Policy Review Improving Name Submissions (For Mods and Submitters)

[Dogfish44]

Approved by reachzero

Hey, this thread came about as a result of a chat in #flavour on the discord with reference to how Name Submissions are handled.

Again.

I'm essentially combining a few ideas raised throughout that chat into some proposals. Some of these points include things raised during the Pajantom post-name-submission-disqualification drama (which is perhaps the only thing more reliable than the sun rising and setting).

---

Generally speaking, Name Submissions have two key rules: "Don't Final Submit Early", and "Follow the Format". Both of these rules have been controversial, whether by enforcement or just the rationale for implementation.

Final Submissions
Now, there's not (as far as I'm aware) a strong justification for not opening these from the get go - the level of discussion in names submissions is always (unfortunately!) rather low. Whilst I think it's advantageous for people to first do their WIPs to try for some feedback, some people have busier lives to lead and would rather get their idea locked in and go. Indeed, because the current rules require mods to check through every post in the thread (including all edits), it adds a fair bit to their workload. It also makes life substantially trickier for those wanting to make submissions, since they have to check every post in the thread to see when submissions are actually open, which likely means relying on Smogon Alerts, which are patently unreliable at times.

Two solutions to the problems with the current system appeared on the discord.

Option A: Removing the FS Delay Entirely
This option... kind of speaks for itself. Allow Final Submissions from the start of the thread - essentially, you lock your choice in earlier. This brings Names in line with, I believe, every other thread that we have.

Option B: Removing the DQ for early Final Submissions
Option B maintains the deadline, but removes the punishment for acting early. Instead, users simply have to re-submit *after* the deadline, rather than be completely removed from the system. This reduces the mod effort as outlined above (lowering the number of posts that have to be checked), and also means that you avoid the situation where someone submits a brilliant name too early and the name is lost to the rules, since nobody else will FS it once it's legally possible (either FSing their own work, or not wishing to intrude).

If we do keep the Final Submission barrier, then consensus seemed to be that when that is announced, it should be placed in the Title of the OP - meaning that people need merely check the thread title, rather than trawl through the deluge of ideas submitted. This could also be used to say "WIPs ONLY", to reduce the impact of herding on how people act.

Formatting
On this matter, there's kind of an excessive level of detail checking - and I think that it has a negative impact on both participation, and on how much work the mods have to do. Whilst I understand the desire to not send 100 names to the first round of polling, and that the format culling helps there, there is a distinct difference between someone who's missing an entire chunk of information, versus someone who's missed a single space, or who's made a typo when they've transcribed the word "Pronounced" (say, because they're not native English speakers, or they're dyslexic).

I'm honestly not sure how to quantify "minor leniency" into the rules - by definition you can't define that strictly (beyond, I guess, "all information is there, clear, and in the given order", which would imply reading the thread rules). One thing that would be nice is if, underneath the Syclant Example, something like this was included. Something that is easily C/Pd with all format needed (You can't C/P the Syclant example without losing the bolding, which is a nuisance), with an explicit "actually copy/paste this" should help users (by giving them an empty form to fill in), and move the focus of name submissions back towards interesting name ideas.

 

[Frostbiyt]

Now, there's not (as far as I'm aware) a strong justification for not opening these from the get go - the level of discussion in names submissions is always (unfortunately!) rather low.

First off, I'd like to defend not opening final subs immediately, I think what DHR said on Discord makes sense:

It makes things a lot easier to mod when it comes to the actual subs, cause usually, most people just post final subs after a mod posts, and we can zoom through the thread
meaning we don't have to go hunt for names

So I'd be fine with keeping this rule as it is

Rule

Please make a new post after the CAP moderator announcement for Final Submissions. Do not edit a previous post prior to the announcement to make it a Final Submission. All posts prior to the announcement post will be ignored for purposes of making the Name Poll.

This Part is fine

Though I do think this rule is fine and makes sense, what doesn't make sense is the justification of the rule and punishment for breaking the rule(emphasis mine):

Any Final Submission posted prior to the Moderator announcement post will disqualify the submitter from the poll entirely. Even if the offending post is edited later or deleted, the submitter will still be disqualified for the remainder of the thread. This ensures that there is some time for discussion and that all submitters have equal opportunity to post Final Submissions without anyone unfairly "jumping the gun"

When I saw this, I made a comment on Discord about it asking why the punishment was so harsh for something seemingly minor. I wanted to make sure there wasn't some really important reason why the punishment was so harsh before I laid into it. Here are the answers I got from DHR:

@Frostbiyt Its just how things are
If people can't read its not our problem
Don't go early

Because that is how it is
You should not be submitting if you do not read the rules, end of story
We won't be budging on this

OK But the rule is clear
Again, you should not be submitting anything if you haven't read the rules for it

Frostbiyt: ok, but why are they deserving of disqualification?
DHR: Because they broke a rule

So, according to DHR, the reason people deserve to be DQd is that they broke a rule. Frankly, this reasoning is bullshit. There are two main problems with it. One is that it is arbitrary, why not just permaban everyone who breaks a rule, even if they attempt to fix it? They broke a rule and should be punished for it. This, of course, is absurd, which I think DHR would agree with. Permabanning someone would be overly harsh of a punishment, so there is clearly a line somewhere between what is an appropriate punishment and what is not, so "because they broke a rule" is completely meaningless as it provides no reason for why 'the punishment fits the crime'. Second, if we take this to another extreme, why isn't this the default punishment across the board? If breaking a rule is deserving of disqualification, then surely anyone who breaks any rule should be disqualified from the current stage and given no opportunity to fix their mistake. But this isn't the case and again gets to my core issue: why is this punishment so harsh? There needs to be a legitimate justification. If DHR-107 or another mod wants to address this, I'm all ears. And one more thing about this particular argument, here is something reach said on discord:

DHR: ok reach so like, you wouldn't consider a stats sub if it broke a bunch of your stat limits
which is basically a DSQ
reachzero:
I would warn the guy to change it
in fact, I have done that

Not only does reach respond in a way that I think makes sense, DHR also frames the issue poorly, not considering a post that breaks the rules is not the same as disqualifying them, because they still have the opportunity to change their post to fit within the rules

Option B: Removing the DQ for early Final Submissions
Option B maintains the deadline, but removes the punishment for acting early. Instead, users simply have to re-submit *after* the deadline, rather than be completely removed from the system. This reduces the mod effort as outlined above (lowering the number of posts that have to be checked), and also means that you avoid the situation where someone submits a brilliant name too early and the name is lost to the rules, since nobody else will FS it once it's legally possible (either FSing their own work, or not wishing to intrude).

This is, I think the best solution. Not only does it remove the harsh punishment for breaking a rule, but it also reduces the work for the mods. Currently when someone breaks the rule, mods need to delete the post, (presumably) inform the user they have been DQd, then keep track of who is disqualified from the poll. Under this proposed change, none of that will be necessary.

 

[Birkal]

Consider a hobby, class, or job that you love. Does what you have in mind, dear reader, have an aspect that you dislike, or is at least mildly inconvenient?

If the answer is yes, then you can relate, on some level, to how all CAP moderators feel about CAP Name Submissions. It is the definition of mindless work. With how CAP is growing, a name submission thread could easily house several hundred submissions if we allowed everyone to submit as many names as they liked, whenever they like. Even with the current rules, I hope you can imagine how grueling it is for CAP moderators to create Name Poll 1. We as a team are often occupied with our moderating duties at this point in the process, with many of us also doubling down and submitting sprites and movepools ourselves. Putting together the first name poll is an arduous task that none of us enjoy.

The reason name submission rules are so pedantic isn’t hidden; we’ve discussed it publicly in this forum. It is to limit the amount of entrants. There are several good reasons for this, so let me list them.

• Name submissions are the most basic submission a user could make to CAP, making the initial slate huge. If you think you’re hot stuff for being a “name submitter” in CAP, then you haven’t contributed elsewhere, even to Pokédex entries. This should sound slightly condescending; name contributions cannot hold a candle to our artistic and competitive contributions.
• More submissions means more moderation. It is already a massive undertaking to create the first poll, and the more entrants we allow, the longer it takes.
• More submissions means a weaker poll. I wouldn’t know the math, but I presume a poll of 100 entries will skew in some bizarre ways.
• Quite frankly, I feel zero remorse towards people that can’t read the rules. We are all human and prone to making mistakes — I know CAP moderators themselves have been dinged by these rules! CAP has rules in threads that matter significantly more, so reminding users to read them is a positive. Conversely, punishing them on this stage is probably the lowest stakes we could offer.
• CAP moderators or veterans should feel no need to curate name submissions. With so many entrants, the voters will do a great job at keeping the good options afloat. Unlike competitive stages where submissions should be heavily examined, anyone can instantly assess the quality of a name by reading it.
• Name Submissions tend to bring out trolls, which also increases CAP’s workload. Having strict submission rules can serve as a first line of defense for us.

There are plenty of things to disagree with here. And while it might be tempting to read Frostbiyt’s post and see DHR painted as a villain, remember how much he alone has done for this forum. From amazing pre-evolutions to countless thread closes, he is a true workaholic for CAP. I cannot help but feel a pang of resentment towards users that feel DHR (or Quanyails, or I, or anyone) should be shackled to moderating Name Submissions instead of pursuing their passion. I fully sympathize with how direct he was in that log — I feel much the same, simply because I too hate moderating name submissions. I encourage you, dear reader, to also consider how much you would enjoy putting down your favorite aspect of CAP to go wade through name submissions for a few hours.

We can discuss changing the rules, but they exist for very good reasons. Anyone suggesting a change should consider an option that does not increase the workload put on the moderators, and also curbs the disadvantages I bulleted above. Of course, any changes won’t be enacted during CAP25, but could be enacted for future projects. But as it stands right now, I am not at all convinced that the rules should be slackened.

 

[QxC4eva]

If I'm not mistaken, you guys have been using automated scripts to put together the name subs since Jumbao, so the part about it being grueling, mindless work seems a bit exaggerated or a bit out of date? (please correct me if I'm wrong!)

And while it's probably still a burden even with scripts, I'm gonna assume it's not as bad as it used to be and bring my attention over to other points...

Data

CAP 23
- 1 final sub(s) posted before the announcement post
- 61 final sub(s) posted after the announcement post
- 0 final sub(s) REPOSTED after the announcement post
- 14 WIP(s) posted before the announcement have not been finalized

CAP 24
- 3 final sub(s) posted before the announcement post
- 50 final sub(s) posted after the announcement post
- 0 final sub(s) REPOSTED after the announcement post
- 28 WIP(s) posted before the announcement have not been finalized

CAP 25G
- 9 final sub(s) posted before the announcement post
- 55 final sub(s) posted after the announcement post
- 1 final sub(s) REPOSTED after the announcement post
- 16 WIP(s) posted before the announcement have not been finalized

CAP 25F
- 5 final sub(s) posted before the announcement post
- 59 final sub(s) posted after the announcement post
- 0 final sub(s) REPOSTED after the announcement post
- 15 WIP(s) posted before the announcement have not been finalized

CAP 25W
- 5 final sub(s) posted before the announcement post
- 51 final sub(s) posted after the announcement post
- 0 final sub(s) REPOSTED after the announcement post
- 14 WIP(s) posted before the announcement have not been finalized

• In the recent CAPs, only an average of 4.6 names were submitted before the announcement post. If you guys are using a script, cutting out those 4 or 5 entries isn't gonna end up saving that much time, and it might actually be faster to include them so you don't have to check for edits!
• Missing a minor detail like a space or blank line does not necessarily correlate to a name being bad. Assuming our end goal is to pick out the best names, it's more accurate to let the voters decide than to simply catch people off with an aggressive set of rules. Yes - I understand the urge to inflict penalty when someone slips up, but lets not get too sidetracked by that.
• A poll of 100 entries is definitely weaker than a poll of 30, but it should still do a better job at filtering out low quality names than a pile of strict rules. If we're worried about the accuracy of a big poll we can always qualify say the top 15-20 entries, and do another MBV on them before going ranked.
• I admit a poll of 100 will be quite annoying for voters so perhaps the 24hr warning needs to kick in when we hit x amount of entries or something..

So yeah. I like option A. Or we should in the very least consider option B if scripts are used. It'll get rid of having to check for edits, and I find resubmissions to be very rare anyway. There's only been one case of it in the past two years (see the Data spoiler).