Policy Review Policy Review - Poll Slates

[tennisace]

I think a C+P of Stellar's post in the TL nomination topic would make the responsibilities more clear, though. Right now nominating yourself is more of a personal selling paragraph than a job application.

Why? Job applications are always self-glorifying. Its not like you can really apply for TL based on experiences you've had in the workplace, and you can't prove anything you say on it. But you're right, we do need a strong leader, ect. ect. ect. However there is absolutely no way to tell how someone will act when they're given a leadership role. I can give you RL and forum examples, but you'll have to just trust me. There is no way to ensure someone is a strong leader except by experience, and tbqh there is no way to get any.

 

[Deck Knight]

Why? Job applications are always self-glorifying. Its not like you can really apply for TL based on experiences you've had in the workplace, and you can't prove anything you say on it. But you're right, we do need a strong leader, ect. ect. ect. However there is absolutely no way to tell how someone will act when they're given a leadership role. I can give you RL and forum examples, but you'll have to just trust me. There is no way to ensure someone is a strong leader except by experience, and tbqh there is no way to get any.

What if we were a debate club?

In all seriousness, there are concrete and tangible ways we could increase the debate quality of posters. I'd be terrible at a "learn thee thy metagame" kind of thing but I have fairly decent knowledge on how to create an effective argument for or against something.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

I liked what someone said earlier - controversy will get people involved, but there won't be any quality debates when all the ideas are so bland.

I don't suppose simply forcing all submissions to be more unique and less boring could do the trick?

That, and the TLs should really be harsher. Perhaps for CAP9 we can specifically elect a TL who's known to make controversial decisions and not worry about people's opinions, with the intention of defining the way TLing should be done? (I'm thinking specifically about Plus and SoT as I write this.)

 

[Intentionally Wrong]

If people were rating submission rather than just voting for them, it'd simply be a matter of finding the submissions with the greatest standard deviation in their scores. That's the most straightfoward way to test for controversiality, for better or worse.

 

[Coronis]

I liked what someone said earlier - controversy will get people involved, but there won't be any quality debates when all the ideas are so bland.

I don't suppose simply forcing all submissions to be more unique and less boring could do the trick?

That, and the TLs should really be harsher. Perhaps for CAP9 we can specifically elect a TL who's known to make controversial decisions and not worry about people's opinions, with the intention of defining the way TLing should be done? (I'm thinking specifically about Plus and SoT as I write this.)

This post sounds like a good idea in general.

Yes, no discussion will happen, unless we have interesting and or controversial things happening and are able to talk about them. I think art pretty much fills up the interesting side of things, but we do need more controversy.

I really think that the TL does need to be more strict in moderating the threads. Also, they need to participate more in the discussion. Cyberzero was a great TL, but his posts didn't come into the discussion to often.

The concepts are sometimes quite boring or bland, but we can't force people to only have interesting concepts.

As for Zarator's idea of giving the policy commitee heavier weighted votes, I think it's a good idea, but i'm not sure how well it would work.

 

[ferron]

If people were rating submission rather than just voting for them, it'd simply be a matter of finding the submissions with the greatest standard deviation in their scores. That's the most straightfoward way to test for controversiality, for better or worse.

this would mean that we would need to draft up guidelines on how to rate, and then give enough time for people to rate EACH submission, rather than just saying which one they like, followed by the TL and ATL having to plot them to get a deviation.
i'm all for using more time to make a better poke, but i'm not sure how this will fly. hell, i'm not even sure most of the people here have taken a stat class and will know how to calculate a standard deviation or the margin of error.

 

[cyberzero]

Before I begin, I'd like to mention that none of this is meant as an excuse for any poor performance or leadership during the duration of CAP8.
I'd like to mention that during my time as TL, I had planned on having a large amount of discussion in order for us to be able to come out with the best result, and as such, I participated in the discussion very actively in the earlier stages of CAP8. Then, the complaints started pouring in that I was being TOO active in the discussion, from both random and veteran alike, and a few of them were too high up in CAP influence for me to merely ignore. I was told by one particular influential user that the community would dictate who would enter the next poll and who would be voted on, so I took a backseat on the discussion threads, monitoring but rarely participating. If there was anything I felt was desperately needed to be included, I introduced the idea in the thread and have another user post it. I wasn't sure where the line between democracy and dictatorship would have been drawn.

As for the passing of "bad" poll options, I went by two main criteria:

Response and popularity in the discussion threads
If there was positive discussion regarding something, it was allowed through. I felt that it was most important that the ones that were subject to constructive criticism were allowed. If the response was extremely negative and it didn't change, it was still allowed through as to avoid any controversy, but it seems as though this was not the correct approach.

Recognition on the server and IRC
I would ask various members that were online as to their opinion on certain options, namely Deck Knight, Magmortified and Vader, as well as whoever else was in the main chat at the moment. If everyone agreed that there was no legitimate, competent reason that something should be left out, it was kept in. Very few of the submissions were not approved, such as a few concepts and some of the movepools.

I personally believe that I have had extensive conversations with many users about each discussion, getting opinions from many points of view, as to be able to be more democratic and open. Even if it hasn't historically had a great effect on the poll options, I feel that at least the second one, feedback from prominent servergoers and IRC users should be a definite option for the TL to use while considering poll slates.

As for Doug's proposal about more TL leadership, I do not feel that the need for any caucuses is very practical. I think that forgotten practice of high quality slates that was mentioned is the most beneficial and efficient.

If you look at early CAP projects and read the process guide carefully, you'll notice that we never used to let broad community vote determine ANY slate for CAP polls. The general pattern of the rules is this:

1) A discussion thread allows an open cattle-call for ideas and possible options to be presented and discussed

2) During the discussion, the Topic Leader gets an idea of who are the most intelligent and active participants, and which ideas are most popular amongst the non-idiots in the community.

3) If the aspect of the pokemon requires a submission (stat spread, movepool, etc) -- then the TL rewards a few of the best discussion participants, and asks them to make a submission.

4) If the aspect simply requires 10 options to be pulled into a slate, the Topic Leader uses feedback in the discussion thread to determine which of the high-quality options are most popular amongst knowledgeable, literate, and interested members of the community. The TL picks the top 10 options, and then serves it up to the community to decide the final winner.​

This seems like the best idea, but I have a prerequisite before openly supporting it. I personally feel we must address which polls will be subject to this, because something like the Concept Poll probably can't have proper discussion leading to the selection of certain members. (Also, why the hell did I never hear of this?)

 

[DougJustDoug]

This seems like the best idea, but I have a prerequisite before openly supporting it.

The pattern I posted is not a proposal; it's the pattern of rules that already exists in the Process Guide.

(Also, why the hell did I never hear of this?)

Read the Process Guide. The general pattern is already there, spread throughout the various event descriptions. There are numerous mentions of how people should prove themselves to the TL in discussion, and how the TL is supposed to be the one deciding who should be allowed to submit, or which options are "popular enough" to make the slate. Here's a few bolded excerpts from various sections of the Process Guide:

Stat Spread Submissions
...
This is the place for people to "prove themselves" to the TL, for purposes of being selected to submit a spread for the actual stat spread poll.

Ability Discussion
...
The TL should be actively involved in this discussion to prevent unreasonable ability suggestions (new or existing) from gaining support. The TL will use the suggestions and feedback from this thread to determine the voting slate for the Ability Poll.

Move Discussions (Attacking and Non-Attacking)
...
The Topic Leader has final say for determining whether a move is Competitive, Non-Competitive, or Required.
...
The Topic Leader should recategorize moves as the discussion progresses.
...
The Topic Leader will update the list continuously throughout the discussion, using recent posts to determine changes to the move list.
...
The Topic Leader is the sole arbiter for determining "general community consensus". The TL may ignore arguments for or against certain moves, if they feel the argument is not presented with sufficient evidence or reasoning.
...

Complete Movepool Submissions
...
Based on participation in the previous movepool threads, the TL should select several members to present a complete movepool submission.

These guidelines for the TL already exist in the current Process Guide. And most of these passages have been in the process guide for a LONG time. I think this demonstrates a fairly consistent pattern of instructions for the role the Topic Leader is supposed to play in the process. I guess it isn't obvious enough, because several TL's have chosen to not exercise their power in the creation process. And now Cyberzero says that he wasn't even aware that this general pattern EXISTED AT ALL in the process guide.

Maybe I need to write a specific guide for Topic Leaders. We could call it the CAP Topic Leadership Guide. If I do so, I will do it in a workshop thread. That way, other members (particularly past TL's) can help edit the guide and add content. The guide would not rehash the process itself; we already have a guide for that. It would give tips and advice on:

• How to lead the project
• How to manage the timeline
• How to direct discussion
• How to handle various difficult situations

With eight projects to draw from, I think we have pretty good collective knowledge about this stuff. I'm a little hesitant to produce yet another CAP document, unless we think it will do some good. But, based on some of the discussion in this thread, it may be useful.

 

[Sc4rfCh0mp]

I think that producing a CAP Guide to being a TL would be a very good idea. Up until this post, I felt that the definition of being a CAP Topic Leader was a little unclear. Stellar broke down each part of the current TL Guide and made it clear what needed to be done. I feel that if the Topic Leaders in future CAPs follow what Stellar said, the CAP project will run a lot more smoothly. Stellar's post should be the foundation on which the TL guide is built on.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I have referred to CAP 8 several times in this thread, and Cyberzero's name has been mentioned several times specifically. I've also made several critical references to "the past several TL's" etc.

I want to make it clear to everyone that I do not think Cyberzero did a bad job as Topic Leader for CAP 8, and I have nothing but respect for all CAP TL's.

I think during CAP 8 several problems came to light that had been brewing for a long time, but not as result of any individual TL failing. Cyberzero did not cause the problems. In fact, I think he did a good job as Topic Leader, IN SPITE OF all the problems that have become entrenched in the CAP process. Since this thread mentions the role of Topic Leader, and it comes directly on the heels of CAP 8 -- it's reasonable that Cyberzero may think all this discussion is a backhanded attack on him. I want to state publically that I think Cyberzero and Cyzirvisheen did a good job of playing the hand they were dealt. I appreciate the hard work they put in, and I consider them to be valued leaders of the CAP community.

All my criticisms above are intended as criticisms of the project and process, not criticisms of the individuals on the project -- particularly our Topic Leaders. All past TL's have been fantastic contributors and leaders. They deserve to be regarded with nothing but praise for their contributions to the CAP project.