that I had never been in before (TL and then Moderator), so my they way I approached both processes was new and different to me. As such, I don't think I necessarily can compare this system with what we had previously as well as some other people could. I do of course still have opinions on this, and I do have some things to say about it.

One thing I personally believe that this system has shown is that, despite the de-emphasis of TL power, the actual strength required from the TL is higher than ever before. To this end, I'd like to reference a comparison DougJustDoug made in the post CAP4 PR thread on Topic Leadership regarding Rising Dusk. To paraphrase what Doug said, while RD did a good job as leader of the Necturna project, he actually seemed to do an even better job as "leader" of the Voodoom project, despite not being in an actual leadership position. To quote DJD, "I felt like RD used his position as Topic Leader and mod as a bit of a crutch to take the easy way out on some project decisions."

Now why exactly am I bringing this up? Well, because the way I see it, the ideal TL would act more like how RD did during the Voodoom project. In the TL+TLT system, I feel that the removal of a lot of power from the TL has made it so that TLs must act a lot more like that in order for a project to be successful. In fact, having seen this system in action, the phrase "strong TL" that is used to describe the old system has begun to bug me because the way in which such a TL was strong was completely unrelated to the qualities we want in a TL. It is all about their power, and not about how they act. I truly believe that when it comes to the qualities that truly matter in a TL, the TL+TLT system absolutely requires a much stronger Topic Leader than the "strong TL" system did in order to be successful. The TL does not have any crutch to lean on. Their power and influence on the project is almost completely determined by the way they make their posts, and I believe this encourages the kind of leadership that is best for this project.

I do want to repeat that I believe that the TL+TLT system absolutely requires a much stronger Topic Leader than any system we have had previously, and while, if done well, that is absolutely a positive thing, it creates a slightly higher barrier of entry for the position. While the TLT is designed to be more accessible to the average user, I really do think that the TL is, more than ever a position of massive responsibility. This does give me slight concern that, maybe, some time in the future, it might be hard to find TL candidates. But for now, I believe that this should not be an issue, and if TLs are able to keep up with these responsibilities, I really do believe that this system was a significant step in the right direction as it makes the project leadership team much more about true leadership than project administration.

So yeah, lets keep going with this system. Even with all my positive opinions of the system, I do acknowledge that 2 projects is probably not a big enough sample size to really judge the system fairly, and I think we should run a couple more projects on it and then come back and reanalyze when we have more material to work with.
 

DougJustDoug

Knows the great enthusiasms
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Artistis a Programmeris a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Moderator
I agree with most others that think it is premature to declare the TL/TLT model a success or failure, but I think it is perfectly appropriate to assess how we think it is going so far. I am probably a bit biased to see the positives of the new system, since I was one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) proponent of making changes to our leadership structure, which ultimately resulted in the TL/TLT system. But, I can see some definite weaknesses of the new system, and I always believe we can improve our processes and policies.

Overall, I think the TL/TLT model is providing the benefits we expected. We have a broader leadership base, leader burnout is not a major issue, and I don't think any individual leader is overly pressured to create an amazing so-called "successful" pokemon (whatever that means). I could be wrong, and two projects is not enough to say anything definitive, but that's my positive read on things so far.

I have noticed that the last two CAPs seem to be more "niche" creations than the average CAP pokemon, and I personally think this is a very good thing. I don't think we need to belabor this point too much, because it's subjective as hell, and could be entirely coincidental and almost completely unrelated to the new project leadership model. Maybe it has been "luck of the draw" in terms of the concepts we have chosen for the past two projects, or maybe it is just a reflection of a general sentiment change of the CAP community at large. But it is something that I think has happened infrequently in CAP's history, and I find it interesting that the last two CAPs have not been all-purpose powerhouse OU mons, but instead are focused pokemon creations that adhere to a more narrowly defined role. Like I said, it may just be my take, and even if I'm right, it may not have any causal relationship to the CAP project leadership model. But in surveying the results of the past two CAPs, I think it's worth mentioning as an anecdote, if nothing else.

As for the most glaring negatives of the past two CAPs, I think slow pacing is the biggest problem we should try to solve. Project pace has been an issue dating back to the very beginnings of CAP. Whether we executed CAP projects in a hurried rush, or we moved along too slowly -- there has been no shortage of debates as to what pace is "right" for creating a pokemon. I'm generally in the "We're not in a rush" camp when it comes to making CAPs. But even I think the past two CAPs have been overly sluggish, with too many long, boring lulls in activity.

I don't think the leadership model itself is to blame, it's more that we don't have any explicit mechanism to manage project pace. In the past, if an in-progress project was generally accused of being "too slow", there was no doubt as to who was to "blame" and therefore who was responsible for "fixing" the problem -- the Topic Leader. Since EVERYTHING, good and bad, was under the Topic Leader's purview. Now with the distribution of work across the TL/TLT, a little lag here and there, combined with occasional slow handoffs between steps, and some extra bureaucracy tossed in for good measure -- we have a recipe for CAP Stall (and I'm not talking about a new defensive battle style!)

I like the idea of asking the Topic Leader to be the primary watchdog for project pace. I'm not sure we should have the TL step in for any TLT member that fails to hit a predetermined deadline. I think we'll probably get a lot of benefit by simply identifying the problem of slow pacing (already done in this thread) and naming someone directly responsible to monitor the problem (the TL). As to how intervention occurs and when, I don't think we need to get too rigid about that aspect. I think a CAP mod should ultimately manage any given intervention, and we should leave it to mod discretion as how to handle it. But having the TL as the timekeeper (as DK put it) is a good suggestion IMO. We may want to discuss a few common sense guidelines and general expectations related to project pace, but we don't need to get too formal with pacing policy. Each step is different, and problem situations are just too varied to cover it all.

I think the TL/TLT has been a net positive for the CAP project so far, but it is far from perfect and we need to continue to smooth out the rough edges going forward.
 

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 think we are pretty much in agreement here. There are some flaws in the TL + TLT system, but ultimately, it works well for us. The current sample size is a bit too small to determine what exactly to do with our leadership structure anyways. The CAP moderators and the Topic Leader will work together to keep up project pace through communication and discussion. Unless there are any serious proposals to be made here, let's keep on moving forward. Going to put a 48 hour limit on this thread. If nothing is brought up by then in terms of a formal proposal, we're moving on.

Thanks for the reflection and discussion thus far!
 

paintseagull

pink wingull
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
My only proposal would be to try and set up a slightly more formal communication between the leadership team and the mods, perhaps a private message where people can post if they'll be away/less present/ask for help/discuss problems and the TL can acknowledge/take extra responsibility/ask for help. IRC is just not very reliable for this, especially when all our mods are on EST or CST.
 

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
It looks like this thread is complete. The CAP moderation team has already taken measures to be in better communication. The CAP Head Moderator (me) will personally lead a front to provide more connectivity between the moderators and the leadership team of each CAP. The Topic Leader (TL) will serve as the de facto timekeeper, with the CAP moderators supporting that role. If there are issues with the Topic Leadership Team in the future, we'll address them at the time. But until then, we'll keep on using the current model we have. Thanks everyone for your input! I know it's kind of lame ending a Policy Review thread without any formal proposals going through, but it's important that we have these conversations nonetheless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top