Policy Review Policy Review: The Policy Committee

[Plus]

Approved by Bass

This thread exists to address problems in current PRC that I feel need to be attended to.

If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.

This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here.

The Policy Committee is designed to be only for those held in high regards in the forum, and are burdened with important choices to make. This should be taken seriously, and members should only be chosen However, I do not think that Policy Committee should even be called a Policy Committee today. Many times will I see a Policy Committee list with many inactive users of CaP, and some that haven't even contributed to the forum at all. I believe that we have driven off the path intended for the PRC, and instead we have simply turned it into a group of cool CaP members, or perhaps just cool people in general. Obviously, this should not be the case. I will not call out names, nor will I bash specific users, but the PRC is not as exclusive as it should be. Such a Committee should be only chosen based on regular activity and dedication to the project. A quick glance at our current Committee does not live up to this standard. People that are not regularly active on the forum are still chosen to be in the Committtee, and are normally selected. What I am proposing is a stricter selection of this committee, because it is more inclusive as it was before. I am suggesting these changes:


Take out the existing members rule.

What you did 4 CaP projects ago is not very relevant to what we are dealing with today. Furthermore, PRC members must be regularly active on the forum. Many people in the current Committee are not. This might even promote more activity on the forums, forcing people to be regularly active. The thing is, what's now is now. What's past is past. Although this may cause inconvenience for some, it is important to ensure that a user is contributing frequently, especially in more recent times. Every application should be handled the same way, and just because some people have served on the committee before does not make them right for the current job at hand. CaP is always changing.

Examples of contributions should mostly be made up of current contributions when using examples in applications, because current contributions are obviously more relevant to CaP today. I myself, as a PRC member from when it first began, do not feel that this is a fair rule. Everybody should get an equal shot, and just because they got accepted once does not mean that they will regularly be active. As time passes by, I can picture the PRC being very cluttered and would just be a giant group of CaP members. This should not be the case. Taking out this rule will prevent this.

Obviously, there are a few cons to this, the main one being inconvenience. However, I believe this inconvenience is necessary. As I've said countless times already, PRC should not be taken lightly. With PRC comes many important choices, one being choosing the next TL. If there are current contributors in the PRC, there are informed voters. I do not want any uninformed voters in the PRC. As such, it is best to take out this rule overall.

Change the application format.

Each Policy Committee application would be submitted in the following format:

Current and Past Contributions

The application would include examples of the user contributing to the forum in both current time and the past. This way, the moderators would have an instant idea of what this person has done to deserve a spot on this Committee. If a user has only made past contributions and not current, they should most likely not be accepted. Without doing this, Moderators are left to think about what the member has done for the community, making choices more confusing. This will ensure that current contributors are in the PRC, while old veterans have to make sure that they are still active in order to have a spot. The PRC, in my opinion, is about real time. Whether you lead CaP 2 and came back to join the committee is not a reason alone. Although contributing in the past is definitely a good thing, contributions in the present time are necessary.

Server and Forum Activity

The Committee selection is based primarily on activity. The server is where one contributes to playtesting, while the forum is where one contributes to the overall project. Both the Server and the Forum make up the project, so Moderators, again, will have a good idea of how active a user is. There's a good mix of intelligent server and forum members. Being active on the forum means that members talk in PR threads, and participate frequently in discussions and analyses. Being active on the server means that memberrs battle regularly on the cap ladder to playtest pokemon and show forum goers what kind of impacts our projects have made in the OU Metagame.

Increase exclusiveness in the Committee

I think PRC should be pretty exclusive. As such, I think we should treat it this way. You may say that this is "elitist," but the idea of this Committee is. If we are going with such an idea, we should keep it this way. I think that the PRC is a great idea to make intelligent votes apart from regular polls which have a tendency to be popularity contests. However, the PRC will begin to become a group that makes popularity contests happen if we keep going the way that it is now. As a result, I really think that taking action upon this is necessary. Again, I believe PRC members should be chosen based on what they have done now, and not entirely what they have done in the past. So, with that in mind,
I want to hear your opinions on this, and if you have been a Past Committee member, I'd especially like to hear your opinions on this.
----

Perhaps my solution is not the best idea. Nonetheless, I really think that there needs to be change in the PRC. The way that it is now is definitely not what it was meant to be.

 

[hydrolphin]

I, too also feel that the requirements for the PC have basically become, "Make decent posts in all the voting threads, go on the server so it looks like there are more people while you do other stuff, and every once in a while make a post in the PR threads." For example, when I applied before CAP7, I had thirty some odd posts, played on the server a bit, and had come up with a popular idea in the EVO thread. I was shocked to see I had actually made it. But now I see people on the list who tend to fade away from the CAP project after the typing, but mysteriously appear when a new CAP starts. I see people who are apparently always "away" when they're on the server. The PC should require both server activity and good posting habits, by which I mean you post often and with well thought out posts.

But also a point of concern with the policy committee is the lack of real policy making decisions, which why the selection might be so lenient. So far, in my two terms, I have voted twice in a pc only vote... both for TLs. Actually, I believe the only non-TL votes in PC history has been the 2 for the EVO project, which never panned out. But I digress.

As for Plus's two proposals, neither sound bad. Getting rid of the existing members rule is necessary for those faders I mentioned earlier. The new post requirements also will weed out people who coast along in the forum, but can be found on the server and vice-versa.
One thing of note-In the likely situation this goes into effect, one note about server activity should be made:
Server Activity means testing the CAPs, not just playing a few games during playtesting, and especially not just being on the server every day while you do homework, use Facebook, and play Flash games.

All in all, I don't see why anyone wouldn't support this, unless they suspect they are one of the suspected parties.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

While the PRC does not appear to do much, the role of the PRC is similar to the role of the ATL. The PRC exists to be called upon in unorthodox circumstances, like how Cyzir took over the TL duties during cyberzero's time in the hospital. While the PRC does not actively do anything in ordinary circumstances, it serves as a way to passively keep everything in check.

With that in mind, the quality of the PRC members should be as high as possible, and therefore I see nothing wrong with implementing Plus's changes.

 

[Magmortified]

I've been pretty supportive of making the PC less inclusive overall, so Plus' ideas resonate pretty well. I kind of feel that the Policy Committee - which helps decide on major changes to the CAP project overall, not to mention choosing the person who leads each project - should be a bit more heavy-handed on choosing exactly who's part of the group that wields this power.

Though I'm unsure, exactly, what my stance on resetting eligibility on a per-CAP basis. It's not entirely unknown for prominent CAP members to have irl things they have to do and miss a large part of a CAP. Should this preclude somebody from being in the PC? I don't believe it's impacted their ability to make decisions. It'd have to be a fairly flexible system in this regard.

 

[Elevator Music]

I thought Doug wanted the PRC to be inclusive? (Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth here Doug, but I recall you saying something about it once).

I'm fairly impartial to the size of the PRC, which goes hand in hand with how "exclusive" we make it. I would be happier if the quality of PRC members was upped a bit (with no offense intended to the current members), but I think most people would.

No matter what, I definitely think your template application should be used, as contributions to the community and activity on both the forums and server are the most important things that I would look for for PRC members. On top of this, since you sorta danced around it but never actually stated it, we should get rid of the 'I'm an existing member yadayadayada' post that previous members are allowed to use, since that doesn't really encourage activity.

EDIT:

"Make decent posts in all the voting threads, go on the server so it looks like there are more people while you do other stuff, and every once in a while make a post in the PR threads."

Hey that's what I do! But in all seriousness this is basically what I do, and I think either that says something about my activity level and whether or not I should actually qualify for PRC or... something about my activity level.

 

[Plus]

I believe it was meant to be inclusive, but I really think it shouldn't be. If we're going to be making a group of people eligible for making tough choices such as TL voting, I really think this should be as strict as possible. There is no inbetween in this. I either want a whole public vote, or a group of educated voters and educated voters only. I am against registered voters, but I am not against a group of selected individuals. For this reason, I want to make the PRC exclusive. I'm pretty sure everybody would like a more well structured PRC.

 

[billymills]

I'm completely fine with removing the former members rule. Members have to be keeping up with the current CAP, and be active. I agree that it could probably be more exclusive, but not by much. The clear majority of people on the PRC are involved in various aspects around CAP, and are often active.

I do NOT believe server, forum AND other (other relating to submissions, PR, IRC, etc.) activity is REQUIRED for PRC. If a user is only involved in PR and helps make decisions in those aspects, I see no problem with including them in the PRC if they do not contribute, or are completely absent from the server. I'd rather an intelligent postmaker that posts 4-5 times a CAP, rather than someone who is on the server daily and never contributes positively at all. Relative activity should be important (can they appear if a decision has to be made?), but this does not have to be limited to Server/Main process.

Another problem with the current setup has already been addressed: There is very little for the PRC to do. As of now, I see no reason to exclude anyone, because all they do is vote for a TL. With the expected increases in TL ability, I do not foresee a useful role for the PRC, something has to change here.

 

[zarator]

I never have been into CAP PC (even if I plan to apply to next one^^) but Plus' PR makes sense. And I'd add, if you want to give another "job" to the committee, you could state that only its members are allowed to post in CAP Policy Review threads. It would require a bit of attention from the moderators, but overall, it would not be too difficult. Hell, probably it would not change anything. PRs already draw only experienced users -which probably belong to the committee on charge.

 

[Deck Knight]

Removing the existing members rule biases the PRC towards newer people who have been more recently active. I support this change, it keeps the actual policy committee members relevant to the project to the highest degree possible. Process-wise, the difference between what Cooper initially started and what we have now is a sea change.

This policy change strikes me as a clarion call of "but what have you done for me lately?" which is deserved I think. If you haven't been active since CAP5 and CAP6, you haven't been active for about 6 months. People who were involved in CAP8 and CAP9 deserve a slot far more. If you've been active for every CAP, this don't affect you anyway.

 

[Plus]

I do NOT believe server, forum AND other (other relating to submissions, PR, IRC, etc.) activity is REQUIRED for PRC. If a user is only involved in PR and helps make decisions in those aspects, I see no problem with including them in the PRC if they do not contribute, or are completely absent from the server. I'd rather an intelligent postmaker that posts 4-5 times a CAP, rather than someone who is on the server daily and never contributes positively at all. Relative activity should be important (can they appear if a decision has to be made?), but this does not have to be limited to Server/Main process.

Another problem with the current setup has already been addressed: There is very little for the PRC to do. As of now, I see no reason to exclude anyone, because all they do is vote for a TL. With the expected increases in TL ability, I do not foresee a useful role for the PRC, something has to change here.

Intelligent posts in PR DO count as forum activity, however. Furthermore, if one is accepted in PR off of four or so good PR posts like you have said, I'd think they have to be pretty damn good posts. I agree that someone who is on the server daily and never contributes POSITIVELY shouldn't have a better chance than an intelligent postmaker, although I think dedication and interest to the overall project is quite important.

I also know that the PRC is not doing much nowadays, only selecting TLs from a panel of usually 3. However I think this is a pretty important decision, so I'd like to keep it as clean and non-biased as possible. Also, the PRC will sometimes have other roles, like when something a bit controversial pops up, such as when we were deciding to do EVO project or not. Although the PRC does not have much to do as of now, I do not think that allows the PRC to be lenient and too inclusive.

 

[cyberzero]

I completely agree with the first rule Plus mentioned, being able to remove users from the PRC. There have been many users that have shown that they are not fit to be in the PRC by means of forum activity and reasoning behind PRC votes.

A change in the application format also makes perfect sense, but what I feel slightly concerned with is the increasing exclusivity. There have been many up-and-coming users that began their CAP "careers" by lurking a lot and then applying for the PRC, most notably Naxte and hydrolphin, and they have come to be extremely great users, both CAP and elsewhere, in my opinion. If there were stricter guidelines, I feel that users such as those two would not have been given the opportunity to contribute as much as they have. Of course, the downside is that we would also accept many lower quality users along the way, but that is why the ability to remove users from the PRC would be useful, allowing us to weed out users that do not meet standards.

 

[Magmortified]

If there were stricter guidelines, I feel that users such as those two would not have been given the opportunity to contribute as much as they have.

Are you implying that membership in the PRC is a prerequisite for contributing?

 

[ferron]

Are you implying that membership in the PRC is a prerequisite for contributing?

maybe he meant that if the guidelines were too strict, that they would have never been able to contribute to the PRC (in voting and the like).

though it is not going to stop others from contributing.

 

[Stellar]

After speaking with Doug and tennisace on the matter, I think we have reached a conclusion.

1. Remove the existing member rule.

• PRC membership should be based on recent involvement with the project. Like Plus said, what you did four CAPs ago has little relevance with the current project. I think the recent influx of PR threads and changes to the process itself justify this.
• Due to this change, it was decided that everyone should apply equally. This means that previous PRC members will not be ushered into a new PRC due to their membership in the last. This keeps the PRC relevant to the current project by insuring that "veterans" cannot slide by on previous contributions. We need people that know what is going on in current CAP.
• I realize that this will mean increased writing for some, but it will only be a few sentences. If you aren't willing to write a few sentences to explain the reason as to why you should be included, you probably shouldn't be.

2. Create a standardized application that will be filled out by all applicants.

The form will looks something like this.

1. In a short paragraph, characterize your involvement with the last two CAP projects.
2. In two or three sentences, characterize your activity on Doug's Create-A-Pokémon Server.

(Optional)
3. Link to a few posts in which you supported a choice with competitive reasoning and / or link to a few of your posts in a Policy Review thread.

​

3. Exclusivity is not going to be a quota that we are going to try to fulfill.

Hopefully, through the actions described above, we can achieve a more knowledgeable and "up to date" PRC. We aren't going to limit PRC size or anything extreme like that.​

 

[DougJustDoug]

Conclusion:

We will implement the changes mentioned in Stellar's post regarding the Policy Review Committee.