Suggestions from this thread
, sorted by the result:
open/close all folders
Agree/Codify/General Acceptance
- Limit the number of candidates under discussion at a time:
- Purpose: Slow the thread down, avoid making it so daunting for newcomers.
- General consensus: General agreement for a simultaneous per-page and per-hour limit of 4 EPs.
- Limit the number of active EPs per troper
- Purpose: Ensure fair discussions for each candidate, avoid regulars dominating the entire thread, slow down the thread.
- General consensus: General agreement for two active works per troper at once.
- Implement a mandatory minimum voting period for each candidate.
- Purpose: Ensure that dissenting voices get a say and that everyone who wants to vote has a chance to.
- General consensus: Apply the Three-Day Rule.
- Split the thread into an effortpost and approval thread and a cleanup and maintenance thread.
- Purpose: Avoid making the threads so daunting, splitting the work between threads, and giving newcomers a better chance to slide in to the work they want to do.
- General consensus: General agreement.
- Limit the number of EP reservations per troper.
- Purpose: Prevent a few regulars from dominating every popular work, gives newcomers a chance to reserve works they're interested in.
- General consensus: General agreement for a two-week trial period of only five reservations per troper.
- Possible addendum?: An additional two slots for "ongoing" works, with the purpose of not locking in one of the reservation slots for potentially years.
- Venture out into other cleanup areas:
- Purpose: Keep the thread informed of TRS and wiki-side decisions, provide more voices in other sections of the site
- General consensus: It can't really be required, but it should be encouraged.
- Limit PMs over candidates as much as possible, especially regarding asking someone about their reservation.
- Purpose: Prevents pressuring someone else, keeps everything public, avoids harassment (especially if the person has not yet consumed the work).
- General consensus: Agreed, with the possible exception of asking someone for a second opinion on a possible candidate pre-proposal.
- The person who makes the EP tallies the votes:
- Purpose: Keeps the responsibility consistent and streamlines it, prevents harassment
- General consensus: Agreed, codify it.
- Encourage content warnings for particularly ergregious candidates:
- Purpose: Allow people to avoid candidates that would make them uncomfortable, especially with the loosening of restrictions.
- General consensus: Agreed, but don't mandate it.
- Go to Image Pickin for every page, even brand new ones.
- Purpose: Lessen the divide between the threads and the rest of the site, maximize outside participation, prevent future unnecessary curation and disputes.
- General consensus: Agreed.
- Include a link back to the EP when any example is added to a page, presumably in the edit reason.
- Purpose: Make it easier to keep track of discussions and to find the old EP should it be necessary for any reason.
- General consensus: Agreed.
- Limit the amount of time before a work's release that the work may be reserved.
- Purpose: Prevent tropers from hoarding works years in advance, give newbies a chance to slide in to works they'd enjoy.
- General consensus: General agreement for reservations becoming possible one month before the release date.
- Codify the length of time for which a reservation is still intact post-release.
- Purpose: Prevent an inactive user from hoarding a work, while still granting a user a grace period as long as they intend to get to it.
- General consensus: On the discussion day, the user who reserved the work must say something within 24 hours, whether that's to start the discussion or ask for an extension; if they ask for an extension, they have until the three week post-release date mark before the reservation becomes open.
- Exception: Massive works like an MMORPG may require a full month post-release to cover everything.
- Create an Administrivia page for MB.
- Purpose: Declutter the sticky to a few key points. Make the criteria easier to access, especially for unregistered users.
- General consensus: Agreed.
- Cut down on jargon, such as "heinousness standard" and "Van Zant syndrome".
- Purpose: Make the threads easier to get into as a newcomer.
- General consensus: Agreed.
- Leave new pages in the Sandbox before putting them into the right namespace.
- Purpose: Avoid leaving pages incomplete yet live, avoid the risk of people unfamiliar with the threads accidentally messing something up.
- General consensus: Agreed.
- Loosen the restrictions on an entry once it's at the YMMV page.
- Purpose: Loosen the disconnect between the threads and the site, prevent miscommunications over what is required per the thread, lessen users' anxiety over modifying entries.
- General consensus: Small changes such as rewordings, SPAG corrections, potholes, and spoiler tags can be done without discussion, but major changes (such as expansions, trims, and ground-up rewrites) must still be taken to the curation thread for approval. It is encouraged but not required that said minor tweaks be taken to the Locked Pages thread.
- Remove, reduce, and/or rename the "Resolved Items" list.
- Purpose: Reduce hostility towards re-evaluating candidates.
- General consensus: We never agreed on the new name, but we've stopped referring to it as the "Never Again" list even colloquially, calling it "Resolved Items" instead. So far, this appears to have approval.
Agreement With Caveats Or Exceptions
- Every vote must come with an explanation:
- Purpose: Prevent blind voting, help explain the process for newcomers
- General consensus: A first downvote must provide an explanation, but upvotes and subsequent downvotes are discretionary.
- Loosening the restriction on "tasteless"/"schlocky" candidates.
- Purpose: Comply with other site rules, lessen the divide between CM and other site activities
- General consensus: As long as the work has a sufficient plot and the character in question is developed, any work is fair game to propose from. That being said, no one is required to participate in the discussion, and if the proposal itself raises red flags, hollering is a perfectly acceptable option.
- Require someone to state their intention to make an EP before making it.
- Purpose: Help guide newcomers through which candidates are good or bad, avoid toe-stepping, manage the flow with a restricted EP count.
- General consensus: Generally considered to be a good thing to encourage but not outright require.
- Cut down on the "socializing" posts.
- Purpose: Avoid the appearance of a clique, make the threads similar to other project threads
- General consensus: Socializing posts such as wishing another a "happy birthday" or condolences for a loss are acceptable as long as they are within a post that serves a legitimate thread purpose.
Disagreement/Tabled/Rejected
- Using an alternative method to voting besides just voting in the thread.
- Purpose: Avoid inundating the threads with massive voting posts, slow the thread down.
- General consensus: Technical issues severely limit the possibilities we have. Both crowners and sandboxes are not optimal solutions; crowners require mod intervention and sandboxes lockout edit-banned users (on top of the potential for an Edit Stomp). It's generally considered that the idea has merit but might not be executable; the idea has largely been abandoned.
- Make a post on ATT and bump it each time a crop of candidates rotates through.
- Purpose: Ensure as many people as possible are able to vote on a candidate, ensure proper discussion, give dissenting opinions a voice.
- General consensus: Tabled due to disagreement.
- A person must state they want a collaboration before someone can ask for it:
- Purpose: Gives the reserver some agency, helps newbies get stuff they like for themselves, prevents the appearance of someone forcing the issue
- General consensus: Tabled due to uncertainty about the commonality of the issue.
- Possible addendum?: Every part of the collaboration process must be public/on the thread, with the purpose of keeping all communication and intentions open to prevent any hostilities or pressure.
- Implement a mandatory no-voting discussion period for each candidate.
- Purpose: Ensure every candidate is properly discussed, managing the thread speed, and avoiding blind voting.
- General consensus: Tabled after two days due to making voting more confusing and difficult as candidates and votes were harder to keep track of.
